NYPD Officers Now Allowed to Wear Religiously-Mandated Beards and Turbans

[rug]

By Caroline Bankoff
December 29, 2016
5:25 a.m.

As part of an effort to maximize recruitment, the NYPD will permit its officers to wear religiously-mandated turbans and beards. “We’re making this change to make sure that we allow everybody in New York City that wants to apply and have the opportunity to work for the greatest police department in the nation,” said Commissioner James O’Neill in a Wednesday announcement.

Until now, the department has prohibited non-uniform headwear and facial hair, though some cops were allowed to sport one-millimeter beards – otherwise known as a five o’clock shadows – for religious or “dermatological” reasons. The restrictions posed a conflict for the force’s observant Muslims, whose faith calls for longer beards, and Sikhs, who are supposed to wear both beards and long hair under a turban. (Per the New York Times, some Sikh cops have managed to follow both their religion and NYPD policy by “stuffing their unshorn hair into turbans that fit under department-issued caps,” which doesn’t sound very comfortable.) But under the new rules, those who are given a religious accommodation by the department’s Equal Employment Opportunity Office will be able let their beards grow up to half an inch. The office can also grant cops permission to swap their police hat for a navy blue turban emblazoned with a NYPD shield.

“We want to make the NYPD as diverse as possible and I think this is going to go a long way to help us with that,” said O’Neill. The department currently has around 1,000 Muslim officers and 150 Sikhs.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/nypd-now-allows-cops-to-wear-religious-beards-and-turbans.html

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

1. A blue turban with a shield sounds like a great compromise

And standards will allow a 1/2 inch beard, but even a one inch beard would seem ok to me.

Very long hair can be grabbed easily, but unless women are required to wear short hair, there's no reason why men shouldn't be allowed to have long hair, either, imo.

[earthside]

2. Neutrality is best.

Religious accoutrements have no place on government officials who are supposed to work for ALL of us -- especially paramilitary personnel authorized to use force.

Beards can be worn for non-religious reasons as a matter of fashion or personal preference; just a hair style for female officers can vary ... so there isn't really a problem there. But turbans or crosses or veils or any display of religious symbols in uniform is not respectful of the diverse population police officers are supposed to serve.

[rug]

3. The effect of that is to prevent those who have these requirements from that employment.

That is de facto religious or ethnic discrimination.

[earthside]

4. It's not discrimination if it is the same for everyone.

Government officials work for all of us.

I expect evenhanded, neutral treatment ... especially from the police.

I don't want to open a door that is going to let Xtian cops wear crosses or Siks to wear turbans or atheists to pin Darwin fish on their pockets or patrol cars to put "In God we trust" decals on their bumpers.

How about non-discrimination and respect for the citizens?
How about respect for the diversity of all the people served by the police?

[rug]

5. That was the rationale to keep women out of fire departments for decades.

The issue is whether a reasonable accommodation can be made or not.

There is nothing about a Sikh wearing a turban, a Catholic wearing a crucifix, or a Jew wearing a yarmulke that prevents the delivery of a service. Granted, people bigoted against Sikhs, Catholics or Jews may not like it but tough shit.

[earthside]

6. And that is the rationale ...

... that provides support for fundamentalist Christian county clerks not having to go against their religious beliefs and issue marriage licenses for homosexuals. After all, reasonable accommodations can be made ... the assistant clerk can do it.

Keep religion out of government. Period.

[rug]

7. As a matter of fact, that was not a reasonable accommodation. It was illegal.

That's why she went to jail.

Nor is this about keeping religion out of government or putting religion into government. It is about the government enforcing the First Amendment rights of its citizens.