'Let Noor Run' initiative aims to end discrimination in sports, starting with hijab bans

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

In October, a 16-year-old cross-country runner made headlines across the country when her fastest 5K of the season was disqualified from a local district meet because she ran while wearing a hijab.

One week after her disqualification, Noor Alexandria Abukaram was back at the finish line with a new personal record, once her coach had acquired a waiver for her to wear a hijab for the race. Last month, after the teen won support from prominent Muslim figures including Olympic medalist Ibtihaj Muhammad and U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, officials say they changed uniform regulations to allow student athletes to compete in religious headwear without requiring waivers.

But Abukaram, a junior at Sylvania Northview High School in eastern Ohio, isn’t finished yet. The athlete aims to remind the world that her case was no anomaly with a new initiative called Let Noor Run.

To read more:

https://religionnews.com/2020/01/22/let-noor-run-initiative-aims-to-end-discrimination-in-sports-starting-with-hijab-bans/

[msongs]

1. how odd that men are never required to wear such a thing nt

[guillaumeb]

2. The kipa, and the kufi.

And the turban for Sikhs.

Are 3 examples enough, or should I add the hats that RCC Cardinals wear?

[msongs]

3. those are not hijabs nt

[guillaumeb]

4. And apples are not oranges,

but both are fruit.

All 4 examples I gave are head coverings worn by men.

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. Are you deliberately being obtuse?

I would hope so. Because if not... damn.

[trotsky]

5. It's not sexism when it's religion, you see. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

7. So... this is tricky.

The prohibition on certain clothing is not due to uniformity or appearance or anything like that. It's due to physics. Certain kit will improve/enhance speed (mostly aerodynamics).

In open time trials for triathlon, sleeveless skin tri suits are often prohibited. Like seriously, they require a certain percentage of the arm to be covered. In other cases, sleeved are banned. (USAT for example)

I have seen people disqualified for this.

Those folks wore the previous year's kit, and were thus disqualified for having sleeves.


For the regulating bodies in question, this isn't a matter of religious accommodation or religious discrimination. This is a result of micro-regulating every aspect of the race to flatten the playing field as much as possible. These race outcomes are measured in and differentiated in microseconds, and the rules are stringent in ways that actually make THIS issue not even the most contentious issue to consider.

Without considerable wind tunnel and other testing, they are right to ban it on potentially performance-enhancing grounds. There are SHOES that are banned for form/function.

[guillaumeb]

8. Thank you for that enlightening post.

And no, that is not intended to be a reference to religion.

As you can see from the accompanying photographs, Noor is wearing a wrap type hijab. If she were wearing a close fitted hat, similar to a swim hat, I would be more disposed to agree that there might be some aerodynamic benefit.

And because the hijab is somewhat bulky, my guess is that any aerodynamic effect would be negative.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. I would be guessing either way. Sometimes unexpected things happen.

I assume they will wind tunnel test it, and make a ruling. But multiple different regulatory race bodies will have to do so. Rules/regulations for one kind of race don't often apply to another. Triathlon is kind of one of the most extreme examples.

[guillaumeb]

10. I am also, obviously, guessing at to the effect, or lack thereof.

And the entire subject of religious garments, and who wears them, has been the subject of much debate her at DU, and in the larger arena.

I have worked with a coalition of groups, Arab and non-Arab, for over 3 years. I know a number of very progressive Muslim women who wear the hijab, and defend their right to make that choice. I also know progressive Muslim women who choose not to wear the hijab.

My view is always that no one should be coerced, or feel coerced, to make such decisions, but to assume coercion always plays a part is to assume too much.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. I view socially enforced behaviors/rules/customs as problematic

but I recognize there's no easy way to unravel any of this from any objective standpoint, because literally every culture, including mine, has a different set of social control. (Social norms.) There is no single objective base/default. It's all relative.

[guillaumeb]

12. And part of the issue is which socially enforced behaviors/rules,customs do we focus on?

And which of these behaviors derive from the imperative of preserving the existence of the tribe?

Obviously a gross mechanism of social control is the justice/court/prison system. But as we know, who enforces the laws, and who is chosen to be the subjects of these laws varies. Thus the plantation to prison history in the US of enslaving black males after the American civil war made chattel slavery illegal.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. I tend to focus on the 'You Must' or 'You May Not'.

Any absolute bears deep scrutiny.

[guillaumeb]

14. True. But part of the "you must/you may not" formulation

is inherent in the legal system.

What we decide is legal, or not legal, varies, as you noted, from society to society.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Our laws are much easier to revise, than religious dogma.

[trotsky]

16. nO It'S eXActLy THe sAmE ThINg /s

[guillaumeb]

17. In theory.

But religious dogma is revised all the time.

[trotsky]

18. Does it get closer to truth?

How do you know whether it does?

[guillaumeb]

19. What gets you closer to the truth as you understand it?

As Pilate said, what is truth?

[trotsky]

20. Please answer my question, and I'll answer yours. n/t

[guillaumeb]

21. We cannot know.

Just as we cannot know that the Creator exists or not.

[trotsky]

22. So there is no way to know if religion approaches anything closer to the truth of your creator? n/t

[guillaumeb]

23. I have said this many times.

Now, it is your turn. No further "clarifying" questions on your part.

[trotsky]

24. No, you've just completely undermined yourself.

You have made several definitive statements about the nature of your creator in this very forum - you now admit there is absolutely no way you can make them. What hypocrisy!

Regarding the discovery of truth in the realm of things that actually exist...

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

[guillaumeb]

25. Again, you refuse to answer, and make unsuported claims.

Predictable.

Now, following your established pattern, you must claim that I have insulted you.

Again, predictable, and showing your interest in dialogue.

[trotsky]

27. Refused to answer what?

I gave you the tool we use to determine the truth of things that exist.

Now you're just declaring your own reality and claiming victory while once again attacking me personally.

Talk about exposing your interest in dialog.

[trotsky]

28. Here are just a couple of your distinct claims about your creator.

Thank you for admitting you are just making things up, and these have no relationship to actual truth.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218268107

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218269749#post53

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218269749#post13

[guillaumeb]

29. At least you are consistent.

[trotsky]

30. Yes I am consistent in opposing hypocrisy.

Thank you for noticing.

[guillaumeb]

31. Even your examples prove you are wrong.

My point/belief has been that the Creator provided the initial spark,

the Big Bang, and allowed what subsequently happened to happen. [/div


2 opinions of mine, and one example speaking of my belief. Do you really not understand that this board is a place for opinions?

[trotsky]

32. You definitely wish that were the case, because you certainly have never been able to.

You state your "beliefs" as if they are facts.

Which they are not.

As you have admitted.

QED

[guillaumeb]

33. So you are unaware that this is an opinion board?

Hint: Unless a post includes citations, one might reasonably conclude that what is expressed is an opinion.

Thus, if I say the 49ers will win on Sunday, that is an opinion.

If I say something about a belief, that is also an opinion.

If I say a mile is 5,280 feet, and include a citation to a source, that is a fact.

https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/articles/units/how-many-feet-in-a-mile.php

[trotsky]

34. I'm perfectly aware, and I am also aware when someone is engaging in equivocation.

And you have demonstrated exactly what I hoped you would.

[guillaumeb]

35. You project far to much.

Or just enough, if you understand my point.

[trotsky]

36. Uh huh.

You go on behaving just like you think Jesus wants you to, g. You are an amazing Christian indeed.