To the Editor, The Cavalier Daily:

Mr. Parsley’s Opinion article (“Shrouding sexism behind multiculturalism,” November 29, 2006) is a reflection of great ignorance in today’s society. In his piece, Mr. Parsley makes several discrepancies, and greatly misguides his readers.

First, Mr. Parsley uses the terms “veil” to refer both to the hijab, a headscarf which is becoming quite common amongst Muslim women, and also the niqab, the face covering that leaves only the eyes of the wearer visible and is a subject of great controversy in Europe today. Mr. Parsley’s criticism of the “veil” is largely focused on the debate of the niqab in the UK. However, he concludes by advocating for a US ban on the veil similar to the French model, a country that has banned the niqab and hijab in state schools. Mr. Parsley’s failure to distinguish these two discrete practices reflects his ignorance about the issues involved in this debate, and does a grave injustice to readers of the Cavalier Daily.

Second, the debate about the veil is not as black and white as Mr. Parsley suggests. He incorrectly attributes the European community’s desire to ban the headscarf (note: the UK debate is about the niqab, not the hijab/headscarf) to its interest in furthering human rights, sexual equality or ridding Europe of “regressive social values.” However, the debate can be better categorized as being politically motivated and designed to further national agendas related to immigration, national security or better yet, as a simple statement of secularism, as in France. Mr. Parsley compares European policies (largely democratic nations that allow their residents great freedoms) with Afghanistan and Pakistan, nations that are not normally categorized as democratic. Comparing Afghanistan and Pakistan to France, Germany and the UK is like comparing apples and oranges. The difference is that Western nations pride themselves on their liberal societies and grant individuals freedoms that they may not enjoy in other nations.

Mr. Parsley proposes that the United States adopt an approach similar to France’s ban on religious symbols. However, while France has banned all conspicuous religious symbols, Mr. Parsley has chosen to focus his condemnation on only the Muslim veil (again, I presume Mr. Parsley is referring to the hijab as well as niqab). Further,

Mr. Parsley’s suggestion that the U.S. emulate France is highly problematic for several reasons. First of all, the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights grants us, as Americans, the freedom to practice religion. France has been clear that its ban on religious symbols reaffirms its commitment to secular society, and does not claim to support the freedom to practice religion. Secondly, to ban “veils” in public schools and government buildings, will likely create legal claims of discriminatory practice. Even if the ban extended to all religious symbols, such prohibitions would likely raise several constitutional issues. Lastly, if the United States ever put such a ban into effect, it would cut against the foundations of this nation – which allows us to put our religious beliefs into practice. If that practice includes wearing the headscarf, so be it.

Finally, as a practicing Muslim woman, I am greatly offended by Mr. Parsley’s suggestion that either the headscarf or veil can be analogized to the yellow star of the Nazi era. While, admittedly, some governments force women to adorn the headscarf, many more Muslim women choose to wear it, of their own free will in free societies such as the United States. Regardless of their individual motivation, these women are intelligent, ambitious and committed to advancing in American society, while staying true to their chosen faith – far from the oppressed women that Mr. Parsley paints a picture of. To suggest that their fashion choices make them inferior not only disgraces our society, suggesting that we are so shallow as to judge these women by their outward appearance, but also, and more importantly, insults the intelligence of the women who make that choice.

This piece only reinforces the very view that Mr. Parsley purports to want to eradicate – discrimination against women who cover. Opinions such as Mr. Parsley’s destroy the fabric of our society and the American ideals of freedom, equality and the ability to choose, rather than contributing to a meaningful and productive discussion on women’s rights.

December 1, 2006
Washington, D.C.

[Thanks to Amnarani, Aly, Lina and a host of others for their input, ideas, suggestions and encouragement to hit send]