16-year old disqualified for wearing her hijab

In October, news broke out that a 16-year old Muslim student was disqualified in a high school cross-country race for wearing her hijab. Noor Alexandria Abukaram had just set a personal record when she was notified that she was disqualified. She spoke with media news outlets and informed them that she had competed in 6 other meets in that season without a problem. Meet officials informed Abukaram after the meet that her coach did not sign the waiver that would allow her to wear her hijab during the race. When speaking to the media, Abukaram expressed that she was not upset that her coach didn’t sign the waiver, but rather why the waiver was needed in the first place. She also expressed how upset she was that she was expected to choose between her faith and a sport she enjoys saying “I feel like my rights as an athlete were violated this weekend. ....I should not have to get a waiver signed and approved by OSAA to allow me to race due to my religious head covering.” Abukaram even garnered support from presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren who said the dress codes were discriminatory and that she fully supported Abukaram.

This case would represent a burden on the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, which states that individuals have the right to freely exercise their religion. In the context of this story, that would mean that Abukaram would have the right to wear her hijab. Although not the same in detail, in Sherbert v. Verner, the court sided with the Seventh Day Adventist plaintiff that asked for employment accommodations to align with her religious practices. Similarly, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the court ruled with the Amish community and allowed them to not be forced to have their children attend school until the lawful age. In both of these cases, the courts ruled in favor of the religious person/group because the free exercise of that person/group outweighed society’s benefits. In both cases, the religious individual/group wanted an exception to the norm and was granted that exception because of the Free Exercise Clause. In this scenario, Abukaram is not asking for an exception but rather an expulsion of the rule altogether because of its negative implications. With Sherbert v. Verner setting the precedent for how the court rules on Free Exercise cases, if this story was brought to the supreme court, it would most likely be ruled in Abukaram’s favor.

Some may associate this case with Goldman v. Weinberger where the court ruled that the United States Air Force did not violate the First Amendment right to free exercise when it did not allow an Orthodox Jew to wear his head covering. The court stated that the overall societal interest in creating uniformity within the military outweigh the benefits of his First Amendment right to free exercise. However, it is worth noting that in 1987, congress actually repealed that ruling and the United States military now allows military members to wear religious head coverings as to comply with the Free Exercise Clause. Based on this precedent, I believe that the court would again rule in favor of Abukaram, especially since there is no greater societal interest in having religious individuals fill out a waiver to wear a head covering for a race.

I have many issues with this incident. First off, the article gave no reference to why there was a policy for headwear during races in the first place. I understand the want/need for uniformity and making sure that some headwear does not give a competitor some unfair advantage, however the explicit need was not addressed. Additionally, the benefit of having uniformity amongst the runners does not outweigh the Free Exercise clause. This was a race, it is not as if it is the military wear health and national security is dependent on uniformity like in Goldman v. Weinberger.

In addition to the unnecessary waiver, the rule itself although facially neutral is not neutral in practice. It is facially neutral in the sense that any runner that wants to wear a head covering during the race has to fill out the waiver, regardless of whether or not the head covering is for religious or secular purposes, however, it specifically targets minority religious communities. Many denominations of Christianity, the majority in America, do not wear head coverings. Therefore, this rule would not inconvenience them in any way. However, other minority religious groups such as Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs have a religious duty to wear some sort of head covering. This waiver presents an unnecessary burden on individuals that were religious head garments. This rule specifically targets those individuals and makes them go through unnecessary policies in order to participate in the race. It puts their religious viewpoints up for judgment and ridicule and if not completed, it disqualifies them in a race. This presents even less neutrality as the runners must now go through different processes to participate.

There is a clear and purposeful reason for having the competitors fill out waivers for parental permission, health actions, safety concerns, etc., however, there is not a strong enough reason to subject religious minority children to unnecessary checks in order for them to be a qualified competitor. I do not think this is a case of complete restriction on the Free Exercise Clause because of the fact that students still have an opportunity to participate in the race, if they sign and submit the waiver, however, I do think that the rule is distasteful and should be reexamined for its significance, as it promotes unnecessary burden on those students. The law does discriminate against minority religions that wear head coverings and in order for the rule to not simply be facially neutral, the eradication of the waiver/rule must happen.