Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"The Citadel considers first-ever uniform exception: allowing a Muslim hijab

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.

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......."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/gra ... lim-hijab/

Guess El Cid and Citdog won't like this...

They'll probably give in but I don't think they should. She knew what the rules are before she applied and was accepted.

Ibanez wrote:They'll probably give in but I don't think they should. She knew what the rules are before she applied and was accepted.

Considering The Citadel is a public institution, I don't think you can make the case about how "she knew the rules" if the rule discourages people from applying to the school based on ~insert discriminatory reason here~.

To reword it, you can't make up a discriminatory rule and then say, well they should have known! That's basically how every civil rights issue arises.

∞∞∞ wrote:

Ibanez wrote:They'll probably give in but I don't think they should. She knew what the rules are before she applied and was accepted.

Considering The Citadel is a public institution, I don't think you can make the case about how "she knew the rules" if the rule discourages people from applying to the school based on ~insert discriminatory reason here~.

To reword it, you can't make up a discriminatory rule and then say, well they should have known! That's basically how every civil rights issue arises.

A uniform requirement in a military environment isn't "making up a rule" for the purpose of discrimination.

You are forgetting the "compelling interest" argument here. The school may not use it, but it is available to them.

Another issue that has so far been overlooked is the ROTC requirement. All cadets are required to be enrolled. ROTC does not yet make this dispensation, so if the school wants to say no, there would be ample reason to do so.

The bottom line is they are going to weigh the cost of the inevitable lawsuit (even the cost of winning it) and I suspect the school will cave. Purely a financial decision.

The irony here is that before, she's just another cadet. An equal. Because of her own religious choice she is now going to be the most conspicuous cadet on campus and she'll be shunned because that's what happens to cadets that choose to buck the system.

∞∞∞ wrote:

Ibanez wrote:They'll probably give in but I don't think they should. She knew what the rules are before she applied and was accepted.

Considering The Citadel is a public institution, I don't think you can make the case about how "she knew the rules" if the rule discourages people from applying to the school based on ~insert discriminatory reason here~.

To reword it, you can't make up a discriminatory rule and then say, well they should have known! That's basically how every civil rights issue arises.

The uniform code is hardly discriminatory and certainly isn't new. And if she didn't know there was a uniform when she applied, then she's going to have a rough time with a few other requirements.

I knew a few Jews that graduated and they never asked to wear yarmulkes outside of a service.


If she wants to be different, go somewhere else.

CID1990 wrote: A uniform requirement in a military environment isn't "making up a rule" for the purpose of discrimination.

You are forgetting the "compelling interest" argument here. The school may not use it, but it is available to them.

Another issue that has so far been overlooked is the ROTC requirement. All cadets are required to be enrolled. ROTC does not yet make this dispensation, so if the school wants to say no, there would be ample reason to do so.

The bottom line is they are going to weigh the cost of the inevitable lawsuit (even the cost of winning it) and I suspect the school will cave. Purely a financial decision.

The irony here is that before, she's just another cadet. An equal. Because of her own religious choice she is now going to be the most conspicuous cadet on campus and she'll be shunned because that's what happens to cadets that choose to buck the system.

The Citadel can also focus on creating an open environment where people aren't shunned for their differences. Creating a hostile learning environment is also a lawsuit waiting to happen...

Ibanez wrote: The uniform code is hardly discriminatory. And if she didn't know there was a uniform when she applied, then she's going to have a roughy time with a few other requirements.

It's clearly discriminatory to people of certain religions. Again, it's creating an environment where people are being discouraged from applying to a public institution because of rules.

∞∞∞ wrote:

CID1990 wrote: A uniform requirement in a military environment isn't "making up a rule" for the purpose of discrimination.

You are forgetting the "compelling interest" argument here. The school may not use it, but it is available to them.

Another issue that has so far been overlooked is the ROTC requirement. All cadets are required to be enrolled. ROTC does not yet make this dispensation, so if the school wants to say no, there would be ample reason to do so.

The bottom line is they are going to weigh the cost of the inevitable lawsuit (even the cost of winning it) and I suspect the school will cave. Purely a financial decision.

The irony here is that before, she's just another cadet. An equal. Because of her own religious choice she is now going to be the most conspicuous cadet on campus and she'll be shunned because that's what happens to cadets that choose to buck the system.

The Citadel can also focus on creating an open environment where people aren't shunned for their differences. Creating a hostile learning environment is also a lawsuit waiting to happen...

Ibanez wrote: The uniform code is hardly discriminatory. And if she didn't know there was a uniform when she applied, then she's going to have a roughy time with a few other requirements.

It's clearly discriminatory to people of certain religions. Again, it's creating an environment where people are being discouraged from applying to a public institution because of rules.

You can't force cadets to talk to her or administer the 4th class system. Sorry, but that's what happens when you choose to stand out in a system that requires uniformity.

Good luck with THAT lawsuit.

You're still ignoring the compelling interest argument though. Why do you think the US military doesn't have women wearing hijabs? There are about to be Sikhs allowed to wear turbans but the Army decided to let that happen- if they had wanted to say no they could have (they did make them cut their hair).

The End Times are upon us...

Chizzang wrote:The End Times are upon us...

Is that Citdog's new name?

Why does she need it? All the dudes there are too busy playing grabass to notice an attractive girl.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhugdYz-Bl0[/youtube]

CID1990 wrote:You can't force cadets to talk to her or administer the 4th class system. Sorry, but that's what happens when you choose to stand out in a system that requires uniformity.

I don't accept this argument. You can't just say "that's what happens" because "that's what happens" isn't always right. Instead of saying that, you actually have to educate people in order to curb the reason hostile environments develop. The Citadel is still a public university and it needs to create a place where someone can comfortably learn new skills and trades without the fear of being shunned, etc.

You're still ignoring the compelling interest argument though. Why do you think the US military doesn't have women wearing hijabs? There are about to be Sikhs allowed to wear turbans but the Army decided to let that happen- if they had wanted to say no they could have (they did make them cut their hair).

I don't know what the "compelling interest" argument is if you can explain it to me.

Otherwise, I'd certainly advocate for changing the rules in the military as well. There are a lot things being done that impede on people's rights that still need to be fought against.

Regardless, I gotta get back to work. Will catch up in a few hours...

∞∞∞ wrote:

CID1990 wrote:You can't force cadets to talk to her or administer the 4th class system. Sorry, but that's what happens when you choose to stand out in a system that requires uniformity.

I don't accept this argument. You can't just say "that's what happens" because "that's what happens" isn't always right. Instead of saying that, you actually have to educate people in order to curb the reason hostile environments develop. The Citadel is still a public university and it needs to create a place where someone can comfortably learn new skills and trades without the fear of being shunned, etc.

You're still ignoring the compelling interest argument though. Why do you think the US military doesn't have women wearing hijabs? There are about to be Sikhs allowed to wear turbans but the Army decided to let that happen- if they had wanted to say no they could have (they did make them cut their hair).

I don't know what the "compelling interest" argument is if you can explain it to me.

Otherwise, I'd certainly advocate for changing the rules in the military as well. There are a lot things being done that impede on people's rights that still need to be fought against.

Regardless, I gotta get back to work. Will catch up in a few hours...

I don't care if you accept it or not. You're an egalitarian- I get it.

Colleges, especially military colleges- are not one size fits all, and trying to make them that way is ridiculous. I don't expect you to understand the principles behind a military system with a plebian initiation. If true egalitarianism is your aim, then you should instead be arguing for the abolishment of military schools in general (which this actually is, in an incremental way)

Chizzang wrote:The End Times are upon us...

Oh yeah, motherfvcker?

Well guess what? I don't mind paying more money for faster internet

Aaannndddd just like that Trip get's knee capped.

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:The End Times are upon us...

Oh yeah, motherfvcker?

Well guess what? I don't mind paying more money for faster internet

You hurt me... that hurts

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP477tkdJ4E[/youtube]

SDHornet wrote:Aaannndddd just like that Trip get's knee capped.

Trip isn't an egalitarian. He is a conflicted person who doesn't like his own peeps, and he wants to be accepted elsewhere. He wants equality, but doesn't understand what that really means.

The end game of egalitarianism is to have everyone be the same. Goodbye cultural uniqueness.

Unfortunately, Trip doesn't understand the way the world works...and what he is asking for. How can you not treat someone differently in Chinatown (or, pick you desired location)? You go there specifically to see, and experience the difference of Chinatown. You go to an Indian reservation to see a different culture. But, under the, "let's treat everyone equally" rules, you could not have a Chinatown...or an Indian reservation...or anything else. The unspoken rules of sticking with like minded people/races/cultures would be broken and all of those places would be destroyed in the name of progress.

The Muslin chick should be shunned. Better yet, she should be Santiagoed. She is putting her own needs (never mind that her needs are based on pure fantasy) ahead of other's needs. That isn't something the military needs. Seriously...what a selfish, dumb cvnt. If she is in a war zone, does she tell everyone that she needs to halt her fighting in order to face Mecca and pray?

Imagine that a gay cadet, not that there are any of those, has some psychological need to wear a rainbow uniform. I wouldn't want to be next to that guy because, with that camouflage, he will be the first one to have his azz blown up. Maybe he wants his azz blown up, but I don't want mine torn apart simply because of his gay beliefs.

∞∞∞ wrote:

CID1990 wrote: A uniform requirement in a military environment isn't "making up a rule" for the purpose of discrimination.

You are forgetting the "compelling interest" argument here. The school may not use it, but it is available to them.

Another issue that has so far been overlooked is the ROTC requirement. All cadets are required to be enrolled. ROTC does not yet make this dispensation, so if the school wants to say no, there would be ample reason to do so.

The bottom line is they are going to weigh the cost of the inevitable lawsuit (even the cost of winning it) and I suspect the school will cave. Purely a financial decision.

The irony here is that before, she's just another cadet. An equal. Because of her own religious choice she is now going to be the most conspicuous cadet on campus and she'll be shunned because that's what happens to cadets that choose to buck the system.

The Citadel can also focus on creating an open environment where people aren't shunned for their differences. Creating a hostile learning environment is also a lawsuit waiting to happen...

Ibanez wrote: The uniform code is hardly discriminatory. And if she didn't know there was a uniform when she applied, then she's going to have a roughy time with a few other requirements.

It's clearly discriminatory to people of certain religions. Again, it's creating an environment where people are being discouraged from applying to a public institution because of rules.

Nobody is being shunned.

Ibanez wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: The Citadel can also focus on creating an open environment where people aren't shunned for their differences. Creating a hostile learning environment is also a lawsuit waiting to happen...


It's clearly discriminatory to people of certain religions. Again, it's creating an environment where people are being discouraged from applying to a public institution because of rules.

Nobody is being shunned.

Watch what happens when she stops wearing her cunt cap in favor of the hijab.

Well, Citadel is public...

If they were private... they wouldn't have had to accept women at all - much less hijab wearing women.

Though, if Trump is elected - she'll just be deported. Problem solved.

Cluck U wrote:

SDHornet wrote:Aaannndddd just like that Trip get's knee capped.

The end game of egalitarianism is to have everyone be the same. Goodbye cultural uniqueness.

You go to an Indian reservation to see a different culture.

Bullshit. People go to indian reservations to gamble. And that's it.

Oh, and cheap cigs.

What's the policy at the real military academies, you know, West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs (and I guess New London and Kings Point to be complete)? I'd say whatever their policy is to follow that.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
The end game of egalitarianism is to have everyone be the same. Goodbye cultural uniqueness.

You go to an Indian reservation to see a different culture.

Bullshit. People go to indian reservations to gamble. And that's it.

Oh, and cheap cigs.

Also fireworks, and to feel better about one's own life.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Bullshit. People go to indian reservations to gamble. And that's it.

Oh, and cheap cigs.

Also fireworks, and to feel better about one's own life.

You REALLY want to feel better about your life, go to the Zuni Reservation in NM.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
The end game of egalitarianism is to have everyone be the same. Goodbye cultural uniqueness.

You go to an Indian reservation to see a different culture.

Bullshit. People go to indian reservations to gamble. And that's it.

Oh, and cheap cigs.

That's discriminatory. Their taxes are cheaper...we need equal taxes everywhere.

Yup, we need to rape the reservations again in the name of equality and egalitarianism.