Sunday, March 18, 2012

Hijab Discrimination under a Different Name


             Discrimination is a reality of societies unfortunately. People discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, and nation, among other factors. In this essay, I will write about the religious discrimination that a Muslim woman named Hani Khan experienced in San Francisco. This incident was discussed in the USAToday by Marisol Bello. Khan was a student, and she worked for three months in a clothing store as a stockroom clerk. Her supervisors offered her two options. Either she could remove her headscarf, known as a hijab, or she would be fired from her job, even though she wears the hijab as a religious observance. Eventually she refused to remove her scarf, and she was fired. Khan filed a federal job discrimination complaint against the company. Bello explains that "She (Khan) is among a growing number of Muslim women filing complaints of discrimination at work, in businesses or in airports." In fact, according to the news, in 2009, 425 Muslim women filed workplace discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These complaints were dismissed or resolved through mediation and lawsuit. 


            In this incident, the most important thing was that Khan's scarf became a problem for the company in view not because it was an Islamic observance, but because her wearing of the headscarf violated the company's "look policy" according to the company. "The policy instructs employees on clothing, hairstyles, makeup and accessories they may wear to work."


            My purpose in this essay is to ask a question: Is there a law which cannot be interpreted by different ways? Is there a law that everyone infers from this law the same meaning? I think definitely not. For example, everyone knows that in the United States religious discrimination is prohibited. However, the conception of discrimination is being interpreted by people. In this incident, the company claimed that it was not discriminating, but was only carrying out its policy about workers’ appearance. Furthermore, there is a similar issue between Bob Jones University and the International Revenue Service. Since the sponsors of the university believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage, they apply some rules on enrollment to the university. They follow their faith but the IRS considered these rules as racial discrimination.

           In addition, especially after 9/11, the United States developed a security policy which generally is intended to target Muslims. For example, in American airports Muslim women often have to remove their hijab, or have to undergo extra security checks. Nobody knows why security officers have to check Muslim women multiple times. Either they think that even though all Muslims are not terrorists, all terrorists are Muslim, or they do not have such a prejudice and their purpose is only security issues. It is very difficult to determine in these kinds of cases whether the company is actually enforcing its workplace appearance policy or if it is in fact discriminating on the basis of religion. However, when I look at the result of the issue, I can see that a woman is prevented to get her scarf freely. If a Muslim woman has to remove her headscarf, how can the laws found neutrality or equality among citizens?  Is not it a kind of discrimination?   


            Finally, I offered here an example of religious discrimination which was carried out for another reason, the appearance policy of a company. There should be a way to prevent the using of such reasons. No company does have a right to determine a policy which causes a kind of discrimination because human rights are more important than companies' or countries' policies. Otherwise, every time people may be undergone such discriminations by different reasons. What is the cause of such a conflict, the structure of laws which is proper to be interpreted differently, or there is not sufficient and explicit clauses to stop these kinds of interpretations?

8 comments:

kathryn y. said...

This is an interesting case that you bring up. It causes me to wonder how religious exemptions work in such a work environment. I worry because with United States being the diverse nation that it is, should be more aware of certain religious traditions practiced by various traditions. I would like to see the company directly pin point to where in the dress code is says that hijab's are not allowed. In cases such as these, the distinction of where to draw the line becomes quite blurred. By discriminating against one's religious tradition to wear the hijab is wrong, but the messiness of religious exemption is also brought forth.

Aanal P. said...

This case is very intriguing because there isn't a clear solution. Many similar cases have occurred in public schools where students have been required to remove head-dresses which have been deemed disruptive to the learning environment, namely religious head-dresses. There have been several cases concerning hijabs themselves. In my opinion, as we have often discussed in class, religion definitely holds a special place. There should be an exemption for religion in not only all public places regulated by the government, but even in privately regulated places like certain workplaces and private schools. I don’t know if Hani Khan worked at a private company or not, but even then, there should be an exemption for religious head-dresses such as hijabs. She has as much right to wear a hijab and anyone else who has a right not to. The reasons that the government observes certain rules and regulations for religion, should also be observed by privately owned companies for the same reasons. Hani khan has a right to wear her hijab, especially because it has to do with religion.

Catherine S said...

My concern with this issue is that the company knew when they hired the woman that she wore the hijab. Why then, three months later, do they have an issue? I wonder if a customer complained and that is the reason for the company's sudden concern. Unless their dress code distinctly says something regarding religious headgear, I believe the company is out of line.

Angela S. said...

According to another article I found the woman was hired by the location that she worked in and that when the district manager saw her he insisted she be fired because the dress code bans the wearing of any head coverings.

I am a bit on the fence with this case. On the one hand I am opposed to discrimination which I think is clearly going on here. On the other hand we do have exemptions in our law already that allow companies like movie studios to discriminate. It makes sense to most of us that movie studios can discriminate though since after all it would not make a very good serious movie to have Sean Connery playing Marilyn Monroe. By the same token they would not have to hire a woman that wore the headscarf to play a 1950s housewife. This situation I think steers very close to that. Hollister Co. has a specific look that they want their employs to have and she violated it, but how far should they legally be allowed to push that is what I do not know.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/5208642/Muslim-woman-sues-clothing-retailer

joycek said...

Is it possible that the employer simply does not understand the purpose of the hijab – that the woman is expressing her personal and ethical view of Islam - that this is a choice and commitment made by her? Surely she wore the hijab at the job interview. I don’t know why the employer is now addressing this. This is disturbing that the employer does not understand that asking her to remove it would be a violation of this woman’s understanding of Islam as well as prohibiting free exercise of religion. Wearing a scarf is not an imposition to society.

Sachin G said...

I sympathize with muslim women being discriminated in the US. But i do not agree with their anger,and instead i agree with the company policy that there is a way to dress up at work, and it must be followed. Is religion more important or work? In my opinion, work is more important. Work feeds your family and lifestyle while religion gives you an identity. I think people should leave their religion home, when they go to work. Because we all should work as AMERICANS, rather than Muslim or Christians or protestants. If it was my company, i would have done the same thing. If Muslim women have a right to wear hijab under religious freedom, then the private companies also have a right to fire, for no reason, under the laws of capitalism.

Charlesha L. said...

I strongly agree with Catherine's comment. I too feel like the company only changed their interest in Khan's hijab on a discriminatory basis. Without details on what occurred during Khans employment i can only suspect that something changed in the atmosphere. One of which i believe to be lack of sales or customer approval of her appearance.The company is claiming appearance policy but discrimination is apparant.

jacobr said...

I really enjoyed reading this blog and I understand and agree with many aspects of the author’s argument. Religious profiling is an ineffective policing tool due to the negative side effects of polarizing segments of society. Government derives its power from the people and if a government uses that power and/or authority to infringe upon the liberties of its citizens, such a government runs the risk of losing its legitimacy.