A test of tolerance

Hi Zeb,
Firing a single employee 'at will,' while possible in many cases, was not the topic of this thread. Nor was 'right to work.' The 'teachers with a veil' problem could not be addressed with 'at will' firing--i.e. anyone who shows up in a veil is 'at will' fired.

Wikipedia has a decent article on the topic and cites the following paper, which is a good one. One of the three major types of exceptions is where there are considerations of 'public policy.' This obtains in 43 states. It says, basically that an employer cannot fire an employee if it would go against stated public policy (e.g. in laws, etc.)


The narrower ground of 'good faith dealing' is available in only 11 states.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

Darkniciad said:

If the person being fired is in any way different from the employer ( race, color, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. ), you can rest assured that a discrimination case could easily be brought and likely won against the employer. Those state laws don't trump federal anti-discrimination legislation.

...

Click to expand...

Why would the difference between me (the employer) and the employee have anything to do with the matter.

If I have seven muslims working for me and I fire one but keep the others then where is the problem. If I have 1,000 employee's of diverse ethinic backgrounds and fire one person, where is the problem.

At will employment, which is the common law in the US, although it had come under fire back in the '80s, means:

If I fire an employee without giving a reason then I, as the employer, am covered under the most "At Will Acts" in the US. If I give a reason then all bets are off.

Zeb_Carter said:

An individual can be let go (fired) for no reason at all. If you have a reason, like...you don't like the person, the person is an idiot, the person smells, the attire of the person is never appropriate for the work place, etc. ad nausism, you don't have to say why. As long as you(employer) keep your mouth shut about why there will be no problem.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, if I suspect I was fired because of my age, my religion, my race, etc. and can convince a judge or jury that was the case, then you've discriminated against me and broken the law.

The mere threat of such a lawsuit and the expense you'll have to go through to defend yourself against those charges is enough to make employers very cautious about letting people go now, at least in big corporations with deep pockets.

Pure said:

Hi Zeb,
Firing a single employee 'at will,' while possible in many cases, was not the topic of this thread. Nor was 'right to work.' The 'teachers with a veil' problem could not be addressed with 'at will' firing--i.e. anyone who shows up in a veil is 'at will' fired.

Wikipedia has a decent article on the topic and cites the following paper, which is a good one. One of the three major types of exceptions is where there are considerations of 'public policy.' This obtains in 43 states. It says, basically that an employer cannot fire an employee if it would go against stated public policy (e.g. in laws, etc.)


The narrower ground of 'good faith dealing' is available in only 11 states.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

Click to expand...

No the topic of the thread was "A Test of Tolerance".

zeb,

as i said (see the paper), while full protection [requirment of fairness] is only available in 11 states, protection based on the 'public policy' exception exists in 43 states. you don't say your state, so i can't tell its category.

dr_mabeuse said:

On the other hand, if I suspect I was fired because of my age, my religion, my race, etc. and can convince a judge or jury that was the case, then you've discriminated against me and broken the law.

The mere threat of such a lawsuit and the expense you'll have to go through to defend yourself against those charges is enough to make employers very cautious about letting people go now, at least in big corporations with deep pockets.

Click to expand...

And since 1999 the courts have sided with the Employer in most case of "At Will" firings.

to mab and sub joe,

i hear your points and they have much weight.

But the reductio ad absurdum of complete social tolerance is admitting into your country people who intend to usurp its cultural and political values - in other words, standing by and not only allowing a non-military invasion, but virtually encouraging it.

i'm not sure what this means, 'usurp.' 'replace'? how about 'reject': should an Amish person be denied immigration to the US because s/he 'rejects' some American values? which cultural and political values are you talking? just those about violence, or every single mark of the American Way?

it would seem like 'abiding by the law' is an adequate criterion for admission

Sub Joe,
I hear you, and i note that your mom failed in her effort. The Hasidim got their 'eruv.' This was, i suspect, some time ago. IOW, a 'right' [to have a hasidic community] was recognized.

I don't know a lot about British law, but 'multiculturalism' is some element of it. Returning to the case of the US. If a Hasidic person wants to immigrate and plans to join that community and obey the US law, I don't see how or why they should be excluded.

The 'values' thing raised by 'mab' is just too amorphous. What about a group who says, 'women should [almost always] marry and be mothers and [in most cases] stay in the home' (Xtian or Jewish or muslim); AND this is endorsed by its women. Can the immigration officer, according to you and mab ask a (prospective) immigrant,

Off:"Do you belong to a group requiring women to marry and stay at home as mothers?"

Imm: "Yes."

O:"Well that's not the British Way [or the American Way]"

{Actually it WAS A way of some Brits and Americans.

Let's continue the dialogue:}

Imm "Doesn't the British [American] Way involve adults being able to make choices, e.g. belong to or join groups, in cluding religious ones, as they please? (providing the group obeys the laws)"

O: "Yes."

Imm "Well, I am an Hasidic [Amish; fundamentalist] woman and I plan to exercize that choice."

O "But that choice is oppressive. How about your daughter?"

Imm "Does not the British Way involve parents choices about values to teach, or is it that the parents must teach 'government' or 'official' values as in Russia and China?"

O: "Parents have freedom regarding values taught, within the child welfare laws."

Imm "Well I choose, as a woman, to teach marriage and mother centred values to my daughter, and i don't think her 'welfare' will at all be an issue. She will not be beaten or neglected. When she is 18 she can leave the community, if she wants; she won't be chained there."

angela146 said:

Bad example, in fact it illustrates the reverse. Doctors and nurses wear face masks quite often when dealing with patients. They learn to communicate extremely well. Surgeons wear masks all the time when doing their work when efficient error-free communication is vital. In fact, I would prefer that a doctor wear a mask *more often* so that she isn't breathing all sorts of nasty stuff all over me that she just picked up from another patient (like, for example, influenza).

If the issue is communication, then require the teacher to be able to communicate. BTW: if she's been wearing the thing for many years, she has probably gotten pretty good at communicating with her face covered.A big company has a right to project it's own corporate culture *to some extent*. Schools, on the other hand, have a responsibility to expose students to other cultures.

Click to expand...

CharleyH said:

Why would you need to see a teachers or nurses face? You don't exactly require one or even deliver your real face here on Lit, but you communicate anyhow and quite well?

Click to expand...

scheherazade_79 said:

If 80% of all communication is non-verbal, then there's no way someone can do an effective job with most of their face covered. Also, what a lot of people don't realise is how many kids there are out there with hearing impediments. You don't notice it, because the majority of them have learned how to lip-read and are reliant on facial expressions.

Click to expand...

I think Scheh has answered these points very well. Communication is not all just words, it's facial expressions as well. It's one of the major reasons autistic children are so difficult to teach; they can't read facial expressions.

Angela has mentioned about face masks in hospitals, but that's only covering a small area of the face at any time. The hijab covers everything but the eyes and even they are veiled. That leaves voice as the only method of communication and, to be honest, for small children, that's not good enough.

Very interested in what everyone's said, especially Joe's perspective on the eruv.

The Earl

Pure said:

i hear your points and they have much weight.

But the reductio ad absurdum of complete social tolerance is admitting into your country people who intend to usurp its cultural and political values - in other words, standing by and not only allowing a non-military invasion, but virtually encouraging it.

i'm not sure what this means, 'usurp.' 'replace'? how about 'reject': should an Amish person be denied immigration to the US because s/he 'rejects' some American values? which cultural and political values are you talking? just those about violence, or every single mark of the American Way?

it would seem like 'abiding by the law' is an adequate criterion for admission

Sub Joe,
I hear you, and i note that your mom failed in her effort. The Hasidim got their 'eruv.' This was, i suspect, some time ago. IOW, a 'right' [to have a hasidic community] was recognized.

I don't know a lot about British law, but 'multiculturalism' is some element of it. Returning to the case of the US. If a Hasidic person wants to immigrate and plans to join that community and obey the US law, I don't see how or why they should be excluded.

The 'values' thing raised by 'mab' is just too amorphous. What about a group who says, 'women should [almost always] marry and be mothers and [in most cases] stay in the home' (Xtian or Jewish or muslim); AND this is endorsed by its women. Can the immigration officer, according to you and mab ask a (prospective) immigrant,

Off:"Do you belong to a group requiring women to marry and stay at home as mothers?"

Imm: "Yes."

O:"Well that's not the British Way [or the American Way]"

{Actually it WAS A way of some Brits and Americans.

Let's continue the dialogue:}

Imm "Doesn't the British [American] Way involve adults being able to make choices, e.g. belong to or join groups, in cluding religious ones, as they please? (providing the group obeys the laws)"

O: "Yes."

Imm "Well, I am an Hasidic [Amish; fundamentalist] woman and I plan to exercize that choice."

O "But that choice is oppressive. How about your daughter?"

Imm "Does not the British Way involve parents choices about values to teach, or is it that the parents must teach 'government' or 'official' values as in Russia and China?"

O: "Parents have freedom regarding values taught, within the child welfare laws."

Imm "Well I choose, as a woman, to teach marriage and mother centred values to my daughter, and i don't think her 'welfare' will at all be an issue. She will not be beaten or neglected. When she is 18 she can leave the community, if she wants; she won't be chained there."

Click to expand...

I don't follow you. If you're Amish, say, and want to come to America, that's fine. I just don't think you shoud be able to demand that all the roads be changed to allow you to drive your horse and buggy wherever you want to go, or that the workplace be redesigned so that you can use a quill and parchment rather than a computer. The Amish adapt to society. They don't demand that society adapt to their religious beliefs.

If you want to arrange marriages for your daughter, then I think the civil laws take precedence over your cultural laws, as was decided in Canada recently, and I don't know what the law says about arranged marriages. I know there's a large cultural component involved though, and I imagine it's pretty rare to find a case where a bride or groom runs to the police claiming they were forced to marry against their will.

As for religious law, a Hasidic Jew in America can legally agree to abide by a rabbi's decision in a civil case much the way he could legally decide to go to arbitration, but civil law still takes precedence. The rabbi's pronouncement still has to be in accord with civil law.

Same with Islam and Sharia. A Muslim living in America cannot be stoned to death for adultery or have a hand cut off for theft. That's against civil law.

A few years ago, a group of Santeria religionists were banned from practicing their religion in the Chicago area because it involved live animal sacrifice

As for what the parents want to teach their children, that's their business. There's nothing in American law that says you have to teach equality of the sexes or anything else at home. When the child is 18, though, they're legally entitled to make their own decisions.

It's only a problem when you demand that society change to accommodate your own religious or personal beliefs, and do it in a way that's strident, irritating, and confrontational. And when does that happen? When social consensus says it does, and I think we're at that point.

As to values, my ideas of what national values are is pretty pragmatic - it's social consensus. When all the lofty talk and legal arguments are done, that's what they seem to come down to.

An extract from Islam online:


LIBERATION OR SEXPLOITATION
Today in some societies, particularly in the West a woman can walk semi-naked in public, swim topless, patronize bars and clubs, smoke, drink, dance in discos and have sex with anybody she feels like.

She can even serve her boyfriend, like an unpaid prostitute, and be free to murder her unborn baby if she falls pregnant. She can also compete in the business world by using her body to promote commercial commodities.

At the end of the day she will be regarded as a truly 'liberated' woman!

In Islam, however, Liberation of women is far more serious, noble and dignified than just the burning of bras as is done in the so-called permissive societies where the fair sex is regarded as no more than a sex object. Today the West is very quick to condemn Islamic laws, which protect purity of purpose and the intermingling of the sexes at all levels of society.

Look at the glossy cover of any magazine or advertisements on TV and newspaper, you will find that most of these advertisements have scantily dressed women in alluring poses to attract the attention of men. This proves that the Western society considers woman only as a sex symbol.

The liberation of women in Islam is far superior to Western liberation as it allows women to live with respect, dignity and equality in society.

Equality does not mean aping and behaving like men or dancing to their carnal tunes; that would be an act of inferiority in the face of one's own femininity.

A truly liberated woman always dresses decently and modestly. A true woman will never degrade her body and sell her dignity to the highest bidder. No woman is truly liberated if she is still the slave of her wayward conscience, bodily lust or infidelity.

However, in Islam, women, whatever their role as mothers, wives, sisters or daughters, command respect and have a constructive role to play in society. The Hijab itself gives an aura of freedom to the womankind, facilitating their movement and protecting them from provocation and wanton greed of the human wolves. Removal of the Hijab makes you vulnerable to the lust of men.

By removing your Hijab, you have destroyed your faith. Islam means submission to Allah (s.w.t.) in all our actions. Those who refuse submission cannot be called Muslims.



Personally, to each their own, but, one should respect the practices of the country you are in.
When in Rome...

Toleration, the topic, and classical liberalism

It's been asserted that the principles of 'classical liberalism' would dictate that the state NOT legislate against intolerance and discrimination. Let's look at Rand principles as enunciated by Roxanne.

Rand principles

Roxanne A
My post is based not on current law but on classical liberal principles, which are those of the Declaration of Independence. Yes, under those principles private employers do not have their rights to hire who they choose diminished by government edict, and there is no need to make rather absurd and arbitrary distinctions like the one you specify.

Roxanne B
In this instance the principle is that individuals have the right to manage their own affairs without interference as long as they don't actively harm another; that each person is an end in him or herself, and requires no further justification to pursue his or her own happiness.

A law was passed that abridged that principle. The law is based on the concept that you are not an end in yourself, but exist to serve the purposes of others. Specifically, that it's not enough for you to refrain from harming others, but that you must provide certain others with benefits, such as a job.

========


Classical liberal principles. Mill _On Liberty_


Mill 1
The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection.


Mill 2
If any one does an act hurtful to others, there is a primâ facie case for punishing him, by law, or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation. There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as, to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in the common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection;

and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow-creature's life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill-usage, things which whenever it is obviously a man's duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing.

Mill 3

This is the so-called doctrine of Free Trade, which rests on grounds different from, though equally solid with, the principle of individual liberty asserted in this Essay. Restrictions on trade, or on production for purposes of trade, are indeed restraints; and all restraint, quâ restraint, is an evil: but the restraints in question affect only that part of conduct which society is competent to restrain, and are wrong solely because they do not really produce the results which it is desired to produce by them.

As the principle of individual liberty is not involved in the doctrine of Free Trade, so neither is it in most of the questions which arise respecting the limits of that doctrine; as for example, what amount of public control is admissible for the prevention of fraud by adulteration; how far sanitary precautions, or arrangements to protect workpeople employed in dangerous occupations, should be enforced on employers. Such questions involve considerations of liberty, only in so far as leaving people to themselves is always better, cæteris paribus, than controlling them:

but that they may be legitimately controlled for these ends, is in principle undeniable.
======

P: I think people will note there is only a slight resemblance. What Rand/Roxanne misreads is the second principle:

Mill: Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection.

Roxane/Rand, by contrast:
the right to manage their own affairs without interference as long as they don't actively harm another;

P: Rand of course was aware of her differences with Mill, and did not claim resemblance of doctrine.

P: Notice that Mill gives several examples, ranging from adulteration-of-food legislation, to workplace-condition legislation where 'interests of others' are affected. As well, he recognizes a number of positive duties, such as to participate in 'joint work necessary to the interest of society. Indeed, he recognizes a legal duty to aid the defenceless [presumably where there is no life risk to oneself]. [Rand denies such a general duty and makes rescue depend on the 'worth' and moral status of the person being saved.]

Returning to the topic of the thread: Consider discriminatory or intolerant behavior. Insofar as it affects others' interests it is, according to Mill, possibly subject to social/governmental intervention and legislation.

There would be no 'in principle' barrier, according to Mill, for instance, either to the 14th amendment or the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. Mill's caution is that where people can take care of such problems themselves, there's no need for government intervention.

TheEarl said:

I think Scheh has answered these points very well. Communication is not all just words, it's facial expressions as well. It's one of the major reasons autistic children are so difficult to teach; they can't read facial expressions.

Angela has mentioned about face masks in hospitals, but that's only covering a small area of the face at any time. The hijab covers everything but the eyes and even they are veiled. That leaves voice as the only method of communication and, to be honest, for small children, that's not good enough.

Very interested in what everyone's said, especially Joe's perspective on the eruv.

The Earl

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. A hijab is merely a head scarf and covers the hair and drapes over the neck and shoulders. The British are arguing about the niquab, which is a combination of the hijab and a veil that covers everything but the eyes. The eyes are not veiled. This is only done with the burqa, where a grill-like material is used to cover them.

IMO the political argument in Britain has been framed in the worst terms possible. Constant babbling about how separation is "bad", and people must not wear anything that are "visible statements of separation". It makes them "uncomfortable". Bullshit statements about how the veil makes community relations "difficult"--which I don't understand unless England has significantly large populations of deaf people having issues with the thousands of veiled women in the service industry. Empty arguments about "East" and "West" and how this is just another sign of Europe being overrun. Multiculutralism isn't working. It's uncertain if veiled women can make a contribution to society--courtesy of everyone's favourite poodle, Tony Blair. Blah blah blah fucking blah.

It seems to me as if so many are is hop scothing about what they really want to say--that unless every women wearing a niquab (and maybe even a hijab) personally reassures the people of Britain and elsewhere that she's not a terrorist and she's not getting beaten at home by her fundie husband, they will forever be "uncomfortable" about their "parallel worlds". (Because of course, in England, it's everyone else living the "Western" life (whatever the fuck that is) and the fundie Muslims.)

It hurts my brain the way a minor situation about how the question of whether a veiled woman can effectively teach blew up into East vs. West. (This is ignoring the fact, of course, the teacher only put it on when adult males were present, or so BBC has reported.) Why not consult some child psychologists, question the students and call it a day?

And it's news to me that in the "West" it's considered "impolite" to cover your face, if the clothing is a part of your everyday wear. Which etiquette book was that in? I don't see why I should give a fig what anyone wears as long as it doesn't interfere with their work or security issue eg. passport photos. Considering the state of the world with Westerners feeling threatened, and Muslim immigrants feeling stigmatised and isolated, why would I want to get in huff over this? Does anyone really think that the major issues facing us as it regards Islam, and more pointedly the fundamental conservative cultures from different Middle-Easter and Asian countries that influence it, will be solved by emphasizing how bloody impolite it is, really, to cover half of one's face? See here we don't change roads for buggies and horses!

Adrenaline said:

It hurts my brain the way a minor situation about how the question of whether a veiled woman can effectively teach blew up into East vs. West. (This is ignoring the fact, of course, the teacher only put it on when adult males were present, or so BBC has reported.) Why not consult some child psychologists, question the students and call it a day?

Click to expand...

I'm probably not qualified to comment on this, because I don't really know the origins of this particular controversy, but if I had a child in that school it wouldn't be the teacher's ability to teach that would concern me. It would be her priorities and her loyalties and the message she's sending to the students by the clothes she wears.

It's not just the fact that she's Muslim. I wouldn't be comfortable having my kid taught by anyone who dressed consistently in ritually religious or political garb, whether it be as a Catholic nun, a US Army officer, a Buddhist Monk, a Wiccan, Hassidic Jew, or whatever. You want to wear a little symbol of your faith around your neck or whatever and teach, that's fine but an entire 'uniform' worn day after day - that's different. That borders on the fanatic to me. I'm really not comfortable having that kind of message shoved in my kid's face every day, that his or her teacher's identification with her religious or political group is more important to her than her identification with the society she's supposedly training my kid to join.

reply to mab, and some reflections.

mab You want to wear a little symbol of your faith around your neck or whatever and teach, that's fine but an entire 'uniform' worn day after day - that's different. That borders on the fanatic to me. I'm really not comfortable having that kind of message shoved in my kid's face every day, that his or her teacher's identification with her religious or political group is more important to her than her identification with the society she's supposedly training my kid to join.

P: in these debates, sides seem to change. the phrase 'shove in my face' recalls how some of the Xtian right talk about openly gay teachers, meaning even those with a lapel button or some symbol.

are you overreacting? i remember some nuns in my graduate school classes. they were bright and committed. they did the work. Is their "identification with Catholicism" more important to her than 'identification with the mainstream.' Maybe. They certainly functioned in the society, followed its rules and mores except for no dating or sex. actually in some cases the garb came off, but maybe it was just the nuns' groups liberalizing their rules. had they taught the class, i don't see any difference [i'm sure some nuns did teach some university classes.]

you never quite answered my question about an immigration officer (hypothetically) attempting to screen for women committed to family and stay at home, above all (e.g. orthodox jewish women). is that a serious 'usurping' of values?

i appreciate your concerns about ghettoization, and about deterioration of situations, e.g. in Holland leading to the assassination of Van Gogh. i have a feeling that the dress issue is just a stand in for the real issues, which Joe has done a good job summarizing. do we allow a Ghetto? i see the arguments, but i have trouble fitting joe's approach into the present US legal system. France, maybe.

Pure said:

mab You want to wear a little symbol of your faith around your neck or whatever and teach, that's fine but an entire 'uniform' worn day after day - that's different. That borders on the fanatic to me. I'm really not comfortable having that kind of message shoved in my kid's face every day, that his or her teacher's identification with her religious or political group is more important to her than her identification with the society she's supposedly training my kid to join.

P: in these debates, sides seem to change. the phrase 'shove in my face' recalls how some of the Xtian right talk about openly gay teachers, meaning even those with a lapel button or some symbol.

are you overreacting? i remember some nuns in my graduate school classes. they were bright and committed. they did the work. Is their "identification with Catholicism" more important to her than 'identification with the mainstream.' Maybe. They certainly functioned in the society, followed its rules and mores except for no dating or sex. actually in some cases the garb came off, but maybe it was just the nuns' groups liberalizing their rules. had they taught the class, i don't see any difference [i'm sure some nuns did teach some university classes.]

you never quite answered my question about an immigration officer (hypothetically) attempting to screen for women committed to family and stay at home, above all (e.g. orthodox jewish women). is that a serious 'usurping' of values?

i appreciate your concerns about ghettoization, and about deterioration of situations, e.g. in Holland leading to the assassination of Van Gogh. i have a feeling that the dress issue is just a stand in for the real issues, which Joe has done a good job summarizing. do we allow a Ghetto? i see the arguments, but i have trouble fitting joe's approach into the present US legal system. France, maybe.

Click to expand...

The problem is, where does multi-culturalism end and where does church-state separation begin?

Would I have second thoughts about my son attending a public school where the teachers were nuns in full habit? Or where Amish teachers wore their particular clothing, or Indian women wore saris all the time? Absolutely!

And if it came down to banning teachers wearing crosses, or even flag lapel pins, I'd rather go that direction than bending backwards to accomodate one particular religion over any other.

While 'shove in my face' isn't exactly helpful rhetoric, there is a difference between wearing a cross underneath one's blouse and wearing a veil across one's face.

Amish students can attend Amish schools. Catholic students (and others) can attend Catholic schools. Children of rich people can attend boarding schools. I value the diversity and exposure to other cultures in public schools, but I also value the unifying values that are taught there - that in private life, people can choose many different cultural norms, and we should respect those choices so long as they are made freely. However, there are also public responsibilities that are essential to a pluralistic society, and those include that persons in positions of power and influence should not advocate one culture or another in their teaching and appearance. Admittedly, it's a fine line - but facial veils, especially when they are only worn around men go over the line. As a man, I find that incredibly offensive, that I should be held in such low esteem as to not be able to maintain my composure in the presence of a woman's visible lips. What does that say to my son in that class? That the visibility of a woman's mouth is tantamount to an invitation to sexual congress?

TheEarl said:

I think Scheh has answered these points very well. Communication is not all just words, it's facial expressions as well. It's one of the major reasons autistic children are so difficult to teach; they can't read facial expressions.

Click to expand...

My son is autistic, and he certainly reads facial expressions. I'm able to communicate things to him better that way sometimes than by trying to talk to him.

It may be the standard, but it is hardly absolute. [/threadjack]

here's a little paradox for you, huck. let's say this public school bans veils and any 'outfits' marking religious or cultural groups.

do this help homogenize the society? not necessarily.

Britain has its Islamic schools already. US has its Xtian fundamentalist schools. there also the home school movement.

Can you ban those schools? I don't see how, constitutionally.

IOW, the homogeneous public school may drive out various groups (as has already happened).

Once the Islamic folks in Britain set up an all girls classrom and an all boys classroom taught by person dressed in the Muslim manner, then what do you do? (although I guess Muslim women can take off the veil with only girl children around.)

You have to have a pretty damn powerful state to pull this off; maybe France can do it; i'm not sure if the Brits or the US can.

incidentally, my wife went to Catholic school, mostly taught by nuns. right in the center city. my point being that 'particularism' has long been around. somehow muslim particularism grates a lot; maybe 'cuz a few of their crazies blew up the WTC. and only one of our red blooded americans blew up Oklahoma.

my thoughts

Goodness! Lots of pretty technical debate.

My opinion is..
I think that workplaces should be able to have dress codes that require faces to be uncovered. However, I think that these dress codes should be rooted both in the practicality of not showing the face for that position, and also the culture of the profession with the assumption that employers will be culturally generous.
This sounds like it is restricting the ability to practice religion, but really.. It's only restricting the ability to both practice one fine point of the religion AND work in a job where that point would detract from how you performed that job.

I think this way because, while I don't think assimilation should be just assumed as the proper goal for immigrants, there is something to be said for cultural atmosphere. It would be ridiculous to take a job working in a freezer if you knew ahead of time that you had a signifigant problem with wearing coats or bundling up. Or.. If you can't tolerate cigarette smoke, you wouldn't apply for a job at a smoky diner or dive. It is common sense to consider the requirements of your work environment. I beleive that cultural climate is analagous. If you want to work in the business world.. you gotta accept wearing a suit.. or at least nice clothes, unless you work at a place who's office culture doesn't require that. I can shake my fist if my crappy job won't let me dye my hair purple.. but they told me that going into it. I chose to abide by their rules as one of the conditions of them giving me money.

That brings it back around to choice. People have lots more choices than they sometimes credit. And with all choices.. you gotta take the good with the bad I think. Its simple economic problem solving. X good stuff and Y bad stuff versus the best alternative of A good stuff and B bad stuff. You pick the package you like best. Thats why most of us don't go around killing people that piss us off. The jail time detracts from the thrill of the statement.. The law against murder, we take for granted. I think that cultural standards to some degree should be taken for granted in this situation.

Pure said:

here's a little paradox for you, huck. let's say this public school bans veils and any 'outfits' marking religious or cultural groups.

do this help homogenize the society? not necessarily.

Britain has its Islamic schools already. US has its Xtian fundamentalist schools. there also the home school movement.

Can you ban those schools? I don't see how, constitutionally.

IOW, the homogeneous public school may drive out various groups (as has already happened).

Once the Islamic folks in Britain set up an all girls classrom and an all boys classroom taught by person dressed in the Muslim manner, then what do you do? (although I guess Muslim women can take off the veil with only girl children around.)

You have to have a pretty damn powerful state to pull this off; maybe France can do it; i'm not sure if the Brits or the US can.

incidentally, my wife went to Catholic school, mostly taught by nuns. right in the center city. my point being that 'particularism' has long been around. somehow muslim particularism grates a lot; maybe 'cuz a few of their crazies blew up the WTC. and only one of our red blooded americans blew up Oklahoma.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your position, Pure. You're saying that, since private schools are possible, that public schools should be more accomodating? There are already sex-segregated schools, even secular ones. I don't doubt that there is something especially grating about Muslim particularism at the moment; I imagine there were times in the UK that there was some Catholic-Irish backlash as well.

Nonetheless, public schools are, I think, the single most important homogenizing influence in modern societies. I'm not advocating the sort of uniform (literally) anti-individualizing pressure that public schools in Japan, for instance, are known for.

When a teacher puts on a veil whenever men are around, that isn't a benign religious expression. It's a behavioral value judgement, not just about Muslim men and women, but about men and women generally. A nun's habit isn't about sheilding them from men, it's about a personal expression of their vow of poverty, of rejecting material vanity. Even so, I don't think nun's habits are appropriate for public school teachers.

I knew a Sikh who wore his turban and knife in a business setting. The knife was not obvious, and it was small, but he always wore it without anyone getting bent. They did get bent about the turban, but he didn't cut his hair, and you had to do something with it. In the end the customers and co-workers seemed to like the turban more often by far than not, so it came to be seen as an unexpected asset, alhtough at first management had been dubious.

This was in the early 70's; I bet a turban would be less well received now.

The headscarf thing has been a huge bone of contention in Turkey. Turkey is resolutely secular, though 99% or so of its people are muslim. There the headscarf is seen, rightly, as a symbol of a leaning to fundamentalism and shariat law. Much of the political and social history of Turkey revolves around banned political movements and parties of an Islamist variety (when it hasn't been about a vicious war of extirpation against the Kurds).

The headscarf is visible; the parallel school systems, secret investment and mutual support systems in Turkey are more covert and more significant. The sufi orders are by no means gone, and they can swing a lot of economic clout. As in the Christian countries, fundamentalism arises because of perceptions that the world is going poorly; the faithful think it important to clean the society up. It may be exacerbated there by the new colonialism (globalism), but it is exacerbated in Christian countries by the turn of the millenium.

A veil or a scarf is miniscule compared to the real problem beneath the symbol. Some of this we will have to weather; it's the times we live in. People are not acting graciously or politely, and I think the motivations for that are essntially unreachable by reason. Millenial hopes and radical religion can't be argued with, since they don't arise from argument.

A person can be steadied down, made to step back and consider, urged to bend for the sake of respect, as Mab says, for the cultural situation. You can do it one at a time or in small groups, but you can't speak sense to billions one at a time. The pressure of muslim radicalism ratchets up Christian fundamentalism, and vice versa, with the added economic pressure from global corps and the poverty, disease and starvation they cause. This is no longer a tolerant world; too many feel too threatened.

Pure said:

P: in these debates, sides seem to change. the phrase 'shove in my face' recalls how some of the Xtian right talk about openly gay teachers, meaning even those with a lapel button or some symbol.

...

you never quite answered my question about an immigration officer

Click to expand...

Sides do seem to change, and this is a difficult issue, for me at least. I respect a person's cultural heritage and traditions and the right to practice their religion, and I'm sure that the young lady in question is a lovely person (if I'm permitted to say that) (or if I can even tell, or am permitted to look at her in order to tell, and assuming I won't be killed for looking at her in order to tell) and a fine teacher, but I really believe that someone who comes to my country to live and work does so on the understanding that they're going to have to make certain adjustments to the prevailing cultural norms and mores, otherwise they really shouldn't come at all.

Quite honestly, atthis point, I forget the details of the case - what she taught, what the ruckus was originally about. The issue to me has become one of assimilation in general and what it means these days, although in this case, the fact that she's a Muslim is certainly relevant to the emotional dimensions of the case. The Islamic community couldn't be doing a worse job of public relations since 9/11 if they tried. In fact, they all too often seem to be set on deliberate and willful provocation, which is truly unfortunate.

"Shove in my face" may be strong talk, but I don't think anyone's child should have to be exposed to a who teacher flagrantly espouses or advocates a lifestyle or religion either in manner or dress that the parents disagree with. I have nothing against a teacher being Jewish or Muslim of Christian or gay or whatever, but if they make a show of it, if they flaunt it, then I think it's a problem, and I think it at least shows a lack of respect for the community. I even have sympathy for homophobic parents whose kids might be in a class conducted by a flaming homosexual. I'd really expect the teacher in that case to have the common sense and tact to tone it down and compromise with community standards. To me, that's common courtesy and compromise.

As for the immigration officer, as I said, your thoughts and opinions are nobody's business but your own. The way you raise your children is nobody's business but your own. I don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand. As long as you're not breaking the law, do what thou wilt.

If you're trying to Socratize me into finding a hard and fast rule for what's allowable and what isn't, I can't say, because as I said before, that's determined by social consensus. There does come a point I believe, though, where the citizens of a nation can feel that they're losing control of their country. I think that feeling runs high in parts of the US regarding Latino immigrants and in parts of Europe regarding Muslims, and it's that feeling that's critical. Once that point is reached, the laws and rules will follow whatever you or I say.

EDITED TO ADD: Beautiful and thoughtful posts from Explaura and Cantdog too. Puts things nicely back into perspective.

Pure said:

here's a little paradox for you, huck. let's say this public school bans veils and any 'outfits' marking religious or cultural groups.

do this help homogenize the society? not necessarily.

Britain has its Islamic schools already. US has its Xtian fundamentalist schools. there also the home school movement.

Can you ban those schools? I don't see how, constitutionally.

IOW, the homogeneous public school may drive out various groups (as has already happened).

Once the Islamic folks in Britain set up an all girls classrom and an all boys classroom taught by person dressed in the Muslim manner, then what do you do? (although I guess Muslim women can take off the veil with only girl children around.)

You have to have a pretty damn powerful state to pull this off; maybe France can do it; i'm not sure if the Brits or the US can.

incidentally, my wife went to Catholic school, mostly taught by nuns. right in the center city. my point being that 'particularism' has long been around. somehow muslim particularism grates a lot; maybe 'cuz a few of their crazies blew up the WTC. and only one of our red blooded americans blew up Oklahoma.

Click to expand...

Pure, you have to be aware that a public school could never ban religious garb, except in extreme cases. Students could not be barred from wearing crufixes or yarmulkas or Muslim scarves, etc. There might be a problem with a kirpan. A veil that concealed the entire face might also be forbidden.

There are parochial schools, mostly Catholic, but also Baptist and Islamic and probably some others. These schools can establish any requirements they want. I'm not sure about all boy schools or all girl schools because that might violate the public accommodation section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, although a church organization might be exempt from that.

A lot has been said about a woman with her entire face covered might have certain problems, or might present problems. I have to wonder whether or not a woman who was so subservient to her faith that she would keep her face covered might also refuse to go out in public without a male relative as an escort, or do other things such as driving or holding a job.

SweetPrettyAss said:

Pure, you have to be aware that a public school could never ban religious garb, except in extreme cases. Students could not be barred from wearing crufixes or yarmulkas or Muslim scarves, etc. There might be a problem with a kirpan. A veil that concealed the entire face might also be forbidden.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I think there's a big, big difference between what a student can wear and what a teacher can wear. In a public school, the teacher is almost like a representative of the state, an epitome of values.

In fact, maybe more of an epitome than a member of the government itself. I'm glad that Tom Foley was in congress rather than my son's high school track coach.

comments; also note to sweetp

i guess i was a bit too wordy. couple sentences: public schools might homogenize, but they can do so only if one can compel attendance there. but you can't [in the US or Britain]. indeed the whole p s system of the US appears to be unraveling, due to 'voucher systems' (subsidies to attend private schools).

I have to wonder whether or not a woman who was so subservient to her faith that she would keep her face covered might also refuse to go out in public without a male relative as an escort, or do other things such as driving or holding a job.

well, let's suppose that, for the sake of argument; she's going to remain 'cloistered' in the home (but she is not confined or coerced), except for the occasional outside excursion with her sisters. i.e. live as in Saudi Arabia or Aghanistan under the Taliban. so what's to be done?

(incidentally there are orders of nuns, presumably citizens, in the US and France who DO literally remain cloistered.)

just keep her and her family the fuck outta the US? OK. and if she's in already? make citizenship contingent on certain 'lifestyle changes'? but that will keep her in 'resident alien' (relatively disempowered) status.

Explaura said:

Goodness! Lots of pretty technical debate.

My opinion is..
I think that workplaces should be able to have dress codes that require faces to be uncovered. However, I think that these dress codes should be rooted both in the practicality of not showing the face for that position, and also the culture of the profession with the assumption that employers will be culturally generous.
This sounds like it is restricting the ability to practice religion, but really.. It's only restricting the ability to both practice one fine point of the religion AND work in a job where that point would detract from how you performed that job.

I think this way because, while I don't think assimilation should be just assumed as the proper goal for immigrants, there is something to be said for cultural atmosphere. It would be ridiculous to take a job working in a freezer if you knew ahead of time that you had a signifigant problem with wearing coats or bundling up. Or.. If you can't tolerate cigarette smoke, you wouldn't apply for a job at a smoky diner or dive. It is common sense to consider the requirements of your work environment. I beleive that cultural climate is analagous. If you want to work in the business world.. you gotta accept wearing a suit.. or at least nice clothes, unless you work at a place who's office culture doesn't require that. I can shake my fist if my crappy job won't let me dye my hair purple.. but they told me that going into it. I chose to abide by their rules as one of the conditions of them giving me money.

That brings it back around to choice. People have lots more choices than they sometimes credit. And with all choices.. you gotta take the good with the bad I think. Its simple economic problem solving. X good stuff and Y bad stuff versus the best alternative of A good stuff and B bad stuff. You pick the package you like best. Thats why most of us don't go around killing people that piss us off. The jail time detracts from the thrill of the statement.. The law against murder, we take for granted. I think that cultural standards to some degree should be taken for granted in this situation.

Click to expand...

I have all kinds of willies about corporate employers telling people what to fucking wear. It sounds sensible in a calm boardroom, but the people who have to nitpick and enforce it are placed in a ludicrous position, unless they didn't get a chance to play with Barbies enough, and always wanted to dress people up in outfits.

In the fire service we wore clothing made to have low rates of flame spread, from fibers which didn't melt and stick to a person's skin. It was a job with fairly stringent health and safety reasons for a more-or-less-uniform work clothing regime, yes? And yet what they worried about all the time was hair length, people wearing t-shirts under the blues which were the wrong color (that one made the poor lieutenants into underwear checkers, which most of them had the good grace to resent), completely cultural things. Hair shall not cover more than half the ear! Sideburns shall descend no further than one half-inch below X and no further forward than a line drawn here and here! Complete crap, in short. Every time a new chief came in, the first thing the muthafucka did was have a big meeting about a new dress code.

There's culture and culture. The US is certainly no monolith. Redneck and hippie and student, gangbanger goth freak preppie mountain country sports you name it, and that doesn't even begin on the foreign and religious groups. I'd like to be in Britain, if they really have a more-or-less (Essex aside!) uniform Brit culture to express, as the posts here seem to imply.

In good times, people can live and let live, but fear is the basis of a lot of what we are doing, today. Scared people get violent easily. Scared people close ranks and give a cold eye to oddness and strangers. Our so called leaders feed our fears all the time; it's the quick road to votes and power. They want scared people. Scared people do what they are told.

People do have a lot more fuckin choice that they imagine. They could start by refusing to be panicked by demagogues. I hate to hear that phrase, "I had no choice!" Bullshit, nearly every time.

No, taking out a bank loan to buy or start a business does not confer a holy glow which makes one wise. Nor does a man who fills the working ranks have to pull the forelock. I don't look to "business" for the buddha, for the wise and tolerant leadership of the culture. It's piss poor business to discriminate against gays, actually. The big boys know that. The same logic ought to be plain as any pikestaff for lots of other types of people.

And there are plenty of laws constraining nearly everything. Some of them are requiring us to get over ourselves and accept a certain amount of variation in folks, but no one seriously expects, any more, that a pack of panicked and fearful sheep are going to stop stampeding long enough. Muslim kids are being tormented, out there. I don't wonder they pull their children out of the public schools-- they want 'em to heal up! Not everyone who 'came here' had any reason to imagine that this country would take the vicious anti-muslim turn it has taken. 2001 was only five years or so back, remember.