Update: Oreo, Dog Thrown Off Building, Was Euthanized
People Wait For Tomorrow's UWS Apple Store Opening
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, Filmmakers
Video: Close Encounters Above Central Park?
Cheap Chicken Wing Deal Ruined by Gunslinging Teens
After having been fired because of he wore a turban, and then re-hired because the firing violated his civil liberties, the next chapter of Sikh MTA motorman Kevin Harrington unfolded: The MTA made him put a patch on his turban (as the Daily News photo at left shows). For the love of Karma. Gothamist knows very little about Sikh tradition, but even we know that this seems blasphemous. Of course, Harrington, a 25 year veteran of the MTA who operates the No. 4 train, thinks this is disgraceful, saying, "I feel violated. I feel degraded. I feel they have no respect for my religion or the Sikh community." The MTA claims that the patching was an accomodation to Harrington to keep with the agency's wish to make sure all MTA workers wearing MTA hats or not hats at all; the Daily News points out that the Muslim women working for the MTA "have been offered head coverings, known as khimars, with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority logo embossed in the blue material, or logos to be pinned on personal scarfs" for their head scarves. Gothamist doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Newsday's Joshua Robin notes that two Sikh police officers wear their badges on their turbans, and even gets one of them to weigh in: "One of the officers, Amric Rathour, 28, of Ozone Park, said that he was comfortable wearing the badge because it is 'symbolic,' while the MTA patch is an 'advertisement.'"
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Help me understand why it is blasphemous to ask this guy to put a badge on his turban? Gothamist should be weeping a deluge of tears over the amount of time companies and organizations waste on accommodating people like this.
I don't see this as a matter of accomodation, but more of MTA "rules are rules" blindness. From the turban and beard it is pretty obvious that Mr. Harrington is a Sikh. From the rest of his uniform and the fact that he drives the train it is obvious he is an MTA employee. My question is why does the MTA continue to get their collective shorts in a knot over something that is irrelevant to the safe, timely operation of its subway system?
I agree with your points, but I imagine that if the MTA (or any organization for that matter) says, ok fine, you don’t have to wear an MTA badge on your turban; there will be accusations of preferential treatment. My point is that the badge in no way violates the man’s right to practice his faith. Religious faith is carried in the heart & soul not on your head. Is the MTA being petty, I would imagine they are. But, if you have worked in a large organization (especially a governmental one) than you know how petty employees can be. Cheers to the MTS for sticking to their guns on this one so they focus on their true mission: getting millions of people to and from work, as cheaply and efficiently as possible.
I'm interested in the answer to the first half of Jeffrey's statement. Is the turban itself a religious object? I was under the impression that turbans were used to hold the hair, which cannot be cut, but that the turbans themselves were not per se religious. If that is so, where is the blasphemy? The same for khimars, or head scarves -- are these particularly tied to the religion, or are they paraphanelia which come along with practicing a particular religion? To me, it makes a difference, and is a hair the MTA is well within its rights to split. No pun intended.
Me, I always chuckle at the idea that a divine creator of the universe is supposedly dispensing requirements on attire, grooming or diet.
In any case, the badge or patch serve the same purpose: identification. Some jobs require uniforms, thems the breaks. Otherwise, let's just start a religion that requires dictates jeans and sneakers and have at it. Comfortable attire for all!
Personally, I find it disgusting that they're asking the man to wear an advertisement on a piece of religious garb; I don't see why it's so hard for the MTA to keep religion somewhat untainted by their logo. That said, there sure were a lot of Yankees yarmulkes going around in Hebrew school when I was a kid...
Josh, it's one thing for your Jewish schoolmates to choose to wear yarmulkes with sports logos on them and it's another for an employer to force an employee to wear a badge or other marking on an item of clothing of religious significance.
It is not a peice of religious garb as far as I know. There are 6 things you must do as a Sikh; you must not cut your hair on your head(thus the turban) or face (sometimes you will see guys with chin turbans (? dont know the name for it), you must wear a special type of underwear (basically a loincloth), you must carry a knife at all times (they were the warriors remeber- most get around this with small pin of a knife), you must wear a special braclet (the ones with the triangluar cross section that were so popular way back- make for great bottle openers)and I am forgetting the others. That you be named Singh is not required- just common.
when you work for MTA, you wear a uniform. there are obvious reasons for this... as stated above, identification is one of them. a uniform/dress code is not an advertisment, it merely says to the costumers, "i am currently working for this employer". it also sets a standard for clean, consistant presentation of employees which instills a sense of trust on the part of customers. why do you think the military or mcdonalds have uniforms and dress codes? these aren't places to make personal religious statements. this guy is simply raising a stink because he's not recieving preferential treatment for his personal beliefs.
I don't think the patch is an advertisement at all. If it is, it just advertises the fact that man works for the MTA so he would be easily identifiable to the public should they need to make contact with an MTA employee for whatever reason. I know some people hate uniforms, but I'm a fan. They not only add an air of professionalism, they make employees stand out so you can find them in the crowd when you need them. And let's face it, you need help standing out in a crowd in the subway.
The following link has images of Sikh men in uniforms, including turbans, from the Metropolitan Police in London and the Toronto Police Force. Don't see why something like that can't be worked out at the MTA.
http://www.kathuriaforsenate.com/cp_aboutsikhamericans.asp
IMO: I think organizations should be more tolerant of expressions of Religious Beleifs. A turban hardly conceals one's identity and is not hurting anyone. It's not preferesntial treatment when this "exception" applies to everyone. By Branding that man's turban with the Logo, the MTA is, IMO, belittling his personal beliefs and just don't get it.
Can you imagine if the MTA had people wearing a crucifix inscribe 'MTA' on it? How about MTA Stickers on Bibles that MTA Employees bring to read on a break? Or as previously mentions, being forced to wear a yarmulke (sp?) that has the MTA Logo on it? How about when I celebrate Ash Wednesday, the Ashes on my forhead must say 'MTA'?
As for the issue of Uniformity: Anyone seeing this man in a MTA Uniform does NOT need a logo on this man's turban to figure out he's an employee.
Max, who are you to judge whether the turban is a piece of religious garb or not? Do you wear one? If so, based on what belief or reason do you wear it. If however you do not, then I think that qualifies enough to say that you are under qualified to judge the personal effect of wearing a turban. On the flip side, what do you think of the claim that wearing a cross, or a skull cap is not considered part of religious attire. Moreover, wouldn't you be appalled if the MTA had required Catholics to display an MTA logo on their cross, or on a skullcap?
Shame on the MTA.
wikipedia on sikh and on the five k's for sikhs (what they have to wear).
if their dress code states that only MTA-approved headwear is to be worn, then why is it a problem for this one guy? it seems to me they've been accomodating by allowing him to simply place the badge on it as it is technically not official MTA headwear. the same should be required for skull caps and those bulbous pope hats and those big pointy kkk caps. see where we can go when we start making exceptions. do you think he should be allowed to carry a sword too since his religion says he must? religion has to keep up with the times if it wants a place in modern society. while he's whining over a patch on his hat, the MTA has more pressing issues to deal with like getting us to work. you see, another reason for uniforms in large organizations is so they don't have to waste time and money battling employees over what they wear.
"religion has to keep up with the times if it wants a place in modern society"?
Wow, IMO, That's a scary statement. The idea that a Religion needs to change to keep up with the times is just wrong to me. There aren't too many constants in the world, but some of the things I've learned in church shouldn't change to find a place in modern society.
Also, it could be that others just knuckled under and he was the only one to speak up. As the article points out he had worn a turban to work in the subway for more than two decades without incident. Could it be that the MTA (gasp!) went out of it's wayt to screw him?
it's not scary if you think about it. religion has always changed to fit into society. religion is a human construct just as society itself is and it will always change as we do. religions fade when they ignore modern customs... although a few such as hasids and the amish have struck a sort of balance. think about all those ideas that religions such as yours have killed for in the past... homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, saying the world is round, or simply believing in other ideas. personally, i'm thankful religion has changed to fit modern society or else we'd have lots of very lost, self-righteous sheep (oh, wait...).
just as this guy should no longer be allowed to wield a sword at work, his religion (or more accurately, his personal interpretation of it) can change to fit the reasonable rules of his employer.
i don't buy for a second that the MTA cares enough to screw with this guy. my guess is that some jittery arab-phobic customers probably got scared and complained and then MTA realized that he technically was not following the rules so they asked him to do so. he can still wear the turban, they just want it to appear as part of the uniform.
Hijiki, In all respect, I must disagree. For an extreme example, The Ten Commandments doesn't change just because society wants to execute criminals. "Thou shall not kill." (Which I'm told by informed people is really "Thou shall not murder.) shouldn't change either.
Granted some issues are not black and white, ie Homosexuality, Which is in it self Not a Sin, but acting upon it is considered a Sin, but to expect a religion to "fit" the times is, IMO, not realistic. In all due respect to society, if a Society wants me to change my beliefs to come to Modern Times, Society could take a Flying leap.
As for trying to screw this one man, maybe, mabe not. I could see it happening either way. Since this is a Sudden policy change (After more then 20 years NOW it's a problem???) I bet some jackass in MTA Management has his head up his ass and decided to "Get Tough" on people. Just look at the MTA Photo Ban. How is that helping security? People can still take detailed notes about the Subway or will that be banned next?
I know! No pictures at the Empire State Building! After all, it's now a target.
Thanks God (Whoops! Religion Again!) the MTA doesn't control the Empire State building.
;)
i think you're still missing my point, s.d... i never said your religion should be ditched or that any commandment needs to change. most of those commandments are rules shared by every religion and society anyway. some values are universal. your religion wouldn't even exist anymore if it didn't change with our societal norms. for example, it would have died out if it still refused to allow philosophical debate or scientific research. your religion has ALWAYS changed and it always will... it changes as our values change or new problems arise. you honestly can't deny that. your religion as it is today would be unrecognizable 400 years ago. yes, even religion evolves.
but just to put this back in perspective, what we are talking about is clothing, not murder.
i fully agree that the photo ban is stupid and counterproductive.
I am a Sikh from India (where this faith originated ). From the remarks I read above It is clear that there is not much awareness about Sikh teachings and way of life . Sikh teachings tell us to remain complete and live a natural life . ( No piercing , no tattoos , no hair cutting etc. and giving your self respect by wearing a crown like turban everyday ).This is a very small price our teachers (11 Great guru’s) demanded for their teachings. Which begin with “one lord, immerse in his love ".
WELL theMTA LOGO
DOES NOT INFRINGE on the Sikhs duty towards his faith w:st="on">, BUT
IT SHOWS THAT MTA does not have any style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>EMPATHY toward its employs in particular and faith in general. By showing empathy they could have shown everyone that even corporations are capable of spreading the message of love.
Sorry to hurt anyone. My intention was just to make things clearer.