I guess I sort of asked for this, but I'm so used to the way I dress that I hadn't thought of this. I've been considering joining the Auxiliary. I went to a class, loved the prospect of learning while contributing to public safety. But I'm a Muslim woman, and I wear hijab. So the uniform issue would pose certain problems for me. They are rather lax about uniforms where I attended class, and no one said ought about my scarf while I was there. Will this be a problem? Should I consider not joining?

I see no reason why you can't join. Contact your FSO-PS (personnel services) have them consult the District diversity Councilor regarding your needs.
DCP 11310

After the Yarmulke Incident I think the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Coast Guard are going to be on pins-and-needles regarding the wearing of religious attire while in uniform. Based on the rationale in the Yarmulke Incident, if the scraf does not interfere with your duties it shouldn't be an issue.

And you know that the Aux is going to be real sensitive and careful about saying NO. Saying NO sets them up for the PR Fiasco Of The Year. Just think how it looks if a Jewish person can wear their religious apparel but a Muslim could not. The media would have a field day with a denial.

I wouldn't want to cause a scene- if it was going to be a problem, I'd leave- but make it known that hijab and CGAUX don't mix. I'm planning to wear a black sports headscarf (they do exist) until I get the uniform, then get a sports scarf in a matching color. That way, it won't get in the way, and it won't stick out, as much as a headscarf can blend in.

Jack Rosenberg's battle with the yarmulke should be an inspiration for you. Let us know how things work out, and let's hope you'll be pleasantly surprised by finding a friendly and welcoming Flotilla. After all, it's not as though the Auxiliary is being overwhelmed with applicants.

wasn't there an alcoast on this issue? I seem to recall it. Couldn't find anything in the knowledgebase.

ALCOAST 011/07: RESULTS OF UNIFORM BOARD NO. 41

quote:

I. WEARING OF RELIGIOUS HEADGEAR WHILE IN UNIFORM UNDER THE FOLLOWING GUIDANCE: MUST BE BLACK OR MATCH THE HAIR COLOR OF THE WEARER, IT MUST BE OF A STYLE AND SIZE THAT IT CAN BE COMPLETELY COVERED BY, AND NOT INTERFERE WITH, THE WEARING OR APPEARANCE OF ANY UNIFORM MILITARY HEADGEAR, WHETHER OR NOT THE UNIFORM HEADGEAR IS BEING WORN. IT CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THE PROPER WEAR OR FUNCTIONING OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING OR EQUIPMENT. IT CANNOT BEAR ANY WRITING, SYMBOLS OR PICTURES, INCLUDING WRITING OR IMAGES WOVEN INTO THE FABRIC OR THE HEADGEAR AND IT SHALL NOT BE WORN IN PLACE OF UNIFORM MILITARY UNIFORM HEADGEAR WHEN SUCH UNIFORM HEADGEAR IS REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT U.S. COAST GUARD UNIFORM REGULATIONS.

Since the Aux is composed of civilian volunteers who have no military or law enforcement duties, it would have a hard time showing that a scarf would interfere with her duties.

There is a possible fly in the ointment. Would the prospective member consent to having her picture taken without the scarf? The Aux ID is an official government id and it requires a full face photo.

There was a case in Florida where a Muslim woman refused to remove her scarf/veil for a photo id for her drivers license. The state refused to issue her a license without a photograph. She sued on the basis of religious discrimination and lost. The court upheld the compelling state interest in being able to photo id a driver. The same rationale could be applied to the Aux given its non-LE role in HLS, MDA and AWW missions.

quote:

Originally posted by 16358498:
I wouldn't want to cause a scene- if it was going to be a problem, I'd leave- but make it known that hijab and CGAUX don't mix. I'm planning to wear a black sports headscarf (they do exist) until I get the uniform, then get a sports scarf in a matching color. That way, it won't get in the way, and it won't stick out, as much as a headscarf can blend in.

What District are you planning to join?

quote:

Originally posted by FL51D7:
ALCOAST 011/07: RESULTS OF UNIFORM BOARD NO. 41

quote:

I. WEARING OF RELIGIOUS HEADGEAR WHILE IN UNIFORM UNDER THE FOLLOWING GUIDANCE: MUST BE BLACK OR MATCH THE HAIR COLOR OF THE WEARER, IT MUST BE OF A STYLE AND SIZE THAT IT CAN BE COMPLETELY COVERED BY, AND NOT INTERFERE WITH, THE WEARING OR APPEARANCE OF ANY UNIFORM MILITARY HEADGEAR, WHETHER OR NOT THE UNIFORM HEADGEAR IS BEING WORN. IT CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THE PROPER WEAR OR FUNCTIONING OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING OR EQUIPMENT. IT CANNOT BEAR ANY WRITING, SYMBOLS OR PICTURES, INCLUDING WRITING OR IMAGES WOVEN INTO THE FABRIC OR THE HEADGEAR AND IT SHALL NOT BE WORN IN PLACE OF UNIFORM MILITARY UNIFORM HEADGEAR WHEN SUCH UNIFORM HEADGEAR IS REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT U.S. COAST GUARD UNIFORM REGULATIONS.

Since the Aux is composed of civilian volunteers who have no military or law enforcement duties, it would have a hard time showing that a scarf would interfere with her duties.

There is a possible fly in the ointment. Would the prospective member consent to having her picture taken without the scarf? The Aux ID is an official government id and it requires a full face photo.

There was a case in Florida where a Muslim woman refused to remove her scarf/veil for a photo id for her drivers license. The state refused to issue her a license without a photograph. She sued on the basis of religious discrimination and lost. The court upheld the compelling state interest in being able to photo id a driver. The same rationale could be applied to the Aux given its non-LE role in HLS, MDA and AWW missions.

I wear a headscarf, not a face veil. The woman in FL wanted a license with her face veiled. I have a Government ID (I'm a Navy Wife), and it shows my full face, and they can refer to my eyebrows for hair color info, if at all needed. The face veil and headscarf are two different garments, and create different issues.
BTW: I'm in Philly, PA.

Is it thin enough that you would be able to wear a ball cap or other type of uniform hat with it on? Since hats are a uniform item, the alcoast would seem to prohibit wearing a scarf that could not be put on under a hat.

I wear a headscarf, not a face veil.

That makes it easier.

I have a Government ID

Even better.

(I'm a Navy Wife)

I think you may have just clinched this.

Look at this from a PR perspective if they turn you down.

First go back and look at the Jack Rosenber's photo in the Yarmulke Incident.

Aside from the Yarmulke, his beard is uncut and so are his sideburns (called payoth). They are worn that way for religious reasons, but they are also out of conformity with the uniform regulations. However, he is allowed to wear the uniform without either being an issue.

That hair style is in conformity with Hasidic Judaism, which other articles about the incident state that Jack is a member of. If that is true he is also probably wearing tzitzit (the goyim sometimes call these 'tassels' or 'fringes'). Tradition would call for the 'fringes' to remain exposed even in uniform - but we don't know for certain Jack wears his uni this way.

But at a minimum a Jewish member is allowed to wear the uniform with now authorized religious headgear and a relgiiously required beard and sideburns that do no conform to regs.

So with that in mind, what is the media reaction if they turn down:

1. a Muslim women;
2. who wants to wear a head scrarf (not a face veil) for religious reasons;
2. who also carries a government id
3. because she is a Navy wife.

That has PR Disaster of Epic Proportions written all over it.

Go for it!!!

16358498,
Go for it! If you have any issues I'd consult the District Civil Rights Officer to set things straight.

So you want to join a group that has uniform regulations, however you choose NOT to follow the regulations due to a personal choice.

Then others egg you on to sue the agency, create strife, get people mad, just to make YOUR point.

We all know that if you want to join a paramilitary organization that requires members to follow rules and guidelines, then you should be ready to abide by them.

However, since the AUX refuses to follow written policy, I'd say you should just do what you want to, as we all know that we should not do any harm in any way to anyone at any time since people who get their feelings hurt might feel bad.

Why don't you consult your Imam and see what concessions are made in these circumstances? It's surprising that allowences can be made at times.

Remember, you want to join an organization that has uniform requirements, you should change to meet them, not cause them to change to accomodate you.

By the way, you can opt NOT to wear the uniform, and still be a working member. But no, I suppose that won't give you the satisfaction of making others bend to your desires.

It's not about you or your preferences.

Are you guys forgetting that there are civilian uniforms? Although the last time I wore one, somebody accused me of running for office.

quote:

Originally posted by BTDT:
So you want to join a group that has uniform regulations, however you choose NOT to follow the regulations due to a personal choice.

Then others egg you on to sue the agency, create strife, get people mad, just to make YOUR point.

We all know that if you want to join a paramilitary organization that requires members to follow rules and guidelines, then you should be ready to abide by them.

However, since the AUX refuses to follow written policy, I'd say you should just do what you want to, as we all know that we should not do any harm in any way to anyone at any time since people who get their feelings hurt might feel bad.

Why don't you consult your Imam and see what concessions are made in these circumstances? It's surprising that allowences can be made at times.

Remember, you want to join an organization that has uniform requirements, you should change to meet them, not cause them to change to accomodate you.

By the way, you can opt NOT to wear the uniform, and still be a working member. But no, I suppose that won't give you the satisfaction of making others bend to your desires.

It's not about you or your preferences.

I'm going to suggest de-caf for you, BTDT, and a good laxative. Calm down, it's not that bleeping serious.

quote:

Originally posted by 16358498:

quote:

Originally posted by BTDT:
So you want to join a group that has uniform regulations, however you choose NOT to follow the regulations due to a personal choice.

Then others egg you on to sue the agency, create strife, get people mad, just to make YOUR point.

We all know that if you want to join a paramilitary organization that requires members to follow rules and guidelines, then you should be ready to abide by them.

However, since the AUX refuses to follow written policy, I'd say you should just do what you want to, as we all know that we should not do any harm in any way to anyone at any time since people who get their feelings hurt might feel bad.

Why don't you consult your Imam and see what concessions are made in these circumstances? It's surprising that allowences can be made at times.

Remember, you want to join an organization that has uniform requirements, you should change to meet them, not cause them to change to accomodate you.

By the way, you can opt NOT to wear the uniform, and still be a working member. But no, I suppose that won't give you the satisfaction of making others bend to your desires.

It's not about you or your preferences.

I'm going to suggest de-caf for you, BTDT, and a good laxative. Calm down, it's not that bleeping serious.

Yes, BDTD was too harsh. But don't take it personally... he's like that with everybody.

I do hope that you see the point BTDT is trying to make. It doesn't matter whether you're Muslim or Christian or Jewish or whatever, you are obligated to abide by the same rules as everyone else. Not being able to wear a religious headdress is not going to impair your ability to perform your duties, unless you make it that way by being deliberately dense.

I do differ with BTDT in that I believe that the Coast Guard Auxiliary does follow written policy (though maybe he was being facetious) and, I might add, does a whole lot better of a job than the other military auxiliary. But that's another topic.

My point is this: the policy regarding religous headgear and such is for everyone, and shows no favoritism toward any one religion. The Coast Guard Auxiliary is part of Team Coast Guard, and most of the policies and procedures of the Coast Guard Auxiliary either mirror those of the Coast Guard or are very close to them.

16358498, say the Coast Guard were to grant you the option of wearing a religious headdress with your uniform while performing your duties. Then they would have to make accomodations for every other religion, and that would defeat the purpose of being uniform.

I think the allowance for wearing religious headdresses and such only for religious services is appropriate and, quite frankly, very generous.

Every auxiliarist should be grateful that they're able to wear the uniform, and be so closely aligned with their active duty and reserve counterparts. All of that is a privilige. I know people in the other military auxiliary who would kill for that kind of status. Be glad that the Coast Guard allows the uniform to be worn with religious apparel at all.

I've no intention of attempting to force a change in the policy; if I'm not allowed to wear a scarf, I'll simply back out. I'm not being drafted, or otherwise forced to serve. I'd be a volunteer, and I've no problem with leaving a place where I'm not wanted.
Regarding: "16358498, say the Coast Guard were to grant you the option of wearing a religious headdress with your uniform. Then they would have to make accomodations for every other religion, and that would defeat the purpose of being uniform." Schools, police departments, and other organizations often establish color, fabric, or other guidelines for headscarves for women who may be required to wear them, making them an optional part of the uniform, but a part of the uniform nonetheless. Uniforms aren't absolutely uniform: women have the option to wear skirts with certain forms of dress (whereas men do not), and one is not required to wear every decoration and ribbon received, so two servicefolk that have earned the same honors and hold the same rank may appear somewhat different. If apparel of religious function* are required by servicefolk, there is a way to make them more uniform, and uniforms do allow for some degree of variety with cultural custom and personal preference.
* I say apparel of religious function because the kippa, hijab, and injunctions of tzinus are not religious symbols- they are the result of following a positive command of Scripture, and may count as an act of worship if adhered to, or a sin if disobeyed. This is distinct from wearing, say, a pendant engraved with "Allah" or a Star of David. Legally speaking, these are just jewelry, and should be treated as such.

quote:

We all know that if you want to join a paramilitary organization that requires members to follow rules and guidelines, then you should be ready to abide by them.

The trouble with BTDT is that, in this case, he hasn't. The Alcoast cited above is one of the "rules and guidelines" you are expected to follow -- and, BTW, it has nothing to do with only applying to "religious services." Also, you are not not "cause(ing) them to change to accommodate you."

The next time you're visiting a Coast Guard station or ship, make note of the various uniform violations of the Active Duty and Reservists there. Yes, the Auxiliary is bit more relaxed than the Regular Coast Guard in many ways, but we had to learn it somewhere!

I also take exception to the term "paramilitary" being used to describe the Auxiliary. The term is used nowhere in the laws establishing, authorizing or regulating the Coast Guard Auxiliary. The connotation of the word leaves the impression that the Auxiliary is more than simply the civilian part of the parent service, with no military responsibility or authority. (This could lead to a wide ranging discussion that, if necessary at all, would deserve a separate thread!

...gjd

the policy regarding religous headgear and such is for everyone, and shows no favoritism toward any one religion.

Are you forgetting that the new policy is the direct result of a prospective member complaining to Congress, the media and anyone else who would listen? And he got policy changed. Although written in general terms it was written to allow a specific type of religious headgear - a Yarmulke.

And the prospective member, who is now a member, also does not coform to the hair and beard rules (see the photo guys) yet he is allowed to wear the uniform. (And before anyone thinks otherwise - I have no problem with allowing Jack to serve).

So if policy can both be rewritten and also ignored to allow the adherents of a minority group within a minority religion to paricipate - what is the problem with doing the same for Muslim women? And it would seem that allowing a simple headress would be less of change then the changes already made for Jack and his religious practices.

Methinks the CG and the Aux opened a Pandora's Box when they changed policy for Jack - and they are going to have a real hard time closing it.

quote:

Methinks the CG and the Aux opened a Pandora's Box when they changed policy for Jack - and they are going to have a real hard time closing it.

Just like you to add Greek Mythology to the mix of the discussion. . .

All of the other Armed Services have allowed "religious headgear" since 1999. The modern day, and supposedly "PC" Coast Guard didn't change its regs until quite a bit later. The organization does have a tradition of not dealing well with alternative religions . . . but that's another story for another time.

...gjd