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
8
7
1
Special operation groups allow exceptions to the rule to further the mission on a routine basis. They allow modified uniforms and the growing of facial hair based on the cultural expectation in their operational theaters.
This is no different. We should welcome this allowance. Who knows how beneficial this man may be to our military going forward. We need to start being more open to beneficial change instead of resisting it because of the 'thats how it used to be' mentality.
The world is not flat folks. Change your socks, drink some water, and be open to change.
This is no different. We should welcome this allowance. Who knows how beneficial this man may be to our military going forward. We need to start being more open to beneficial change instead of resisting it because of the 'thats how it used to be' mentality.
The world is not flat folks. Change your socks, drink some water, and be open to change.
(8)
(1)
SPC Ryan D.
CMSgt David Allen I wasn't speaking to his value based on the 'beard and turban', rather the fact that people are willing to say no to someone (that could be an amazing leader and asset to our armed forces) based on their appearance. This is called discrimination.
(0)
(0)
CMSgt David Allen
Thanks for the response. I was being a bit facetious in my comment. However, I doubt his service value would be great enough to offset the disruption his appearance would cause in the unit. Let's face reality, our SOFs wear beards to blend in when the mission dictates the necessity. We also recognize the contributions Sikhs have made throughout the years. However, their religious traditions requiring uncut hair, beards and turbans are out of place in our military organizations today. If everyone set their own standards of dress and appearance, we'd end up looking like a band of gypsies instead of a disciplined military force. Thanks for allowing me to express my opinion.
(0)
(1)
(0)
(0)
Sgt Dave Knight
CMSgt David Allen - Since when has freedom been dictated by how "disruptive" something is or isn't? How are turbans, long hair and beards "out of place today" as opposed to pre-1984? It is at the root an issue regarding the free exercise of religion which is protected by the first amendment. From a Libertarian stand-point, is he causing anyone else harm or infringing on the rights of others with his beard, turban, and long hair? Never-mind the fact the standards which prevent Sikhs from serving without special accommodation are only 31 years old.
(0)
(0)
8
7
1
They forbid our troops from saying Jesus' s name out loud in a Christian ceremony or express their beliefs . WTF is wrong with the Pentagon. No Moral, no unit cohesion, no brotherhood can be gained by individualism. I don't get it. Makes me ashamed of what our military has become.
(8)
(1)
SrA (Join to see)
I read it. Not to be rude but for one a Suicide Prevention Training is not a Christian ceremony and though he said he was speaking of his own experience he did it while quoting the bible and speaking of faith. That along with the biblical info on the pamphlet make it seem like he had an ultimatum. Not saying what he did was bad but imagine the s#!+ fit people would have had if it was a Muslim speaking about turning to Allah and quoting the Quran in his time of need?
(1)
(0)
Maj Mike Sciales
The Chaplain forgot his role, he was properly admonished, counseled and is back to work. A non-issue. Here is what the CG said: "Regarding the issue expressed by someone during the class, the role of military chaplains is to serve the religious needs of military members of a unit and their families," Miller said in the statement. "Their role is not to provide religious instruction during non-religious mandatory training classes. Chaplains may appropriately share their personal experiences, but any religious information given by a Chaplain to a military formation should be limited to an orientation of what religious services and facilities are available and how to contact Chaplains of specific faiths." Let's keep moving forward and try to open up our understanding of our evolving DoD,
(1)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
Maj Mike Sciales prior to missions all could say a prayer according to their faith; figure one would get through and given the fact I am here after 6+ close calls it works.
(0)
(0)
Maj Mike Sciales
Prayer is fine. Encouraging people to have faith is fine. This Chaplain went too far and started "religious instruction" and that simply wasn't the place. I'm happy for folks who pray, but we must also respect those who don't subscribe as well.
(0)
(0)
8
7
1
Oh, just a quick note about the Captain pictured here. Army CPT Dr. Kalsi was made the news several years ago when the Army granted him an exception to policy to comply with the Sikh faith. Dr. Kalsi was a medical doctor however, and not a frontline leader of troops. So, yes, the Army has been down this road before, to a point.
(8)
(1)
LTC Paul Labrador
SSG Roger Ayscue - you obviously haven't been around Army doctors very much. Getting them to comply with regs is like herding cats at times.
(5)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
We were also down this road for over 100 years, until the Army revised the religious accommodation guidance in 1984.
(0)
(0)
Maj Mike Sciales
LTC Paul Labrador - I need a doc who can help me. I don't care how they dress or what they look like. I want Hawkeyes, not Frank, you do too.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
This is a smart move. Face it, we don't have a military force today like we did in Vietnam or Korea or WW II. We engage in asymmetrical warfare and we need to develop a robust intelligence system that utilizes our greatest resource -- our incredibly diverse population. We have people from everywhere on the planet and honestly, you just cannot rely on local agents you hire for intel, much better to have your own people on the ground, especially if they are people familiar with the culture and languages. I don't care if he has a beard, so many of our enemies today do and I want a man or woman who looks like them, talks like them, knows them and can operate amongst them and is a US citizen. I'd take working with a smart guy in a beard in a turban over some dumb-ass hillbilly/redneck/ghetto troop who can't understand or speak English and doesn't bother to understand a foreign culture but loves to shoot a rifle. We need smart capable guys, we have plenty of "muscle" already.
(6)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
So Maj Mike Sciales is that Turban made of Kevlar? Dye the beard Light Green and Loam? So Now, it is OK to ditch the Brain Bucket as soo as we ditch the chutes on the DZ and we can go back to Boonie Hats....AWESOME!...NO NO NO.....It is not safe to be in combat without a Brain Bucket...but he has a turban...but I need a.....Oh Shit, I have now gone cross-eyed.
(0)
(0)
Maj Mike Sciales
Steady there. You have to use your imagination about this, but imagine how valuable a troop like him will be for collecting Intel. The Army you recall was a simple place with easily identified enemies. We are long past that. 9-11 was a generation ago and we learned that our "enemy" is not traditional. If we don't develop competent warriors for the new millennium we are screwed. It's ok to look back fondly on the Army of old, but too many people stare and forget we are in the business of preparing for the next war and the next enemy.
(0)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
Sir, I concur totally that we have to adapt. Sir I am not trying to be insulting either in this thread or the one above this where you and I are conversing. I Get it..Smart guy, good source of intel, on it there. Been to too many countries that I did not understand the language...I get it...
But understand my point. From the point of view of the common Soldier. We have these standards for a reason. We have been taught it for decades, when Soldiers ask why every NATO Army we are allied with can have a beard but we can not, it was always because of the Protective Mask...So was that a very convenient lie, to keep the kids pacified because some General someplace did not like beards? No matter. No one cares. It is Politically Correct America right now. So do we let in Obese people because they are patriotic and can sit at a keyboard and fly a drone even if they can not meet any other standard, all because their body may have hormone problems? See this works both ways. The trans sexual that has to take hormones for life to maintain the transition and can not stop without serious problems to health, but can deploy to combat, and get captured and then revert to what? The North Koreans are real understanding about stuff like this when they are pulling out your fingernails.
Major, I agree we need to prepare for the next war. My son and daughter are BOTH Cadets, as both I and my wife are veterans. We are a service family, far back as anyone can remember, and I fear for the Army my son wants to serve in. I have told him to try for the Ranger Battalion or Long Range Surveillance Units because they will have standards and without standards lots of people die. I don't want to see a single flag draped coffin because we had to be Politically Correct.
But understand my point. From the point of view of the common Soldier. We have these standards for a reason. We have been taught it for decades, when Soldiers ask why every NATO Army we are allied with can have a beard but we can not, it was always because of the Protective Mask...So was that a very convenient lie, to keep the kids pacified because some General someplace did not like beards? No matter. No one cares. It is Politically Correct America right now. So do we let in Obese people because they are patriotic and can sit at a keyboard and fly a drone even if they can not meet any other standard, all because their body may have hormone problems? See this works both ways. The trans sexual that has to take hormones for life to maintain the transition and can not stop without serious problems to health, but can deploy to combat, and get captured and then revert to what? The North Koreans are real understanding about stuff like this when they are pulling out your fingernails.
Major, I agree we need to prepare for the next war. My son and daughter are BOTH Cadets, as both I and my wife are veterans. We are a service family, far back as anyone can remember, and I fear for the Army my son wants to serve in. I have told him to try for the Ranger Battalion or Long Range Surveillance Units because they will have standards and without standards lots of people die. I don't want to see a single flag draped coffin because we had to be Politically Correct.
(0)
(0)
Maj Mike Sciales
I appreciate your clarification and I fully understand and appreciate standards - but all rules need a reason. We change uniforms as new information about design, soldier needs and the like come to us. We adapt.and modify to improve performance. When we needed bodies used to take guys without a HS diploma, but now we don't. You mentioned fitness - that is a job requirement so it's valid. However, debate continues over the best way to "measure" fitness. Once a year test? Once a month? Does the test accurately reflect that a soldier is fully mission capable? Same for hair standards. In the 70s hair regs were different. Every 10 years you see styles changing so nothing stays the same as when we were young troops and the same way, we still have to adjust to a changing world. The military of today is way more diverse than ever. If we want to keep hair short and folks clean shaven there should be a reason beyond "looks professional." We just cannot reject change, it isn't healthy.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Religious accomidations have been around for quite sometime. As long as he abides by the accomidations that are provided there is nothing wrong. We allow troops to walk around with Shaving Waivers for no reason, but laziness, and people are up in arms over this? Yes, I know there are some troops that need shaving waivers.
(6)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
An yet there are still people who are Rastafarian who are forced to cut their hair
(0)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
Rastafarians? Are they allowed to use Ganja as part of their religious ceremonies?
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
MAJ (Join to see)
Actually they can seal their mask. If they fail to do so that's a problem without exceptions.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
Other:
1. Build regulations (grooming, uniformity, weapon carrying) based on combat instead of unnecessary tradition.
2. Enforce the regulations.
There are other posts on beards on RP where I've said the same. Same goes for headgear, hair length and carrying knives at all times. Personally I don't see why we can't permit men or women Christian, Sikh or atheist to grow Spartan top knots, rich beards and carry Xiphos on their flaks. Or not. Unlike physical fitness standards or the contents of your medkit or the pattern of your cammies, these do not have combat applications.
1. Build regulations (grooming, uniformity, weapon carrying) based on combat instead of unnecessary tradition.
2. Enforce the regulations.
There are other posts on beards on RP where I've said the same. Same goes for headgear, hair length and carrying knives at all times. Personally I don't see why we can't permit men or women Christian, Sikh or atheist to grow Spartan top knots, rich beards and carry Xiphos on their flaks. Or not. Unlike physical fitness standards or the contents of your medkit or the pattern of your cammies, these do not have combat applications.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
When I first saw this I thought why? I've read numerous comments (definitely not all) and I have a different perspective. His interest is in Military Intelligence, speaks more languages than I ever will and these skills will be an asset. There's precedence as well as a strong cultural service for the Sikhs in support of our nations interests. It just makes sense. Some field officers sported pics proving that beards aren't as detrimental as we've been taught and I've learned about beard friendly protective gear to boot. It's a win win.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Really a Sikh has to sue to join ROTC when Sikhs have served in our military for a long time. Really?
(5)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Seems like a real failure of the ROTC leadership, doesn't it? Especially since the Army just inducted another Sikh into active duty service back in 2010.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
If he loves this country so much as he claims then he would be willing to make the sacrifices that are part of serving in the United States Armed Forces. If he is not willing to cut his hair, shave his face and leave the knife at home and be happy with the one he's issued that he should not be allowed to serve.
I'm all for religious freedom but this is crossing the line between church and state. Plus if you want to join than you know what is required of you and if you can't hack it then you need to find some boy scout outfit to join and leave the military to those of us that are willing to do what it takes.
I'm all for religious freedom but this is crossing the line between church and state. Plus if you want to join than you know what is required of you and if you can't hack it then you need to find some boy scout outfit to join and leave the military to those of us that are willing to do what it takes.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google