Sportswear brand Nike has announced that it will launch a high performance hijab, to help female Muslim athletes perform at their best. Muslim women who wear a hijab will now have an actual item of sportswear that represents them and doesn’t make them choose between function and their beliefs. The new product goes under the name Nike Pro Hijab and is designed to better deal with problems that traditional hijabs could pose when used in a sports setting, such as being too heavy, too sweaty, or easily coming loose.

Nike said in a statement that the hijab has been officially in the making for a year, but really for much longer than that if you consider Nike’s mantra that, “if you have a body, you’re an athlete.” The statement added that Nike started discussing the matter seriously in 2012, when runner Sarah Attar became the first female track athlete to compete for Saudi Arabia in the London Olympics and did so in her hijab. She finished the 800 meter race almost 45 seconds after the other runners, and the audience gave her a standing ovation. A few days earlier her teammate Wojdan Shaherkani, who competed in Judo, became the very first Saudi woman to compete in the Olympics.

As a hijab wearing athlete, I’m stoked for @nike‘s pro hijab line. Moreso I love that its approved/featured by ACUTAL hijab wearing athletes pic.twitter.com/qzIRtQcQ9Y

— Rowaida Abdelaziz (@Rowaida_Abdel) March 7, 2017

Nike said that it started to work on the hijab when Muslim female weightlifter Amna Al Haddad visited Nike’s sports research lab in Oregon to discuss problems she had with her own hijabs. She said that she only had one that worked to exercise in, and that she had to wash it by hand every night. After that, the Nike team collaborated with athletes to develop a more breathable and lightweight garment.

Many women see Nike’s announcement as a victory for Muslim female athletes all over the world.

This is the most amazing thing!! Imagine how comfy it’s gonna be – better than those other scarf things hijabis have to wear now. https://t.co/QqPfR1FlUF

— Aisha Baker Parnell (@bakedtheblog) March 7, 2017

But on the other hand, some people on social media pointed out that smaller and less influential sports brands have been making athletic hijabs for several years.

Most patronising. I’ve been wearing a scarf and exercising fine for years, just as small businesses have BEEN making scarves for activewear. https://t.co/BFpjn8jdCR

— Aaisha Dadi Patel (@aaishadadipatel) March 7, 2017

Some people also levied complaints, saying that Nike “sides with the oppression of women,” or that Nike is taking advantage of religious concerns to make money. But in general, the new product seems to have garnered plenty of applause. The discussion about hijabs in sports has been controversial and FIFA, the international football association, banned hijabs for soccer players until as recently as 2014. The international basketball federation, FIBA, still has a ban in place.

That a world-renowned sports brand such as Nike started producing an activewear hijab is seen as a big step in the right direction. “For a brand like Nike to come out and say that these people exist and are inclusive of hijabis is a big deal,” said Manal Rostom, an Egyptian athlete, to Al Arabiya English.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nike Launches High Performance Hijab For Muslim Athletes appeared first on Law Street.

A female student admitted to the Citadel Military College in South Carolina will not be allowed to wear a hijab with her uniform. The young woman’s request was filed in the beginning of April. The school’s president, Lt Gen John Rosa, issued a statement on the school website on Tuesday, saying, “uniformity is the cornerstone” of the school, and that “The standardization of cadets in apparel, overall appearance, actions and privileges is essential to the learning goals and objectives of the college.” While he denied the request to wear religious headgear, he stressed the fact that the school offers other ways of practicing faith and expressed his hope that the girl will still attend the school this coming fall.

To many people, it came as a surprise that the school actually took the time to consider a deviation from its custom of strict uniformity and anonymity–for some it was a provocation, for others a positive sign of progress. The Citadel is one of the oldest military schools in the United States and has never made an exception from its standard uniform in its 175-year history. However, the school does have other ways to see to students differing religious needs, such as places of worship and special food for those with religious dietary restrictions.

A Facebook post from a current student, Nick Pinelli, initially drew attention to the issue. He argued that if a person practicing one religion is granted different treatment it would undermine the point of the school and be the opposite of equality. In the post, Pinelli wrote, “Equality means the same set of rules for everyone. Not different rules for different people.” He has reportedly been punished with 33 hours of marching since first speaking out.

The girl’s family is considering legal actions. According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, wearing the hijab is a religious obligation for Muslims. And as a gender professor points out to NPR, this can also be seen as a feminist issue, with the fact that she is a woman potentially making her fight even harder.

The Citadel educates students in leadership skills, which does not necessarily have to lead to a military career. Out of the roughly 2,300 students, only about 170 are women. They didn’t start admitting women until 1996 so that number–as well as religious diversity–may increase in the coming years.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Citadel Military College Denies Student’s Request to Wear Hijab with Uniform appeared first on Law Street.

Clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch is no stranger to legal trouble due to its alleged discriminatory practices against both workers and customers. The brand came under fire for its refusal to hire a young woman in Oklahoma because she wore a religious head covering. On June 1, after much deliberation, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Samantha Elauf, the prospective employee who was denied a job because of her hijab.

Court rules in favour of Muslim woman who failed to get job after wearing scarf to interview http://t.co/wSiVAgsGvL pic.twitter.com/zagHX1Usdv

— The Independent (@Independent) June 2, 2015

Abercrombie is known for making clothing marketed toward young, preppy, attractive people. Many past employees have claimed that the company discriminated against them for their body type, religious practices, or race. The company has also been known to only market its clothing toward thinner people, as it refuses to make clothing for plus-sized women.

According to Politico, the company paid $50 million to Latino, African American, and Asian job applicants who claimed that there was a lack of diversity in the company. Elauf’s victory in this case has set a precedent for all future employers to follow, which will greatly benefit all potential employees.

In 2008, 17-year-old Elauf applied to Abercrombie & Fitch to work as a salesperson. She did not ask the company to make a religious accommodation for her headscarf during her interview with assistant manager Heather Cooke, and so she was not given the job for two reasons. Firstly, Abercrombie claims that Elauf’s headscarf violated its “look policy,” due to the fact that it was black and considered prohibited headwear, although Elauf claims that she was never informed of this exact policy during her interview. Secondly, Abercrombie also claims that it had no liability since Elauf never identified her headscarf as a religious garment and also because the company did not want to automatically assume that it was being worn for religious reasons so that it doesn’t stereotype any potential employees.

On behalf of Elauf, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal law enforcement agency, sued Abercrombie for discrimination. It was determined that the company did not actually discriminate against Elauf, although her rights were violated under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Abercrombie also has since changed its policies, as now it allows its workers to wear headscarves if they choose to do so.

According to Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in the ruling, “an employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.” The Guardian  also reports that multiple other religious groups were in support of Elauf’s case.

This ruling is a major step forward in terms of workplace equality, as it helps to protect the rights of not only minorities, but all people. Companies now cannot deny employment to any potential worker due to his or her religious observances, which will in turn increase the amount of opportunities available for religious minorities. This court decision also has the potential to completely change how American society views equal opportunity, religious freedom, and workplace discrimination.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Muslim Women Against Abercrombie over Hijab appeared first on Law Street.

A Colorado High School is being sued for denying a student group the ability to gather for prayer. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that describes itself as a non-profit legal organization advocating for the free practice of faith, is suing the school district along with the principal and assistant principal of Pine Creek High School. They allegedly stopped a Christian student group from holding group prayers on the grounds of separation of church and state, Reuters reported. The Alliance says they are violating the students’ First Amendment rights.

The Alliance said in a news release that the informal prayer group would meet to pray, sing, and discuss religion in an unoccupied choir room during a free period, when students are supposedly allowed to meet up with friends and hang out on school grounds. Senior Chase Windebank contacted the Alliance after he unsuccessfully appealed to Principal Kolette Back about the ban, who told him that they could only hold group prayers before or after school, but not during school.

The Alliance then sent a letter in October to Colorado’s Academy School District 20 arguing that Pine Creek is violating the prayer group’s First Amendment rights by restricting their religious freedom. The district responded by saying that no student group is technically allowed to meet during school time. On Friday, the Alliance filed a First Amendment-based suit anyway, saying Windebank’s group should be able to pray freely during the free period.

Public schools themselves are not allowed to hold sanctioned prayers because of the separation of church and state outlined in the First amendment. But Windebank’s group is supposedly informal, thus the group’s prayers aren’t technically school-sanctioned. One could say that since students are free to hang out freely during the free period, they should be allowed to meet to pray. One could also say that for a public school to allow a prayer group to go on violates the separation of church and state. But technically the state (by way of Pine Creek High School) has nothing to do with the prayer group. It’s just Windebank and his friends.

The Pine Creek case may be debatable, but it’s only a small story in a larger issue. The separation of church and state is a principle of secularism that can inadvertently lead to misguided policies that ironically go against secularism. An example of this phenomenon is France’s laws banning conspicuous religious symbols in public schools and banning veils that cover the face in any public place. The laws have been seen as de facto bans specifically on Muslim headwear for women, such as the niqab and the hijab. Proponents have defended the laws as protecting French identity and values, while others say they obstruct religious freedom.

The irony is that secularism and the separation of church and state mean that governments are neutral toward religion. Just like they can’t sponsor religious practices, they also can’t hinder them. It means no religion, not anti-religion. So when it comes to Pine Creek High School’s ban on Windebank’s prayer group, the question is whether or not by asserting the separation of church and state, it means that the school is actually restricting students’ freedom. The separation of church and state, at its core, never requires citizens to give up their freedoms. The prayer group was initially asked by the principals to stop meeting during school hours because what it was doing was religious. By doing that, the school could inadvertently be going against the very principle of separation. Whether or not that’s true, the lawsuit will decide.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado School Prayer Ban: Limiting Religious Freedom? appeared first on Law Street.