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
1
1
0
Yes this is an overreach by the court. In recent years there has been an organized movement to remove religion for the military. My issue with this case is strait up he will be a distraction wherever he goes if you want to serve in the military you do so like everyone else, you cut your hair, shave, and maintain your uniform like everyone else. The military is not the place for special; if you want to be special do something else.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
What I believe is that the Army standards, and requirements are just that. Yes its too far. Call it what you want but yes way too fucking far.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
this is ridiculous. If you can not adhere to the rules and regulations of AR 670-1 then why should we make an exception because of faith. The military as a whole must look uniform and the same, it has nothing to do with religion but everything with rule discipline and regulation. This decision is going way to far and will eventually weaken the force structure. The regulation states the reason why we cannot have beards is it can hinder the way our ppe will fit. If that is true then his beard will get in the way of his gas mask and helmet straps and will become a casualty during an event where he will need a gas mask. This is like saying let a Taliban member in because of religious freedom they have the right to there opinion. what ever happened to being American and protect our interests rather than being weak and politically correct?
(1)
(0)
MSG Reid Stone
And during all those yrs in Iraq and Afghanistan how many Army personnel wore their pro mask?! Many, many times they put them away and US Marines were the ones still wearing theirs while 'outside the wire'. In non field environments the special ops personnel conform and most are pretty sharp in appearance so let them do their jobs whether they are SEALS/Raiders/Green Berets or Air Force personnel.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
If the man can't (or won't) conform to the Army's standards, he is incapable of meeting the requirements. Period. The first duty incumbent upon a leader is to place his mission ahead of himself. Clearly any person who will not conform to rules and regulations is demonstrating their unwillingness to do that.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The uniform standards are clearly spelled out in AR 670-1. Today too many people want to be a part of something but they scream and yell that their rights are being violated by the traditions and standards that have been in place for years. Serving in the United States military is not about any one religion. I had to wear my cross necklace tucked in at all times while I was in uniform. This double standard should not be allowed. This is not a victory for religious freedom and Sikh if you really want to "serve" this country you love so much then show us you can serve for all religions and put on the uniform like everyone else.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I guess he could be an "army of one. " Isn't (part of) the point of standards to ensure uniformity? I am staunch supporter of religious freedom--but serving in the armed forces is not a right. It is a both a privilege and a burden. It would be very different if, say, he were being forcibly drafted. In that case, clearly his religious convictions should be given priority. But in an all-volunteer force?? Doesn't make much sense to me!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I believe that the 51% represented above needs to do some research. Sikhs have served, and served honorably for a century or so in the American Army. Many have made it career and have retired. It is my opinion that this is getting blown out of proportion because of the War on Terror. It's like too many are looking for any reason to stir the pot. This is not an issue of being able to meet combat standards such as sealing a gas mask. This has never been the issue. Overcoming prejudiced is.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
GySgt William Hardy, Gunny you mentioned it,. I'd like to see him get a good seal on any kind of mask. What's he going to do if he does go into combat, and needs a mask?
(0)
(0)
GySgt William Hardy
Sikhs must pass all phases of training. There is no exemption for that. They have successfully used NBC gear, including the gas mask.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
- Soldiers are supposed to nest within the Army culture, not the other way around.
- Courts are supposed to defer to an organization's subject matter expertise unless a law is broken or a defined process is not followed. Neither is true in this case. It is not the place of the court to substitute their own opinion for the organization's.
- I have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms but this right is restricted and regulated on most military bases. How is a religious belief to carry a knife greater than a Constitutional right to bear arms? I don't get it.
- Serving within the military is a privilege, not a right. Rights are treated differently within the cour system than are privileges. What this court did is essentially to redefine military service as a right. If that is the case then 50 year olds have a right to join the military, physically handicapped people (blind, deaf, etc) have a right to join the military, and convicted felons have a right to join the military.
- I must assume that Judge Amy Berman has previously served in the military since she evidently is such an expert on what does and does not diminish a person's ability to serve.
-
- Courts are supposed to defer to an organization's subject matter expertise unless a law is broken or a defined process is not followed. Neither is true in this case. It is not the place of the court to substitute their own opinion for the organization's.
- I have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms but this right is restricted and regulated on most military bases. How is a religious belief to carry a knife greater than a Constitutional right to bear arms? I don't get it.
- Serving within the military is a privilege, not a right. Rights are treated differently within the cour system than are privileges. What this court did is essentially to redefine military service as a right. If that is the case then 50 year olds have a right to join the military, physically handicapped people (blind, deaf, etc) have a right to join the military, and convicted felons have a right to join the military.
- I must assume that Judge Amy Berman has previously served in the military since she evidently is such an expert on what does and does not diminish a person's ability to serve.
-
(1)
(0)
GySgt William Hardy
Col, why is this an issue now since Sikhs have been allowed to serve for many decades? The judge ruled in the case of a student who wanted to join the ROTC. I cannot prove it, but my guess would be that she researched and found the regulations that allowed for uniform modifications and then made her ruling.
To address your other point, those points do not apply in this discussion. In addition, many "handicapped" people have served after proving they can pass the physical requirements. Did you ever see the movie "Men of Honor"? There are others also. I had retired from military service in the early 1990. After 9/11 I wanted to join up again but I had to care for my elderly father. After he passed away in 2004. I went down to my local National Guard recruiter. He sort of chuckled, but said that if I could pass the physical requirements he would get me back in....I was 55 at the time. I passed the physical and passed the PT test. Shortly afterwards I was back in. I had to give up 2 stripes, but I was back in looking for a tour to Iraq. I was 57 when I entered training for overseas deployment in gun truck security unit. I turned 58 while I was at Camp Taji just outside of Baghdad.
As long as I could meet the physical requirements, why should I not be allowed to serve?
To address your other point, those points do not apply in this discussion. In addition, many "handicapped" people have served after proving they can pass the physical requirements. Did you ever see the movie "Men of Honor"? There are others also. I had retired from military service in the early 1990. After 9/11 I wanted to join up again but I had to care for my elderly father. After he passed away in 2004. I went down to my local National Guard recruiter. He sort of chuckled, but said that if I could pass the physical requirements he would get me back in....I was 55 at the time. I passed the physical and passed the PT test. Shortly afterwards I was back in. I had to give up 2 stripes, but I was back in looking for a tour to Iraq. I was 57 when I entered training for overseas deployment in gun truck security unit. I turned 58 while I was at Camp Taji just outside of Baghdad.
As long as I could meet the physical requirements, why should I not be allowed to serve?
(1)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
GySgt Hardy,
- Sikhs may have been allowed to serve for many decades but have they been allowed to not comply with Army Regulations as seems to be the point of this case? If they have been then it begs the question of why this case went to court in the first place.
- Yes I have seen "Men of Honor" but you are comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference between allowing someone who does not meet physical standards to join the military (thus we have not yet commited resources to train and educate this person) versus allowing someone to remain in the military (such as the case in the movie) for whom the military has already invested several years and a large amount of resources into. Goes to basic cost benefit analysis (CBA) and return on investment (ROI) analysis.
- As far as your specific case of age and physical requirements, that goes to a supply and demand issue in combination with CBA and ROI analysis. The supply was low and the demand for personnel was high in 2004. I can write with a high degree of confidence that the current high supply and low demand would mean that you would not be assessed into any component of the Army in 2015.
- More specifically and in other words, the Army will have a higher probability of an ROI with a 20 year old than a 55 year old. Plus the costs of medical care will be generally higher for a 55 year old than for a 20 year old. If the supply is high and the demand is low then it only makes business sense for the Army to accept in the 20 year old and not the 55 year old.
- Sikhs may have been allowed to serve for many decades but have they been allowed to not comply with Army Regulations as seems to be the point of this case? If they have been then it begs the question of why this case went to court in the first place.
- Yes I have seen "Men of Honor" but you are comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference between allowing someone who does not meet physical standards to join the military (thus we have not yet commited resources to train and educate this person) versus allowing someone to remain in the military (such as the case in the movie) for whom the military has already invested several years and a large amount of resources into. Goes to basic cost benefit analysis (CBA) and return on investment (ROI) analysis.
- As far as your specific case of age and physical requirements, that goes to a supply and demand issue in combination with CBA and ROI analysis. The supply was low and the demand for personnel was high in 2004. I can write with a high degree of confidence that the current high supply and low demand would mean that you would not be assessed into any component of the Army in 2015.
- More specifically and in other words, the Army will have a higher probability of an ROI with a 20 year old than a 55 year old. Plus the costs of medical care will be generally higher for a 55 year old than for a 20 year old. If the supply is high and the demand is low then it only makes business sense for the Army to accept in the 20 year old and not the 55 year old.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
GySgt William Hardy - Also, why would the ROTC detachment deny this guy, when the active duty Army is allowing Sikhs to serve, with beard and turbans?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I can't believe this is even an argument. Who cares if he has a beard? Who cares about "bending the rules"? I'll tell you who, people who like being in other people's business because it makes them feel important. People who don't use logic or facts or know the true history of the army outside of the romantic version you hear about at official functions. Guess what the army has always been changing. Guess what beards are allowed in the majority of world militarys and are a part of our military tradition for the majority of our history. If you think beards are allowed for SOF because it helps them blend in you are stupid. Grow a beard look in the mirror and guess what you won't look like a pashtun. If you think you can't have a beard because of CBRN threats you are dumb because I don't even have a gas mask issued to me to put on and a gas mask does not seal on your flipping face any way.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google