Posted on Jun 16, 2015
Sikh Wins Court Case To Join ROTC: Is this a victory for religious freedom or did the court go too far?
279K
1.82K
774
33
32
1
A Federal Judge has ruled that Iknoor Singh's adherence to his Sikh faith - wearing facial hair, keeping his hair long, but wrapped in a turban, and carrying a sharp knife on his person - would not diminish his capacity to serve the nation he loves, the United States of America, as a future Officer in the United States Army. Do you feel too many allowances are being made for his faith or do you feel he should be welcomed into the ranks if he can successfully fulfill the requirements for Commissioning? What say you, RP?
--
(Note: Full article added by RP Staff.)
MINEOLA, NY — A Sikh college student from New York said Monday he is excited about a federal court decision that will permit him to enroll in the U.S. Army's Reserve Officer Training Corps without shaving his beard, cutting his hair, or removing his turban.
U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued the ruling Friday in Washington, D.C., saying 20-year-old Iknoor Singh's adherence to his religious beliefs would not diminish his ability to serve in the military.
"I didn't believe it at first when I heard about the decision," said Singh, who lives in the New York City borough of Queens.
He told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Monday: "It was kind of surreal. This is something I have been fighting for for two or three years. I'm excited and nervous; very excited to learn."
Singh, who will be a junior next fall studying finance and business analytics at Hofstra University on Long Island, said he has had a lifelong interest in public service. He speaks four languages — English, Punjabi, Hindi, and Urdu — and he said he wants to work in military intelligence.
"Becoming an officer is not an easy thing," he conceded. "You have to be proficient in many areas."
Sikhism, a 500-year-old religion founded in India, requires its male followers to wear a turban and beard and keep their hair uncut.
Under a policy announced last year, troops can seek waivers on a case-by-case basis to wear religious clothing, seek prayer time or engage in religious practices. Approval depends on where the service member is stationed and whether the change would affect military readiness or the mission.
Currently, only a few Sikhs serve in the U.S. Army who have been granted religious accommodations.
In her ruling, Jackson said, "It is difficult to see how accommodating plaintiff's religious exercise would do greater damage to the Army's compelling interests in uniformity, discipline, credibility, unit cohesion, and training than the tens of thousands of medical shaving profiles the Army has already granted."
Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Ben Garrett, said in a statement the decision is currently being examined. "The Army takes pride in sustaining a culture where all personnel are treated with dignity and respect and not discriminated against based on race, color, religion, gender and national origin," he said.
Hofstra spokeswoman Karla Schuster said in a statement that the university "supports Mr. Singh's desire to serve his country, as well as his right to religious expression and practice. We are pleased that the courts have affirmed that he can do both as a member of the ROTC."
Gurjot Kaur, senior staff attorney for the Sikh Coalition, said the decision was "an important victory in the fight for religious freedom. We urge the Pentagon to eliminate the discriminatory loopholes in its policies and give all Americans an equal opportunity to serve in our nation's armed forces."
The American Civil Liberties Union and a group called United Sikhs jointly represented Singh in the case.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/sikh-student-queens-clear-join-army-rotc-article-1.2259423
--
(Note: Full article added by RP Staff.)
MINEOLA, NY — A Sikh college student from New York said Monday he is excited about a federal court decision that will permit him to enroll in the U.S. Army's Reserve Officer Training Corps without shaving his beard, cutting his hair, or removing his turban.
U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued the ruling Friday in Washington, D.C., saying 20-year-old Iknoor Singh's adherence to his religious beliefs would not diminish his ability to serve in the military.
"I didn't believe it at first when I heard about the decision," said Singh, who lives in the New York City borough of Queens.
He told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Monday: "It was kind of surreal. This is something I have been fighting for for two or three years. I'm excited and nervous; very excited to learn."
Singh, who will be a junior next fall studying finance and business analytics at Hofstra University on Long Island, said he has had a lifelong interest in public service. He speaks four languages — English, Punjabi, Hindi, and Urdu — and he said he wants to work in military intelligence.
"Becoming an officer is not an easy thing," he conceded. "You have to be proficient in many areas."
Sikhism, a 500-year-old religion founded in India, requires its male followers to wear a turban and beard and keep their hair uncut.
Under a policy announced last year, troops can seek waivers on a case-by-case basis to wear religious clothing, seek prayer time or engage in religious practices. Approval depends on where the service member is stationed and whether the change would affect military readiness or the mission.
Currently, only a few Sikhs serve in the U.S. Army who have been granted religious accommodations.
In her ruling, Jackson said, "It is difficult to see how accommodating plaintiff's religious exercise would do greater damage to the Army's compelling interests in uniformity, discipline, credibility, unit cohesion, and training than the tens of thousands of medical shaving profiles the Army has already granted."
Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Ben Garrett, said in a statement the decision is currently being examined. "The Army takes pride in sustaining a culture where all personnel are treated with dignity and respect and not discriminated against based on race, color, religion, gender and national origin," he said.
Hofstra spokeswoman Karla Schuster said in a statement that the university "supports Mr. Singh's desire to serve his country, as well as his right to religious expression and practice. We are pleased that the courts have affirmed that he can do both as a member of the ROTC."
Gurjot Kaur, senior staff attorney for the Sikh Coalition, said the decision was "an important victory in the fight for religious freedom. We urge the Pentagon to eliminate the discriminatory loopholes in its policies and give all Americans an equal opportunity to serve in our nation's armed forces."
The American Civil Liberties Union and a group called United Sikhs jointly represented Singh in the case.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/sikh-student-queens-clear-join-army-rotc-article-1.2259423
Religion
ROTC
Diversity
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 282
5
5
0
This isn't the first Sikh to serve. I had the honor to serve with one who was a trauma/er doctor. Hands DOWN one of the best doc I've ever worked with. I know for a fact many of our brothers and sisters in uniform are still alive as a direct result of him. He was proud to serve and embodied the army values. All around fantastic soldier and very patriotic.
I say we can use more soldiers like that regardless of their religion.
I say we can use more soldiers like that regardless of their religion.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Sikhs are far removed from the other religions of their area of the world. They have a long tradition of being soldiers and served the British Empire honorably for a long time. They are not Muslims, which many people believe.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Everyone is crying military regulations and good discipline and order but let us all remember the standards during early days of the Army. Beards and mustaches were worn with pride in the Union Army. The tradition of shaving and lily arts cuts came around as the U.S. Culture changed in the 20th century...the Army needs to look professional like a business. Add NBC threat and masks were less effective with facial hair. But if we are a military that protects freedom including religious freedom then this should be a non issue. The Sikh serve in the military in their home country; why shouldn't an American with Sikh ties not be allowed to do the same? Or an immigrant wanting citizenship through service. I'm good with this if he displays professional conduct and live up to the Army creed. Some of our best looking soldiers fail to do that.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
The issue is how he looks. The bs about NBC, is false, Helmets, and any other BS. The fact is Sikh's make fine to great fighters, they serve the brit empire, india, with honor Yet here we have the same B.S. he don't look pretty. I never cared for that line of thought. to me it was Can he Fight. Had a range NCO order me to shoot in a proper (pretty boy) way on a qual range, started missing easy shot since the position was wrong. Called the Top over (even though he was a busted top.) He was a top. told him the Sit, he asked if i could still qual? And to go for it. Rather have a shooter then a non-shooting Army poster boy. I'd Rather have a sihk warrior then a pretty boy pog.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
I guess I am a dinosaur.
First of all, I know this is not a first or a new topic. But, I am interested in seeing if I am out of touch, or not...
- Yes, I know we make provisions for religious items (AR 600-20 Para 5-6), garments, as well as other areas too. Heck, over 25 years ago, I saw an SF Sergeant First Class, in uniform, with a Green Turban, flash, and crest. So, again, I know this is not a new topic. This is what the AR (currently says - excerpt):
(g) Religious headgear may be worn while in uniform if the headgear meets the following criteria:
1. The religious headgear is subdued in color (generally black, brown, green, dark or Navy blue, or a combination of these colors).
2. The religious headgear is of a style and size that can be completely covered by standard military headgear.
3. The religious headgear bears no writing, symbols, or pictures.
4. Wear of the religious headgear does not interfere with the wear or proper functioning of protective clothing or equipment.
5. Religious headgear that meets these criteria is authorized irrespective of the faith group from which it originates.
6. Religious headgear will not be worn in place of military headgear under circumstances when the wear of military headgear is required (for example, when the Soldier is outside or required to wear headgear indoors for a special
purpose).
(5) Grooming practices. The Army’s grooming standards are contained in AR 670–1. Religious-based exceptions to policy previously given Soldiers under the provisions of this regulation prior to 1 January 1986 continue in effect as long as the affected Soldiers remain otherwise qualified for retention. However, Soldiers previously granted authority to wear unshorn hair, unshorn beard, or permanent religious jewelry prior to 1 January 1986 will not be assigned PCS or TDY out of CONUS due to health and safety considerations.
- That said, I also believe being a Soldier (Sailor, Airmen, Marine) is about assimilating, surrendering some of your individuality and individual freedoms, and becoming part of the team. As a leader, our number one job is to model the standard, and what right looks like. I am not sure how you can lead, if you expect to have a different standard for you... Again, that is from my lens.
- While I value individual freedom, liberty, and choice, I also believe the standards of the organization come before your personal preferences. I also believe in the volunteer military, and that if you don't like the rules and regulations, you can find another place to make your mark.
First of all, I know this is not a first or a new topic. But, I am interested in seeing if I am out of touch, or not...
- Yes, I know we make provisions for religious items (AR 600-20 Para 5-6), garments, as well as other areas too. Heck, over 25 years ago, I saw an SF Sergeant First Class, in uniform, with a Green Turban, flash, and crest. So, again, I know this is not a new topic. This is what the AR (currently says - excerpt):
(g) Religious headgear may be worn while in uniform if the headgear meets the following criteria:
1. The religious headgear is subdued in color (generally black, brown, green, dark or Navy blue, or a combination of these colors).
2. The religious headgear is of a style and size that can be completely covered by standard military headgear.
3. The religious headgear bears no writing, symbols, or pictures.
4. Wear of the religious headgear does not interfere with the wear or proper functioning of protective clothing or equipment.
5. Religious headgear that meets these criteria is authorized irrespective of the faith group from which it originates.
6. Religious headgear will not be worn in place of military headgear under circumstances when the wear of military headgear is required (for example, when the Soldier is outside or required to wear headgear indoors for a special
purpose).
(5) Grooming practices. The Army’s grooming standards are contained in AR 670–1. Religious-based exceptions to policy previously given Soldiers under the provisions of this regulation prior to 1 January 1986 continue in effect as long as the affected Soldiers remain otherwise qualified for retention. However, Soldiers previously granted authority to wear unshorn hair, unshorn beard, or permanent religious jewelry prior to 1 January 1986 will not be assigned PCS or TDY out of CONUS due to health and safety considerations.
- That said, I also believe being a Soldier (Sailor, Airmen, Marine) is about assimilating, surrendering some of your individuality and individual freedoms, and becoming part of the team. As a leader, our number one job is to model the standard, and what right looks like. I am not sure how you can lead, if you expect to have a different standard for you... Again, that is from my lens.
- While I value individual freedom, liberty, and choice, I also believe the standards of the organization come before your personal preferences. I also believe in the volunteer military, and that if you don't like the rules and regulations, you can find another place to make your mark.
(5)
(0)
Maj Mike Sciales
You are a dinosaur. Grooming standards change and evolve to reflect the times. Regulations provide guidance, but adaptability is the key to success. Look at the world around you. Evolve or become extinct.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Note that this says he may join ROTC, it does not say serve in the military. I dont know if a judge has any say on the matter of actual military service, wouldn't that have to go thru JAG? The regs on facial hair are for allowing proper wear and fit of the gas mask, along with the fact that no individual should be standing out. How would he wear a Kevlar? Would he even be deployable?
(5)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Upon commanders discretion right? When they go in and out of training environments does it pose an issue? Ive seen female soldiers wear burkas as respect to the Afghan villagers they were visiting. My question is are there still Army Standard on apperance or are they going to be lax to accomidate religions and does this open up to people using that as a way to not follow standards? Should we modify AR670-1 to just state clean apperance at the commanders discretion? Im in the contracting world on base and male and female apperence varies from clean shaved to Duck Dynasty beards.
Also, as an NCO if I approch someone and say hey, you need to shave and I going to be slapped with a discrimination for not knowing?
Also, as an NCO if I approch someone and say hey, you need to shave and I going to be slapped with a discrimination for not knowing?
(0)
(0)
CPT Topher Murphy
Not commanders discretion. The Sikhs that went through OBC in 2010 with me were allowed to join on a waiver and don't have to shave their beards or cut their hair. They have specialized turbans for PCs and were able to pass all requirements of the course, including the gas chamber.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CPT Topher Murphy thats pretty neat actually, do we have any holiness females that can modify their uniform into skirts? I dont know, im still torn on this. I read an article about the native americans during wwii who performed better with their hair not cut. Still the standards are there and there are what ~50 recognized religions within the armed forces what becomes acceptable and what becomes over the top? Thats were diviation from standards set becomes an issue, in my opinion which is worth about a half hill of beans.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) - Should we modify it to say clean appearance? Yes. Will we? No...because common sense is an uncommon virtue, so we are forced to spell out exactly what the expectations are.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
By definition, the Army is a discriminatory organization. You have to meet certain qualifications to join and stay in. It is not open to everyone nor should it be. This could open a Pandora's box of questions and I wonder where it will stop. While I applaud the willingness to serve, I am not sure this is in the best interest of the Army. We could end up with a formation of Soldiers that all look different based on their religious beliefs. Who enforces the standards if they are not clear or not even there? My two cents worth!
(5)
(0)
SFC Clark Adams
This has been my argument on the relaxation of standards of conduct, appearance and behavior. We are free to choose our life styles and beliefs, just like the military has standards to obey it's up to the individual to elect which set of standards they elect to follow.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Religious accommodation is important. But, we're missing the bigger issue here. The military's policy on facial hair is outdated.
I understand that cleanshaven was "the look" in the 1950s. But, beards are a historical tradition in the military. And, facial hair is accepted in the civilian workplace once again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/business/international/facial-hair-style-executives.html
The excuse that it interferes with gas mask seals is really nonsense. And, I've served in cold weather climates and forward deployed areas where shaving every day really creates bigger problems.
I understand that cleanshaven was "the look" in the 1950s. But, beards are a historical tradition in the military. And, facial hair is accepted in the civilian workplace once again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/business/international/facial-hair-style-executives.html
The excuse that it interferes with gas mask seals is really nonsense. And, I've served in cold weather climates and forward deployed areas where shaving every day really creates bigger problems.
To save articles or get newsletters, alerts or recommendations – all free.
(5)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Yeah, I am. The military justification I've always heard for being cleanshaven is the gas mask seal. And, when we put that out there, we should also consider the drawbacks of being cleanshaven -- in a cold weather climate, in a forward deployed area, when wearing camouflage.
And, we should also probably also point out that, in a chemical environment, troops are probably screwed anyway. I've seen few units where the equipment is maintained well enough, handy all the time, and used with proper training to significantly reduce casualties. I'm guessing that most units would see 70 - 80% casualties. And, if we're factoring in the nasty chemicals which are modern-day weapons (not WWII versions), then facial hair is the least of the military's concerns. That's why we say the use of chemical weapons is on par with the use of nuclear weapons.
So, all of that is relevant to the discussion.
If we're admitting that it's merely an appearance issue and there is no tactical justification, then the religious accommodation issue becomes much harder to counter. We don't like the way it looks really doesn't trump the free exercise of a soldier's religious beliefs. And, then, it's even more difficult when you look at larger civilian society and you have to admit that facial hair really isn't considered unprofessional in the civilian business world.
And, we should also probably also point out that, in a chemical environment, troops are probably screwed anyway. I've seen few units where the equipment is maintained well enough, handy all the time, and used with proper training to significantly reduce casualties. I'm guessing that most units would see 70 - 80% casualties. And, if we're factoring in the nasty chemicals which are modern-day weapons (not WWII versions), then facial hair is the least of the military's concerns. That's why we say the use of chemical weapons is on par with the use of nuclear weapons.
So, all of that is relevant to the discussion.
If we're admitting that it's merely an appearance issue and there is no tactical justification, then the religious accommodation issue becomes much harder to counter. We don't like the way it looks really doesn't trump the free exercise of a soldier's religious beliefs. And, then, it's even more difficult when you look at larger civilian society and you have to admit that facial hair really isn't considered unprofessional in the civilian business world.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
Does military Service place any demands on us that go beyond working at Walmart? We depend on common bonds and teamwork, subordinating self to unit. If you are not willing to subordinate yourself, you are not fit for military service. He may be a wonderfully nice guy. But if he requires the unit, the Service, and the entire DoD to bend to his religion or philosophy or whatever self-defining behavior, he is not what we need.
(4)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
Show me loads of fat folks in WWII. LOL. Not many getting fat during the late 30s and early 40s.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
MAJ Byron Oyler - So, are we worrying about the SOF guys tying up medical resources with their beards? If not, why are we singling out this soldier?
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Col Joseph Lenertz - Not having food will do that to you. WWII started on the heels of the Great Depression.
(0)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
My dad was in the Civilian Conservation Corps camps during the depression. He was skinny. Although the depression period is often shown in history books through 1941, according to any modern definition (3 qtrs. negative growth), it ended in 1936. So dad got a great job at the power plant for a paper mill. US growth rates were huge from 1936 through 1941 (never less than 21% GDP growth per year) and unemployment was around 6.5% by 1941. The vast majority had access to enough food, and had they been as sedentary as we are today, they would have looked more similar to today's overweight American.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
So in order to get "exception to policy" you have to go through a lot of paperwork and patience. We all have that right, actually. I graduated OBC with a dentist who, I believe, is still serving. I personally like the idea of uniformity, but Sikhs having uniform modifications don't break my heart. Religious preferences are made for many. Jews are allowed to wear the yamaka in uniform. This isn't new.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google