At my alma mater. It seems someone wants to wear a hijab over her head as she matriculates for her knob year. Never, everm, back in the bad old days of an all male Corps-full of fun and camaraderie-would I have ever thought that we would be having this conversation. What’s a hijab you ask?
An islamically prescribed way of dress in which a woman must cover herself at least from her shoulders to her knees in loose fitting clothing that isn’t sheer. At best she covers her body with the exception of her face and hands. The clothing can be as stylish as she wants it to be or as drab and unstylish as she wants it to be. She can wear silk, or any other fabric and follow any style as long as it stays within these bounds.
As practiced in many places it is a scarf that covers to the shoulders.
Which is why the S.O. calls them “scarf people”.
You know, someone who may look like this:
Or perhaps not.
Here are the basics so far:
The Citadel is considering a request from an admitted student that she be allowed to wear a hijab in keeping with her Muslim faith, a move that would be an unprecedented exception to the school’s longstanding uniform requirements.
If the request for the traditional Muslim hair covering is granted, it apparently would be the first exception made to the Citadel’s uniform, which all cadets at the storied public military college in South Carolina are required to wear at nearly all times. (At beaches, for example, college rules stipulate that, “Cadets will change into appropriate swimwear upon arrival and change back into uniform when departing.”) A spokeswoman said that to her knowledge, in its nearly 175-year history, the school has never granted a religious, or other, accommodation that resulted in a change to the uniform.
And now for the understatement of the year.
As word spread on social media, students, alumni and others responded strongly to the idea of an exception being made at an institution where uniformity, discipline and adherence to rules are defining values, where loyalty to the corps is paramount and individual preferences are trivial.
Strong is how someone feels against the New York Yankees. This is something more than strong, we are talking furious, ready to set a house on fire angry, and livid are just a few of the milder reactions to this insanity.
And informal poll on Facebook was alumni opposed to the notion by about 99%.
And for the record I agree with them. So count me in the, “ Hell no and go fuck yourself for asking.” group.
A big part of The Citadel experience is supposed to be knob year. It is supposed to be an adversarial system that tears you down to basic building blocks before building you back up. That involves a certain level of conformity-and that is partially achieved by wearing the same uniform.
I suppose this was inevitable since the Supreme Court failed in 1996, but even holding my longstanding beliefs aside, this is just ridiculous.
Look, I get it about religious accommodations. But they are also to be implemented on a “not to interfere” basis with good order and discipline. This, in my opinion, crosses a line. And before someone throws out the “B” word, please remember I live in Europe and I see a lot of women with hijabs and other garments. Like it or not, its a problem, because it puts everyone else on the defensive and makes you automatically suspicious of them. Is that profiling? Yes. Is it right? Probably not , although my Israeli friends would argue the point. Nonetheless it is a fact of life as long as Islam is as a corrosive a force as it is in the world. I see this issue as one of assimilation-which is what should be happening if people wish to successfully immigrate to the west. The French banned it for good reason. And if I had my way, the women in Europe would have to remove their hijabs and dress like a western woman. Perhaps its bigotry-but its also a prevailing sentiment. An incident like this in Germany would get Alternative for Deutschland (an anti-immigrant party) 100,000 votes every time it hits the papers.
Also, this is really not a black and white issue. It’s complex as the French have found out:
“During the years I lived in Paris it became clear that what people in polite society alluded to as the “Muslim issue” was, actually, a fiendishly complex knot of social, religious and historical threads all bundled up as one. On the surface – and there was no need to doubt the genuineness of this – most French Muslims declared themselves to be patriotic, and resoundingly supportive of the constitutional separation of church and state.
It wasn’t surprising. The post-war Muslim presence in France had been built around the harkis who had lived and worked under French administrations in north Africa, often serving in the French forces and seeing France as their true home across the Med. Like the West Indians who came to Britain in the 1950s, they were astonished on arrival to discover that the natives were far less respectful of the mother country and its institutions than they were.
But this generation’s influence was starting to fade, and in the unlovely satellite suburbs where many Muslim immigrants settled, or – to be more accurate – were dumped, a new kind of identity began to emerge. Today, virtually cut off from mainstream society, the populations of many of these places have become hostages to virulent strains of radicalism. Women who refuse to wear the hijab, and, increasingly, the burka, are intimidated and brutalised by gangs whose ideas about female emancipation are on an exact par with those of the Taliban.
This, as Mme Amara painstakingly tries to explain, is the problem with all those charming liberal pieties about allowing women to choose how they wish to dress. Large numbers of the women who wear the burka – whether in France, Britain or anywhere else – don’t have a choice.”
Furthermore, Islam has not an absolute requirement to wear a hijab. It is more of a cultural thing than perhaps we realize. And I believe that we should be incentivzing assimilation if we want to make immigration work. If you don’t like those reasons, here is a better one:
A Hijab protects women from lustful and sinful thoughts from men. How can we incorporate this into the system at The Citadel? How can we represent one’s religious beliefs into the system without affecting the basic Unity and foundation of the system? The Millennial inside of me says acceptance, but the experience I was given there, and the leadership foundation that was taught says something else, we choose to go down that path and it is a path not designed for everyone. Unfortunately, some systems do not conform to ones beliefs.
That being said, The Citadel is not rejecting her religious beliefs or the act of religious freedom at all. Conforming does not mean disowning or not allowing her beliefs but simply means it does not comply with the rules and standards The Citadel has set in place.
Rules and Standards, The Citadel is founded upon them. The rules and standards of The Citadel are what produced some of the greatest leaders of our time, and the system needs to change because of acceptance?
We are not against religious freedom, we are a public school that has higher standards than others and cannot meet everyone’s needs. Anyone is free to enter or leave the gates as they please. The act of denying her right to wear her Hijab is not an act against religious freedom but one’s beliefs does not conform to The Citadel’s rules and regulations is not a good fit for her.
Just say no!