Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Be thankful for two things: These women fought for your right to vote, and you don't have to dress like this.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(106)
-
▼
April
(22)
- Prep for the AP GoPo exam with CSPAN
- Whoa!
- Senator Specter's life
- Holy cow!
- Recession lingo
- Remember the engagement ring site from before?
- Heard of the swine flu?
- Notes from Sacto
- Laws and amendments flash cards
- Firefighter promotion case from class
- Limits on warrantless car searches
- Flash cards are go!
- As we're starting the first amendment...
- Engagement rings
- Anniversary of an historic concert
- Still no Senator in Minnesota
- Aaaaand...
- Big news today
- Afghanistan
- Just how wealthy are you?
- DC in Congress
- Remember former Senator Ted Stevens?
-
▼
April
(22)
1 comment:
I am actually a little surprised by this situation. I believe that Officer Webb was completely within her rights to ask if she could wear a headscarf. I do not think it is unreasonable at all to express symbols of religious faith. As described in the article, the meorandum which prescribes approved Philadelphia police uniforms and equipment does not specify, either for or against, anything involving the wearing of religious articles. Therefore, I do not see that the ones denying Webb's request have a concrete argument. It is even pointed out that the headscarf would not cover the face, eyes, or ears, and therefore would not impair the officer's performance on the job. The provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 support Webb. I believe that the City of Philadelphia was accurate in saying that because of this case, the police department risks losing its appearance of impartiality. Due to the arguably unnecessary denial of Webb's request to wear a religious garment, the police department definitely damaged its perception of impariality by citizens of all races. I also take offense of Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson's statement when he says that, essentially, prohibiting the display of religious articles conveys “a sense of authority and competence" among the police force. In context, this is how I understood it though it may or may not be the meaning he intended. But really, the situation seems so backward to me. In our current society, I imagine that it would be totally unacceptable to prohibit a person from wearing a cross around his or her neck, or a Star of David, or even a satanic relic. I do not see how Webb could be denied such a basic American right. She has the freedom of expression, and wearing a religious headscarf is not harming anyone or causing her employer any undue hardship.
Post a Comment