Segregating Workplace by Religion by Davinder S. Sidhu - Essay Example

Segregating Workplace by Religion” by Dawinder S. Sidhu s That society tends to treat out-siders differently is a verywell-known fact. That U.S. is a country which is trying to treat each citizen equally is also a very well-known fact. Yet in a modern American society, there’s still a possibility of workplace discrimination for representatives of specific religious practices whose religious beliefs are visible from the first sight. In the recently published article “Segregating Workplace by Religion”, Dawinder S. Sidhu explores a case of Samantha Elauf, who was cut out of a job position due to her wearing a religiously motivated headscarf. Other words, a tradition Muslim headscarf wasn’t considered to be suitable for a company with a dress code. Behind this single case Sidhu sees a greater picture: it’s not only about hiring discrimination. By a dress code policy employees are trying to minimalize a public presence of religious variety in modern American society. In his article, Sidhu firstly postulates, “Many employers use dress codes to keep visibly religious employees out of sight” (Sidhu, 2015). Among the most common explanations is the hardship to a business: strangely looking personnel would push away a part of customers. It’s also the first point to Sidhu to argue. He brings the example of a What Would You Do? hidden-camera episode, when actors played a situation of religious discrimination when hiring in a restaurant. Real presented customers took a side of those disseminated. Yet, however socially approved a religious look at a workplace may, there’s still a specific governmental law on a subject. There’s Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which permits employers “to avoid hiring visibly religious applicants who do not conform to the employers’ dress code or “look” (Sidhu, 2015). Specifically, it requires employers not of cutting out candidates with a visible religious signs, but to “reasonably accommodate” them when hiring, “unless the employer can prove that such accommodation would present an “undue hardship” (Sidhu, 2015). Sidhu sees this law as an opportunity for candidates’ discrimination. Moreover, Title VII gives employers an opportunity to regulate a public presence of exercisers of different religions. With a view of a current Supreme Court case of a Muslim woman Samantha Elauf, who was “not recommended for a position” in Abercrombie Kids company due to her wearing a religious in nature headscarf, Sidhu argues all four main employers’ reasons of such a practice. When firstly, Abercrombie Company says, they would reject a candidate with “any other headgear”, Sidhu points, that religiously motivated clothing is a specific case (Sidhu, 2015). Title VII obligates employers to “accommodate reasonably” to employees who cannot change their clothing because of their religious beliefs. Thus, employers should treat religious clothing differently from other headgears. Secondly, it’s the already mentioned a cut out practice reasoned by a customers’ preference. Despite that such a preference may be untrue, also “a purely customer-driven decision making makes no qualitative difference in the civil rights context”, and thus, employers still act in a discriminating way (Sidhu, 2015). Third, by reinforcing a dress code with no accommodation to individuals, employers reinforce majoritarian beliefs, and create a situation when some people are expected to not take some positions. Forth, Sidhu sees that Title VII’s obligation to a “reasonable accommodation” may be used against those visible religious candidates in process of accommodation. For example, they may be hired by a dress code company, but only on “out of public view” job positions (Sidhu, 2015). All above mentioned leads Sidhu to a conclusion, that a legal tolerance should be practiced to visible religious candidates and segregation should not happen. As Sidhu writes a magazine article, it’s less academic and written mostly in a form of journal article for a common reader. This fact defines article’s strategy and a main goal – to call public attention to a real and timely social problem. Sidhu uses a bright illustration of his rightness by bringing the example of a What Would You Do? series customers’ behavior on discrimination when hiring religious visible people. A colorful beginning draws readers’ attention. To make this argument sound more true and real, author brings a precise quotation of customers’ answers. One of those answers (“I’m just not sure you’re aware of how illegal it is”) gives Sidhu a logical opportunity to discuss a problem in terms of civil rights later in the text (Sidhu, 2015). Also in order to sound not a purely theoretical, author calls for the example of the existing court proceeding, a case of Samantha Elauf. To stress on actuality of a problem, author has chosen a current, ongoing example of a case. Later in the text, author calls for an earlier historical example of a similar case in Alabama barbeque restaurant. To sound more convincing, Sidhu uses a precise quotation again, citing a restaurant owner. By applying the same method several times within the article when quoting Court’s representatives, Sidhu also makes the effect of participation among readers. With a view of the article’s context, such a quotation may also be considered as a kind of expert opinion. The major part of the article is four analytic points on the situation within a context of civil rights. Thus, in the article Sidhu firstly widens a thesis before the illustration and argumentation. A paragraph, “Make no mistake…” serves for that purpose. Then author divides his main points (“Firstly…”, “Secondly…” etc.) on different logical paragraphs. Within those paragraphs author’s own claims are supported by expert opinions and bright examples. Other kinds of facts (like statistics, or studies) are poorly presented: author did a minimum historical and juridical research before writing the article, and instead focused his attention on a current state of affairs. His main methods are illustrations, examples and expert opinions, which seem to be suitable methods for magazine articles. Generally, article is written in a quite logical, though not a very usual way. Beginning with a clear statement (“Many employers use dress codes to keep visibly religious employees out of sight”) and a bright What Would You Do?’s example, which prove how socially disapproved situation is, author writes kind of a pre- introduction. The introduction to a Samantha Elauf’s case follows. Then, a problem is generalized, and a thesis statement is widened. Thus, when later exploring a Samantha Elauf’s case, it’s also an exploration of all similar cases, followed by a general conclusion. This a not very usual type of organization maybe the only difficulty for a reader to perceive the article, because the language is quite understandable, and author’s thoughts are exposed in a logical and fair manner. Due to a subject, there are also no specific terms in the article to confuse a reader. The only information which is out common knowledge is one about Title VII, but it’s widely discussed within the article. Generally, Sidhu’s article is a good piece of information. The reason I enjoyed reading it, is its social value. Whatever the methods were, author made information sound very important (there are more than 300 comments for the article). Hidhu’s choice of examples, - very current ones, and Samantha Elauf’s case is even ongoing, - made a problem sound timely, and it feels like readers are encouraged to participate in a problem solving. Thus, I think the article would be specifically enlightening to people like myself, who have no idea of this problem before Sidhu had introduced it to a public. Naturally, the problem of Muslims discrimination in American society (especially after 9/11) is in the air. Yet, Sidhu presents it within a new context of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and within a wider problem of Jews, Sikhs and other visible religious people discrimination when hiring. Before the article I only considered a problem to be a social or cultural problem, but it also turns out to be illegal. And the law itself sounds quite inconvenient when Sidhu argues a Title VII. I would recommend the article as a research source, but not very much strongly, because it lacks the research issues and it’s not an academic source. However academically valuable Dawinder S. Sidhu’s article “Segregating Workplace by Religion” is, and to what degree it’s useful for a research practice, it definitely achieves its main goal as a magazine article and draws a public attention to a socially important problem. Sidhu succeeded to doubt the law, and shake a public opinion on discrimination when hiring people with visible religious beliefs. Despite the lack of statistics and a deeper research on a subject, the problem was well and logically illustrated. This is what makes the article valuable. Reference Sidhu, D. S. (March 3, 2015). Segregating Workplace by Religion. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/segregating-workplaces-by-religion/386573/ Read More