On Thursday, several of us Mutineers spoke to an AP reporter about a story in Utah last week — about a girl in middle school in Utah who got suspended from her school for violating dress code, after getting her nose pierced. She and her family said she did it to get in touch with her Indian cultural identity — she had the piercing done on Diwali just a couple of weeks ago. The school, however, had a strict “ear pierces only” policy, and was only willing to allow her to have a “transparent” stud in her nose, not the more obviously Indian nose ring she wore to school initially.
Here is the AP story that resulted. It’s been printed in a fair number of newspapers around the country. The reporter quotes Abhi, Sandhya, and myself. But something goes wrong here:
“I wanted to feel more closer to my family in India because I really love my family,” said Suzannah, who was born in Bountiful. Her father was born in India as a member of the Sikh religion.
“I just thought it would be OK to let her embrace her heritage and her culture,” said Suzannah’s mother, Shirley Pabla, a Mormon born in nearby Salt Lake City. “I didn’t know it would be such a big deal.”
It shouldn’t have been, said Suzannah’s father, Amardeep Singh, a Sikh who was raised in the United States and works as an English professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa. “It’s true that the nose ring is mainly a cultural thing for most Indians,” Singh said. “Even if it is just culture, culture matters. And her right to express or explore it seems to me at least as important as her right to express her religious identity.” (link)
Um, wait a minute. Did I read that right? Take a look at it again: “…said Suzannah’s father, Amardeep Singh, a Sikh who was raised in the United States…”
[UPDATE: The online version of the article has been corrected.]
This is a really bizarre and unfortunate error. Just to be clear, I have one kid, and he’s three years old. I am annoyed on my own behalf, but I also feel bad for the Pablas. (Suzannah has a dad, who is a practicing Sikh. It just so happens that most of the coverage of this story in the local Utah newspapers doesn’t mention his name: see the Salt Lake Tribune, for example)
When I spoke to the reporter who authored this story, he was 100% clear that I was in no way related to the Pablas. Somewhere between that conversation and the story that has now run in 200+ newspapers around the country, that important fact fell out. I don’t know who’s responsible for the error — it appears an editor might have come up with this.
In the end, it’s not really that big a deal; the only people who will really think anything is amiss are people who know the Pablas and people who know me. Still, maybe the moral here is to JUST SAY NO when reporters call you for a quote for a story that doesn’t really involve you directly.
Anyway, what do people think about the story itself? Should schools with strict dress code policies make an exception to accommodate nose rings for Indian students on cultural grounds?
Oh dear! I cringe with embarassment for the author of the news report!
lol. get them to change it, or people might find out an interesting fact about you via google 🙂
Should schools with strict dress code policies make an exception to accommodate nose rings for Indian students on cultural grounds?
no. what is “indian culture”? though seriously, this is a case-by-case issue, but schools have to deal with a lot of bizarre regulations and rules to protect themselves from liability and such. if there are lots of members of “culture X” in a school, on a pragmatic basis the administration would probably respond, but kid are individualistic and want to dress and display how they want. why should someone get an “out” because one of their parents or they have a historic connection.
the rule sounds kind of dumb btw.
In my opinion, its fine as long as the school is school in question is non-discriminatory in its directives, i.e. nose-rings are as ‘bad’ as visible tattoos. At the same time, it is one thing to be appreciative of other cultures, but to allow all kinds of garb and accessories in school just takes away from the focus which should always be on education.
nose-rings are as ‘bad’ as visible tattoos
there are some cultures where visible tattoos (e.g., face tattoos) are really important.
Razib, I’ve emailed the reporter. He says they’ll change it — at least on the web.
I agree with the school. It is better not to allow any kind of religious/cultural symbols in the school. They can still follow whatever they want in their house.
In my Catholic school in Mumbai there were very strict rules regarding jewellery, hair, nails, sock length – you name it – so I guess I fail to see why a school cannot enforce a dress code as long as it is a fair and equitable one. It seems the school did try to accommodate her as well (transparent stud OK not ring).
It is better not to allow any kind of religious/cultural symbols in the school.
1) actually, most public schools in the USA will allow religious display in the united states if that display doesn’t violate another rule. there’s a public consensus that that’s cool. this isn’t france 🙂
2) schools implicitly make decisions all the time which religious/cultural symbols and norms are allowed. IOW, “dress codes” inculcate particular cultural values. for example, the standard “suit” is a descendant of puritan formality, and to some extent represents a victory of calvinist sensibility over the flash and color of the cavaliers. the fact that the suit is viewed as “western” would make prince rupert cry.
As an AMERICAN (of Indian origin) I find it extremely disrespectful, also illegal, for a narrow-minded school district in a state dominated by a particular religious sect to ban a nose ring on a little girl. What’s next: hijabs, yarmulkes, head-coverings for menonite girls? This action is narrow-minded, excluvistic, and so very typical of the current culture of talk-radio trash. This is not my America, or the America of MY friends, neighbors, or fellow citizens.
head-coverings for menonite girls
i think you mean amish. many mennonites don’t dress in a particular way (all amish are mennonites, but not all mennonites are amish, etc.).
in any case, if she can make the case that it is a religious issue she would probably be allowed. the american culture and legal system will generally accommodate different forms of dress if it is an issue of free exercise in a way it would not if the justification is secular.
any other piercings
really amardeep, a nose ring is no reason to disown your daughter.
someone pull amardeep’s credit card charges from 1997, and see if there were any trips to utah….
I agree that the school has a right to dictate certain standards, but this is a bit overboard. The kid is not rebelling or wearing punk or goth tatts or piercings – it’s for family and culture. At least she can keep a transparent stud.
But I guess what happens in Utah, it seems, does not always stay in Utah 🙂
I can picture the conversation at home now, “I swear baby, I don’t care what 200+ newspapers around the country say – it wasn’t me ! I ain’t the baby daddy!
Let’s just hope this isn’t used as evidence against you years from now.
And what if some of the Nez Percé moved to Utah? http://www.nezperce.org/
I think the whole idea of allowing cultural and religious specific dress [that violates a school’s specific dress code] is one of those things that is always going to be a bit confusing. Religious specific dress is pretty easy to pick out, as it is usually pretty clear within the religion that that is the norm… just as not cutting hair for Sikhs (who choose that path) or Muslims who choose to wear headscarves, etc.
The part that will become hairy is ‘cultural’ forms of dress. First of all, a response will deem whether or not that culture is recognized by the school– being part of goth culture is generally not accepted as a ‘real’ culture by any institutions I have heard of, whereas something like embracing one’s Ethiopian culture would most likely be accepted as ‘real’. Generally it seems like American institutions would be more willing to accept a cultural identity from a group outside the U.S., more than they would of what Americans like to call ‘sub-cultures’ in the U.S.
The question of whether or not a person can legitimately identify that culture could also be hairy. I am engaged to an Indian, and I have some pretty snazzy salwaar suits, but I hesitate to wear them to my work (which has a dress code). Sure I lived in India. Sure, I am going to marry an Indian. Sure I speak Hindi. But I’m not sure people would see that as a legitimate reason for me to wear salwaar suits to work.
Now, I’m not saying which way is right or wrong, this is more thinking how (I think) people generally do react, rather than how they should.
How should they? I’m not really sure. There are a lot of institutions in the world that have dress codes or uniforms, schools being the most obvious of those. And they exist all over the world. If we want to expand the need to express cultural symbols to all of these places, I guess we might as not have a dress code/uniform at all, to allow everyone to dress in terms of there culture. (I don’t know about you, but in my culture the gray wool skirts and oxford skirts that I wore in jr. high were not the norm for dress.)
I am not really sure what the answer should be. On one hand, uniforms and dress codes can have their purpose, on the other hand, work or school shouldn’t stop you from expressing your culture in your ‘real life’ (if you are in school and you are not allowed nose piercings, then that affects your life outside of school too). Maybe just doing things case by case is the only way to go?
I would not be happy if my classmates are wearing all/any of these. What am I supposed to do during the boring lectures!? As far as I remember, I spent most of my time in school gawking at pretty girls in pretty dresses 🙂 Back in India, I was totally pissed-off when my college banned tank-tops, short skirts & printed T-shirts (to save the Indian culture) I kept away from all of these guys in my college days – the guy with a big tilak on his forehead + speaking effusively about right wing organizations, the guy with a foot long beard + green pajamas + cap, the guy wearing printed T-Shirt which said “blah blah.. you will burn in hell forever” + once in while advising me to read bible
don juanjeet rides into the sunset.
i used to think so too. but i was surprised to learn that many of the rulings that I thought were made under the free-expression (of religion) clause, like the boy scouts and st pattys day parade cases, were actually free speech cases, specifically scotus found a right to freedom of association (expressive association) which exits under the free speech clause, making the rulings rather wide…meaning they would apply to secular groups as well.
the sherbert test originally privileged religion, but ever since then scouts, including conservatives like scalia (in fact, especially conservatives like scalis) have been putting religion on par with secular beliefs while simultaneously applyuing very strict standards on the state as to when they can limit speech or expressions, religious or otherwise.
What an unfortunate error. I see that a correction has been made in this article (see bottom).
Melvin, yes, thankfully. However, it looks like the incorrect version is still going to be printed in quite a number of newspapers…
Hopefully the newspapers will print corrections too, Amardeep (though I’d be surprised if they ALL did). I found it noteworthy that the AP writer described you on first reference as “a Sikh who was raised in the United States” not as “a U.S.-born Sikh …” or “a Sikh who was born and raised in the United States …” Had he done so, perhaps an editor would have caught the error, since Suzannah’s father is described in the fourth paragraph as India-born.
In any case, I think the job cuts in the newspaper industry, as well as the instant deadlines that the Internet demands, contribute greatly to errors like this.
Absolutely absurd! Our Puritanical history should not be the ethical driving force, for we are nation founded on the belief of individual rights and freedoms of Speech, Religion, etc. We mutinied against the Crown of Great Britain so that we could have the freedom to worship as we wished; if that includes a nose piercing or performing the five obligatory prayers, ØاÙظوا على الصلوات. Why must we as a society insist on everyone being, looking and behaving the same? It is through our dynamic cultural, ethnic, and spiritual variety that the richness of the fabric of our nation is made stronger and more beautiful. When we start to pull threads out of the textile that may be different from the rest (as a whole), then the textile weakens and no longer is it beautiful as the gaping holes proclaim our shallow conformity. We must stop being fearful of the unknown or the different; we as a nation of “enlightened” citizenry must be more tolerant of difference. We have too many more important details to worry about, including the Health Care of our nation, the escalating national and personal debt, and the indigent of our nation and the world. Or are we just scared of what is staring back at us in the mirror? Are we afraid to allow children to develop individuality for fear that our enforced homogeneity will succumb and the nation crumble? I fear that we will crumble because of this fear rather than the loss of homogeneity! Open your eyes and your heart; embrace your fellow mankind for the true essence of humanity!
I presume all the pics were set up by the AP photographer. This one begs for a caption contest!
We mutinied against the Crown of Great Britain so that we could have the freedom to worship as we wished;
this is bad history. there were many reasons. but one of the precipitating factors was the quebec act of 1774, which reestablished the status of the catholic church in french canada. the colonists, generally dissenters, suspected a “romish” plot. remember that during the revolution most of the colonies had established churches.
it is true that several of the colonies were founded or served as havens for protestant dissenters (and maryland was originally to serve as a haven for british catholics). but in the puritan colonies quakers were executed.
I dont think the school made that rule for the purpose of pissing off Indian people. I really hate it when people say this, but I am going to say it, “Stop being so politically correct.” Are schools supposed to make rules on a case by case bases?
It is a nose ring! It is a culture thing and the key word being “culture”. I would love it if European women would come to American beaches with no top on, but that isnt allowed here legally and culturally speaking, but it is culturally acceptable for europeans.
In Utah, I suspect that alot of people “culturally” want to have 8 wives, but they cant.
Culture is a can of worms this country doesnt need to open. As long as the religion is crapped on, then just follow the rule and be on your way.
But I do think that the suspension should be fought over. You explain yourself is a plausible way and the school still wants to suspend you then take it to the media.
Why do people always feel that they are the one exception to the rule? This is clearly a violation of the dress code and a cultural choice not religious. Somehow the whole melting pot thing does not work if you do not jump in. Would theses people feel the same if I went to their school carrying a gun? After all, I am from the south and it is part of our culture. Do you think my kids could bring their little hunting rifles because it makes them feel close to their Grandfather? The school district deserves all the “cultural experiences” they get if they cannot enforce their own rules!
You were right. I didnt get the error the first time. But now that you have pointed it out I think it should be ran in all the papers as a correction. It is “after the fact journalism” which is just crap.
Our American society has seemed to have forgotten freedom of religion and expression. The school would have to show that it was “substantially burdening” a person’s exercise of religion and must further a compelling governmental interest, and use the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. In this case the government would be the public school. She has a case.
I bet she was wearing American jeans and t-shirt when it happened
I think they should not. There are two categories of multi-culturalism. There is the all embracing variety we follow in India, where every religion gets its own holidays, and has all whims pandered to, schools and institutions are supposed to cave in to anything that goes by the tag of cultural or religious or ethnic. Then there is the French variety where no one gets any special treatment, personal beliefs are supposed to be just that, very personal. No prayers will be sung in school, nor will any God be praised. This clear cut separation might be better than all inclusive mixing.
Oh, I came to the article via Fark – glad it’s been changed!! 🙂
I don’t think that dress codes should be hard and fast when cultural dress comes into play. And yes, I do think it should be on a case by case basis as well. I think that the solution the girl and the school came up with was a good one, but I don’t think there should have been a suspension, ever.
There are two categories of multi-culturalism.
no, there are lots of varieties.
But I do think that the suspension should be fought over.
the suspension is explicable in the context of lots of dumb “zero tolerance” rules which emerged to protect administrators from liability.
If we allow Muslim students to wear the hijab or cover their hair, and Pentecostal or Apostolic or other fundamental Christian girls to wear only skirts or dresses and not cut their hair, why in the world is a girl with Indian heritage being denied the right to a visual expression of that heritage? The tradition is hundreds or even thousands of years old. For crying out loud, let’s stop being petty.
I turned down a job because they had issue with my small nose stud. They asked if I would take it out during the day and I said no, because it was important to me. They asked if it was religious, I said, no, it was cultural. They eventually offered me the job, but, despite being unemployed, I knew I couldn’t work there. I remained unemployed for almost a year after that, but I’m still glad I didn’t take it.
Maybe the AP reporter thought all Indians looked alike and couldn’t tell Amardeep Singh from her dad. Like when the FOX News crew were joking about Bobby Jindal being in Slumdog Millionaire. All the same, ain’tcha?
Regarding the nose ring – I think the school are tightwads for banning it, but I support their right to, if it is consistent with their uniform policy. It’s not religious but cultural. If they ban the turban, hijab or yarmulke, I think that’s wrong. But the nose ring cannot be considered a religious essential in the way that the others are.
While the mistake is regrettable and very embarrassing for the reporter, it’s not reason to stop talking to the press for stories that don’t involve you directly if you have valuable insight/context to offer. and as a professor, desi and someone who has posted educated opinions on various topics, you’ve set yourself out to be an expert. don’t punish the masses who need your input just because one reporter made a mistake. they happen.
p.s. i didn’t mean your being desi makes you an expert:) but in the context of what the article is about, i can see why a reporter would approach you.
Bad Luck, Amardeep. The page has been archived. It will be pulled out, by your opponent’s dirty tricks team, when you run for the US Senate in 2028. Imagine, Amardeep Singh, Prof. Lehigh University, and family in Utah!! If that fails, as dunceheaded gambits usually do, you will be painted as a radical, imagine, beyond your liberal arts scholarship (bad enough), you, Amardeep Singh, fought for human rights in NYC – as if NYC doesn’t have enough rights already.
This is terrible journalism, straight out of the routine Jay Leno-Kevin Eubanks gags. Terrible!
Nose ring? Small issue. Wait till her little brother brings his Kirpan to school. That issue (among other things) nearly brought down the Quebec government.
Anyway, kids at my high school used to wear pajamas to school. But facial hair was prohibited. So one style conscious Muslim kid claimed his mustache was religiously required.
Jerk.
Given the importance of legitimate religious accomodation, us religious minorities shouldn’t ask for accomodation where it isn’t absolutely necessary.
Let’s see, if I prevent my daughter from getting her nose pierced, I would be violating her religious freedom?
canadian society is by and large accomodating. the onus is on the ‘minorities’ to correct the loony tunes. the non co-religionists get accused of bigotry if they argue for what they consider isnt necessary.
thankfully the ‘minority’ voices are stepping up –
despite the occasional violence
I think the nose ring ban is more a reflection of the school not permitting body piercings in general versus a specific aversion to this kid expressing her “Indianness”. Frankly, I would be thrilled if the school doesn’t permit body piercings – hopefully it means I won’t have to go there with my kids when they are at that age 😉 That being said, the girl had the option to wear a transparent stud – a choice she refused to make before being suspended (if I recollect correctly). The school clearly does not want to go down the slippery slide of then dealing with various sub cultures and so on and I’m not sure that I can fault them for that. We do have the right to express our culture in many ways but it pays to keep the broader culture in mind as well. The issue of hijab, yarmulke, kirpan etc are different because of religious adherence/ expression. Nose rings? Come on! Find another way to express your culture or work with your school system for a reasonable compromise.
all the schools i went to in india didn’t allow noserings. it was part of the dress code – the only jewellery allowed was a pair of small ear studs. no bangles, no nothing…not even mehendi was allowed. so i fail to see why the culture part of it should be such an issue. school is about education and dress codes are there for a reason – a reminder that as long as you are in school, you are a student; nothing more, nothing less. save culture for the family and keep it in your heart, there’s no need to show it off in school. i must be growing old.
Sheetal,no bangles ? That means no Kara too ? The schools I attended in India also had strict dress code (no mehendi, no nail polish, no colored hair band etc), but never said no to nose rings if they were small and nondescript; yes, fancy colorful bangles were banned, but you could wear a Kara, even if you were not a Sikh (and these schools were not even in Punjab). Basically anything gaudy, too colorful and bollywood-ish were banned, but never any religious or cultural stuff. By and large, I liked (and still like) these policies because these rules tried to take the student’s mind off the fashion distractions, and liked the fact that they were moderate.
IMHO, an earlier story in the Deseret News was worse…
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705340095/Girl-kicked-out-of-class-for-nose-ring.html
Mr. Zed gets MANY phone calls about “Indian religion.”
The thing that gets me is that Desi parents in Desh are such sticklers when it comes to their kids following the rules and dress codes of their schools. But here in the West they want to go against school rules in the name of “culture” or “religion”?
I’m sorry but there is nothing in the Sikh religion or culture that says a girl must have a nose ring.
They would have to prove that first. Otherwise there is no reason the goths and what-not could not use same argument.
Why can’t the goths use the same argument?
As long as the piercing or clothing isn’t distracting I really don’t see what the issue is. This is just another example of inane “zero-tolerance” rules to liberate school admins. from the burden of having to think about how to deal with kids.
Because all Desis are the same yaar?
But isn’t the idea that nose-rings are weird or unacceptable just a way of enforcing a certain type of cultural value by the school board? How come they get to tell us we can’t wear our nose-rings? On what grounds are they making this rule and why the insistence on abiding by rules for rules’ sake from people who are typically all about the chronic post-modernist deconstruction of anything and everything?
Because all school administrators and educators are the same, yaar?
I think all schools should have either uniforms or dress codes. Who has time to evaluate each kid on an individual basis? Kids are hard enough to deal with as it is these days.
Nose rings have nothing to do with the Sikh religion or culture. It’s a fashion trend.
thats just code for not thinking things through…