I don’t think they have to admit students who aren’t able to fully participate in the program - physically, academically, politically. Wearing the uniform is a requirement.
Are there exceptions at West Point, Navy, USAFA?
You forget that these are relatively recent policy changes that are largely untested and highly contentious, which is why the military academies are late adopters. Discipline and conformity have long been hallmarks of the US military, and once an exception is allowed for religious headgear, where does it end? This is where the concern is.
Even decades ago, the US military recognized that service members had various religious beliefs and made some accommodation. Take a look at the photo on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_American_Cemetery_and_Memorial
Clearly the idea of conformity is changing. And if a Sikh can wear a turban, why can’t a Muslim wear a hijab?
There are various types of hijeb. There are even ‘athletic hijeb’, which aren’t like the flowing scarves, but are designed so that devout Muslim women can still practice their sport and respect the tenets they believe in.
In any case, yes a decision should have been rendered by May first.
Before even starting the debate on what’s a religious requirement, we need to clear up:
**what’s a religion? **
Some less common gov’t recognized religions:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon
So if the US Army and the Citadel are going to bend and give religious accommocations, where do tbey draw the line? What’s next? Pastafarian soldiers with colander helmets on their head?
I would agree that a Hijab is NOT a requirement for all Muslim women.
However, if for one specific woman it is, and the Army sees no problem with it, it’s odd the Citadel would have a problem with it.
That’s not the issue, though.
The key issues are not “what’s a religion?” and “how do you accomodate unreasonable requests”?
Islam IS an established, recognized religion, unlike Spaghetti Monster and Jedi - and, if any member of those faiths were to apply to the Citadel, there’d need to be a discussion anyway due to the US recognizing various faiths and even cults. Regarding the pasta strainer I think it’d be very quick to determine it’s not proper military gear. 
The issues are
- is wearing a hijab while in military gear unreasonable?
(The Citadel said yes, the Army said no) - is the Citadel held to the same standards as the Army
(the Citadel doesn’t think so) - does being a public institution incur specific obligations toward the people?
- was the citadel in the wrong for giving an answer AFTER the official deadline?
My question is when was the original request made? Was it made at the time the student was granted acceptance to the school ? The article said it was made “early April” . Clearly the student and her family must have known that the decision would require some discussion. Why wait until right before commitment date to make such as request ? I have my own thoughts on why. There are no coincidences. I’m also curious when her attorney was retained , before she made the request or after she was waiting too long for an answer .
Pastafarianism is indeed a government-recognized religion. The state of Massachusetts permitted it on religious grounds.
Just because a religion hasn’t been around as long as another religion, doesn’t make it not a religion.
Back in the day of Martin Luther and Henry VIII, Protestantism and the Church of England were new sects.
I have many questions about this issue. Why didn’t she ask before she applied, or sometime during the application process? Was she afraid it would affect her application? When was she accepted? April 1 or before? If she heard about her acceptance on April 1, how soon after acceptance did she submit her request? Who makes the decision at The Citadel? Did they (likely) want input from legal counsel? How long is reasonable to get an opinion from legal counsel, and when else’s eyes and signatures must be on the decision? This is not simply a question of a minor accommodation- it represents a major policy shift and would not be made lightly.
Exactly @jym626 . It’s not a decision that can be made quickly by one person.
Thanks, @carolinamom2boys . Ack for autocorrect, though. It should say “who else’s eyes and signatures must be on the decision”. Sorry for any confusion.
Why should a secular institution have to compromise their policy for sectarian reasons?
It doesn’t. But if its mission is to prepare young people for the military than it would behoove it to reflect the military’s own standards. Otherwise it will lose out in a competitive marketplace to other schools competing for students. Hard to take a military school seriously if it imposes its own requirements that differ from the armed forces. I have no skin in the game. But The Citadel’s students, professors and admins should want the school to remain relevant.
I’m wondering about it from a practical standpoint-would it be possible to modify the hijab to make it acceptable to Citadel uniform standards-like a balaclava looking head cover that is the same color as her hair, and stays very close and secure to the head and neck?
I think there can be compromise here, but I don’t know if either side is willing to do it-she’d have to not do a flowing, brightly colored scarf (which would make you a huge target on the battlefield, one would think), and they could incorporate a Citadel hijab into their official dress code.
Going by this website: http://arabsinamerica.unc.edu/identity/veiling/hijab/
It seems that many of the types of veils/coverings/hijabs are incompatible from a practical point of view with the physical requirements of the military, but if you follow the tenet of modesty or humility before God with regards to wearing a head covering, there should be a LOT of latitude there for designing something that works in the military.
It seems to me that the Citadel could potentially create something new and unique that would really work, and be inclusive of women who feel the need to wear them.
Again, a Sikh’s turban works for the military. It’s in theory just as visible and poses just as many safety concerns (if not more, considering it hides a whole lotta hair!!) than a hijab. If one works, I don’t see why the other wouldn’t.
I can answer this one! It’s because, as established by the Supreme Court, the constitutional right to free exercise requires government entities to make reasonable accommodations to religious beliefs and practices. This requires a balancing test, and line-drawing is hard. But if the actual military is making this same accommodation, I think it would be hard for a school to show that it is unreasonable for it to do so as well.
It’s sort of interesting that most religions have a “do not kill” rule, but she signed up for military training (which presumably she might have to use someday). She was ok with that, but draws the line on the headgear.
@soze you’re just determined to find issue with this case – despite many posters showing you that religious exceptions aren’t unheard of in the military. It totally smells of an anti-Islam attitude.
Just to be clear The Citadel is state military college. Graduates are not required to enter the military.