McDermott Team Wins Victory for Sikhs

McDermott Will & Emery scored a pro bono win last week by convincing the army to allow a religious Sikh to serve while wearing full religious garb.

The army gave Captain Kamaljeet Kalsi, a military doctor, permission to wear the full beard and turban Sikhs are required to wear by their faith while on active duty. Kalsi was a graduate of the Army’s Health Professions Scholarship Program, but was told that he would have to shave and remove his turban before he could begin his military service.

An army administrator reversed that decision in an Oct. 22 letter.

“Your beard, uncut hair, and turban will be neat and well maintained at all times,” the letter stated.

Although the military emphasized that its decision was being made on an individual basis, McDermott lawyers said officers have indicated that they are also considering changes to a 22-year-old policy that prevents Sikhs from serving with turbans and beards.

“The goal was to change the policy to allow all Sikhs to serve in the U.S. armed services,” said McDermott associate Amandeep Sidhu, the firm’s lead counsel on the case. “The army representatives have indicated that they realize the policy issue remains and they need to turn their attention to this issue.”

McDermott became involved in the case after it was approached by its co-counsel, the Sikh Coalition, a a civil rights group that Sidhu said he helped found in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Along with Kalsi, the firm and the Sikh coalition represented Captain Tejdeep Rattan, a military dentist whose case is still pending.

According to Sidhu, Sikhs were allowed to serve freely in the military until 1981, when the army banned all forms of religious expression among soldiers. In 1987, lobbying by the Jewish community convinced Congress to make an exception for “neat and conservative” religious garments, Sidhu said. But the army interpreted that to exclude turbans.

“Our argument is that the army has been ignoring congressional intent for 22 years,” Sidhu said. “This may not be something that requires any additional legislative change.”

Even so, McDermott has launched an effort to change the rule, enlisting help from Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY.) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) among others. The firm’s team on the project includes partners H. Guy Collier, Elizabeth Hack and Stephen Ryan; legislative counsel David Ransom; and associate Jennifer Belcher.

Comments

[Sara]

I have to disagree with dr. anthony. Many of my friends are both lawyers and military officers and I was an Army wife for 25 years. This is not social engineering; it's making reasonable accommodations to permit a qualified person to serve his country. As the article points out, the rule against religious garb is not strictly enforced in any case, and there is no reason to treat religious groups differently (although I guess dr. anthony would permit prohibit all religious garb). I think military discipline is not easily undermined, and that unit cohesiveness is not so fragile that it can be threatened by a few yards of cloth!

I've been hearing "the Corps is going to hell" for decades, and people were doubtless saying it for centuries before that. And yet the Corps evolves, survives, and continues its mission, better than before.

[B Singh]

While Dr Anthony's views are good intentioned and we do understand the importance of uniformity in looks for Armed Forced, I do ask him if he is aware of armed forces of UK, Canada and India and their exceptions for Sikhs. All I know is if the Sikhs were qualified to lay down their lives for British, French and American forces during the world wars, then their looks cannot be forced to change in 21st century to appease the mindless biases in post-9/11 Americans and their mistaken beliefs about turban wearers being muslims or arabs. If I am good enough to lay down my life for America in a war, I at least deserve not to be forced to give up my faith. This promise of freedom to be who I am is the foundation of the nation called USA. If we are changing this, let me know and I will have to set sail again to look for a new free democratic world.

[dr. anthony]

The failure of lawyers to understand the importance of dress and appearance codes should not surprise anyone. This is yet another example of ignorant, but well-intentioned social engineers, efforts to create a multicultural melange of religious expression. The military must be permitted to remove personal religious expression in the form of dress and appearance from the equation of military discipline. Liberal philosophy will ruin the military if this keeps up.

[Magan Ray]

This is a great outcome and Sidhu's efforts on behalf of the Sikh community (which has been targeted since 9/11 based on the common misconception that Sikhs are "muslims" and/or "terrorists") are to be commended. Sikhs are members of an independent monothestic religion that started in the northwest region of India and is the 4th or 5th largest religion in the world The continuing prejudice (and often hate crimes) targeting Sikhs is indicative of how much misinformation is out there and how important it is for us to educate ourselves and our children!