The one question I’d love to know the answer to is “Why the Citadel?” It’s the last school on earth I’d choose if I were a female Muslim, especially one committed to wearing a hijab.
@Overtheedge Questionable motives IMO
The US military shouldn’t have permitted it. What’s next, different performance standards for different religions?
Why, GMTplus7? What evidence do you have for being against a turban? Or a hijab, for that matter? I imagine you’re also against soldiers wearing yamakas? (Currently allowed)
The Pentagon has not found that any of these affect unit cohesion or readiness.
Moreover, the British armed forces have allowed Sikhs to maintain beards and turbans as part of their religion for centuries. If there was a serious issue with unit cohesion or safety, it’d have turned up by now…
@gmtplus7 “The US military shouldn’t have permitted it.”
Are you also against soldiers wearing colanders? Isn’t a helmet basically just a modified colander? Also, why does the military serve Pastafarian meals to all soldiers on a regular basis, but does not do that for other religions? Why can’t they accommodate all religions equally?
@happy1 Did they require a deposit on May 1? Not all schools require deposits in May.
Speaking military, not Citadel.
The Department of Defense and each Service has guiding instructions on Religious Accommodation. The goal is to find a way to accommodate requests in general however accommodation is not guaranteed and mission requirements, good order and discipline, etc. are a factor in each decision. Many of the decisions cited were individual decisions to accommodate a Soldier, not a change in policy. They were also recent.
Training environments in general have stricter requirements than active duty forces. Any accommodation request is going to be tied to the specific mission and in a training environment. The mission of a training initial accessions whether officer or enlisted is to prepare the recruit, cadet, or midshipmen for service on active duty in operational environments.
@bordertexan As far as I know most schools require a deposit by that date. I don’t know for sure about the Citadel. But in the article it was noted that the woman asked for an answer by May 1 so I’m guessing that date was chosen for a reason. And likely she would have to deposit elsewhere by that date if the Citadel is not an option.
Why wait until several weeks before commitment day to request accommodations on something that would clearly take some time to consider?
For those being trained for combat, how would they fit a helmet over a turban? What about obstacle course training? Couldn’t it fall off or get caught on something?
Those issues hasn’t been an issue with the Sikhs serving in the British armed forces since they started serving in the 19th century. Plenty of googleable historical pictures of Sikh soldiers with turbans fighting in WWI and II to the present day.
Chin straps can only do so much.
Still leaves the issue of headgear, especially that which wraps around the neck, being potentially dangerous.
Re: #50, #52
From http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_20.pdf , section 5-6.h(4)(a):
Note the phrase “except where the items would interfere with the performance of military duties”. Other parts of that section indicate that it is possible for religious apparel to be allowed in some situations but not others, rather than always or never.
I hope the decision as to when it would interfere with the performance off military duties is left up to the commanding officer.
@katliamom: Well I’m both an atheist and an anti-theist, so I’m of the belief that secular institutions should not make accommodations for any religious reasons, irrespective of the religion. This has nothing to do with Islam specifically. My views would be the same regardless of the particular religion.
Sikhs are allowed to wear turban and grow a beard in the US Army.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/04/us/sikh-army-captain-simratpal-singh-beard-turban/
I agree that secular institutions should not promote or prefer one religion over another as well as to protect those who hold anti-theist values. However, your hard line stance cuts off the nose to spite the face. Why would the military do this if it compromises its mission to have an inclusive workforce which can effectively reach out to many sectors of our diverse population? If carried out, then only other anti-theists or those w/low to minimal religious desires would comprise the military. What would that serve? I’m glad the regulations allow discretion to allow for reasonable accommodations.
The actual policy at http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_20.pdf (section 5-6) may answer your questions.
@jym626 The “turban” is basically a bandana, that’s worn over the helmet. It’s cameo color scheme matches the helmet’s and uniform’s cameo.