When religion and school uniform collide

[Sean]

To me, it largely depends on the goals of these school policies, and the nature of the item in question. Typically, policies such as this are aimed at things like helping keep student's focus on education rather than fashion, social standing, etc. Nothing about these typical goals is served by forcing a student to break their religious traditions.

In this particular case though, it's an issue of a piece of jewelry that little Sarika says is simply "important to her". It's not a piece of traditional garb that's required by her religion or anything like that. To me, that doesn't necessarily warrant changing the policy to suit her. If it being "important to her" is enough to justify it, then why can't another student wear jewelry that their father gave them as a gift because it's "important" to them, or that they inherited from a dead Grandmother because it's "important" to them, or a "lucky" ring or something because it's "important" to them?

That's my personal opinion on it.

[dubman]

stupid rules beget stupid problems

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Sean

It's not a piece of traditional garb that's required by her religion or anything like that.

In this case, it is. Sikhism requires adherence to the five k's (articles of faith), one of which is wearing this iron bracelet, the kara. In that sense, it's more tied up with her [parentally-imposed] religion than, say, a Christian using their faith to justify why they should wear a small crucifix, or a Muslim wearing a hijab, neither of which are required in the Bible/Quran. That's how I understand it anyway.

For me, the silliness of it all is exposed by the fact that the other four k's of Sikhism require the carrying of a strapped blade, uncut hair tied back with a kanga (wooden comb), and "special underpants". Well we can only speculate about that one, but the first three clearly haven't been adhered to. I think that kind of calls into question the argument about this bracelet being that important, and really we're left with the argument of freedom of expression and of the rights and wrongs of school uniform in general.

Because in all honesty, I can't help but wonder if she would have been quite so eager to fight for her right to wear a religious symbol if that symbol happened to be, shall we say, less 'cool' (e.g. a 1950's beige cardigan, thick-rimmed spectacles, a red comedy nose.... )

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Deckard

a red comedy nose.... )

Or a brown one if you're with the right party.

ba-dumb-bump, pisssSS.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

In this case, it is. Sikhism requires adherence to the five k's (articles of faith), one of which is wearing this iron bracelet, the kara. In that sense, it's more tied up with her [parentally-imposed] religion than, say, a Christian using their faith to justify why they should wear a small crucifix, or a Muslim wearing a hijab, neither of which are required in the Bible/Quran. That's how I understand it anyway.

For me, the silliness of it all is exposed by the fact that the other four k's of Sikhism require the carrying of a strapped blade, uncut hair tied back with a kanga (wooden comb), and "special underpants". Well we can only speculate about that one, but the first three clearly haven't been adhered to. I think that kind of calls into question the argument about this bracelet being that important, and really we're left with the argument of freedom of expression and of the rights and wrongs of school uniform in general.

Because in all honesty, I can't help but wonder if she would have been quite so eager to fight for her right to wear a religious symbol if that symbol happened to be, shall we say, less 'cool' (e.g. a 1950's beige cardigan, thick-rimmed spectacles, a red comedy nose.... )

Yeah, you know this one's tough for me to nail down exactly where I stand on it. Normally, I'm all for supporting people's right to wear the traditional garb that comes along with their religion, but given the details of the article and what you just outlined as the other of the "four k" elements, this seems somewhere on the fence between religious tradition and fashion to me. I lean towards saying it shouldn't be allowed in fairness to all the other students who aren't allowed to wear jewelry, but I don't know.

But she is a girl, so maybe we can just all agree that this was clearly a misogynistic policy from the school and move on.

[Deckard]

Yes I've got several conflicting views about this too, that's why I was interested to hear what people here thought.

Originally Posted by Sean

But she is a girl, so maybe we can just all agree that this was clearly a misogynistic policy from the school and move on.

Haha, I can't believe you just said that!

[dubman]

Originally Posted by Sean

But she is a girl, so maybe we can just all agree that this was clearly a misogynistic policy from the school and move on.

I WILL SLAY YOU

no but in all seriousness the problem lies with the school that made the restrictions in the first place. i used to go to a private school with uniforms and all. if you needed to wear a religious item that was just fine. the emphasis was that you have an identity with the school and that if there was a distinction, it lay within yourself (and also they anted you to learn how to look/feel 'proper'). and yeah, it was all bullcrap kinda, but jewelry wasnt banned, because that wasnt the spirit of the rule. they've gotten too specific about garb and it's needlessly stepping on toes for the sake of equality, which isnt equal at all.

which is why i also thought it was a dumb idea when france decided to enact that nation-wide. complete crap.