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
1
1
0
It should be left up to the joint chiefs not to politicians or for that matter appointed/elected judges.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Well, the Army allowed two Sikhs to commission back in 2010...so really, this is dragging the ROTC detachment into line with current Army practice.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Lt Col (Join to see)
So...was allowing other members of his religion to serve on active duty also an act of political correctness? Or is the court merely making ROTC follow the same guidelines already set out by the Army?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125142736
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125142736
(1)
(0)
SGT Robert Hawks
Was unaware that the Army ever allowed turbans. I went to basic in June 1984 and served till March 1997. Never once heard of it ever so I stand corrected.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SGT Robert Hawks, look it up Sikh have served since WWI. I served from 1974-2015 and yes I saw Sikhs, I guess is a more about where you served.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
In my opinion, definitely went way too far. Our rules and policies have been in place far to long to start bending and breaking them now. Reguardless of the flac I receive, I would not serve with this individual. WE ARE STILL AMERICA, at least for now!
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
You are correct...we are America, the melting pot, a country with express and specific prohibitions on requiring any kind of religious test for public office, including the military.
Also, if you are unwilling to serve with this cadet, it may be time to get out...because there are already members of his faith on active duty.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125142736
Also, if you are unwilling to serve with this cadet, it may be time to get out...because there are already members of his faith on active duty.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125142736
(0)
(0)
SFC Collin McMillion
I am out, for a long time now, but I still miss active duty. What I don't miss is all the exceptions being made to the rules of the military I loved and shed blood for. We are not a melting pot, we have become a witches' cauldron.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The military has had restrictions since day one. Height,weight,disabilities,etc.These restrictions are for the welfare of all service personel.Either you have a rule for all,or you have no rule. I, for one ,am very disappointed with our military.We have removed ourselves from being an elite force to be reckoned with ,to a catch all club.This is not about an accepted religion.This is about every body gets a trophy.Next we will only take in people that eat liver. That immediately washes me out.I mean no disrespect,but it has to stop somewhere. I don`t want to be in a firefight and look around and my battle buddy is rubbing his elbows with dirt because it`s his religion.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Love how the army is becoming do what ever the fuck you want....soooo happy im a veteran......
(1)
(0)
SPC Larry Boutwell
All im saying is that we all know the army is reactive... Not proactive.... Meaning... The regulation s in place....for the most part have a really good reason for being there....
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I will say that the court went too far. So now every single person who has a religious, sexual, or other type of need will be given their preferences?
This is not conducive to good order and discipline because your saying that if you have a proven difference you can behave according to your preferences rather than the rules and regulations of the service.
While I do respect everyone's personal ideologies, they also have to respect military rules and regulations if they desire to serve.
This is not conducive to good order and discipline because your saying that if you have a proven difference you can behave according to your preferences rather than the rules and regulations of the service.
While I do respect everyone's personal ideologies, they also have to respect military rules and regulations if they desire to serve.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The best way in my opinion to settle most of if not all these issues is to keep sending "these people" to the chamber so they understand why we have rules in place. You can't properly seal a mask with a beard.
(1)
(0)
Maj Mike Sciales
And if that becomes a real concern I'll bet you a dollar they'll shave, in the meanwhile they harm nothing except individual notions of grooming regs.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Glenn Boucher
With all due respect the ability to seal a gas mask with a beard is a weak argument. For many years previously military members had beards, and successfully participated in fire fighting while wearing the old OBA, even our Special Forces wear full beards during operations and deployments, its not like they are shaving quickly if they have to don a gas mask.
In my opinion its just plain wrong for a civilian judge to rule on this because the military is unique and we have to maintain good order and discipline.
And yes I do know that there are many allowances for someone to wear their religious devices and stay within regulations.
Personally I find it odd that a beard would define your religious beliefs. Just my opinion though.
In my opinion its just plain wrong for a civilian judge to rule on this because the military is unique and we have to maintain good order and discipline.
And yes I do know that there are many allowances for someone to wear their religious devices and stay within regulations.
Personally I find it odd that a beard would define your religious beliefs. Just my opinion though.
(3)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
PO1 Glenn Boucher - There are a lot of religious beliefs I find odd...but that doesn't mean I'm going to prevent someone from having them.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The first Amendment protects the right of the individual to practice their religion. However in the military community the rights of the individual are second to the fundamental requirement for obedience and discipline. This is the concept that the "needs of service" are greater than the "desires and interests of the individual". The Department of Defense already has a Religious Accommodations Policy and the short answer given those guidelines is that, "A request for religious accommodations should be approved unless it interferes with the mission." Regulations: Directive 1300.17, February 10, 2009.
British Army examines plans to create a Sikh regiment
Armed Forces minister Mark Francois says unit would inherit many of the 'proud traditions of Sikh regiments' from the Army's past
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Now what worries me most is that a court said what would impact military readiness. He should of went threw the normal waver process and left it in normal channels or conformed to army standards. The courts are not in a position to determine military readiness and military standards.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
He tried to go the normal process, but ROTC leadership fought him...despite the fact that active duty Sikhs are already serving with the same accommodations that this student was requesting. I think the fault lies with ROTC leadership for not adopting the same stance as Army leadership.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The military has these rules and regulations for a reason so lets see how smug he is in the gas chamber. This is another throat punch to the military lets beat up on select groups while doing stupid things for others. And worse this person knows he should not be there in way he is a joke and he should be ashamed
(1)
(0)
MSG Greg Kelly
Sir: Its not a question of if someone is a good person or not I am sure this young man maybe a fine up standing man, and the soldiers in the pictures are fine men for serving. And it is not the facial hair I myself had grown facial hair overseas. 1. Its the way it was done I cannot get my way so I will run the court system and stomp my feet. Every service member knows they give up many if not most of their personal rights to serve period. 2. In a time when certain groups are under fire in the military this young man claims racial and religious freedom is why he must keep his turban and facial hair. This is another case of the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And he should be ashamed he is under handed and has no honor he already has proven he is not willing to sacrifice of himself for the greater good and he wants to be a leader No Sir! I call BS. But no matter how I write this or try to explain it someone will think I am picking on him and that is not the case it all comes down to this is the military not a social club, college or any other group there are rules and they must be followed. Exceptions are done individual bases. Not because some civilian judge says do it the military has its own judges.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
I agree...it isn't about being a good person. You posited that the reason we should not allow beards was because of the seal on the gas mask. My retort is that of all soldiers, these guys (well, perhaps not the chaplain) are the closest to the front lines, and the most likely to get gassed...do we see anyone panicking about their gas mask fits? We do not.
You have clearly gone from "gas mask fit" to "everyone must look the way I think a soldier should look", even though the Army clearly has guidelines for religious accommodations and has made them in the past for other Sikhs. The prohibition on turbans and beards is relatively new, starting only in 1984...the last Sikh still serving when that guideline came out retired, with turban and beard, in 2009...then the Army revisited its decision and commissioned two officers in 2010, with turban and beard.
Would you give up your own religious convictions to serve?
You have clearly gone from "gas mask fit" to "everyone must look the way I think a soldier should look", even though the Army clearly has guidelines for religious accommodations and has made them in the past for other Sikhs. The prohibition on turbans and beards is relatively new, starting only in 1984...the last Sikh still serving when that guideline came out retired, with turban and beard, in 2009...then the Army revisited its decision and commissioned two officers in 2010, with turban and beard.
Would you give up your own religious convictions to serve?
(1)
(0)
MSG Greg Kelly
I am sure not giving up my beliefs was ever on my mind as a leader Sir. I will say I think I was very lucky as a young soldier and child. My step dad was a Marine and all of the leaders I decided emulate were very good men. Without sounding like I am able to walk on water LOL. I learned early you can lead soldiers based on fact and leave my religion and politics out of it. When soldiers would approach me about issues like those I handled what I could or sent them to Chaplain or who ever. I am sure my beliefs influenced my problem solving skills but I never spoke of my personal beliefs that I can recall. I did have three times when things got strange when a soldier had a clearly racial Tat and I told him do not ever remove his T-shirt again I talked to my higher about it and took it from there. Another soldier I caught in the barracks recruiting for a radical political group that one I did not wait it went to the CO. Another soldier told me he did not believe in God so did he have to lower his head for the Chaplain. I told him of course not just stand there you do not have pray there are others that don't. But saying all that I think yes I would and I did while I was in. I think to be an effective leader you cannot bring your personal beliefs into an already complex situation.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google