4 Tuesday, May 26, 2009 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu AALAA ALBAROUDI IEP7I: Veiled discrimination JAMIE BLOCK EDITOR IN CHIEF ROBERT SOAVE MANAGING EDITOR RACHEL VAN GILDER EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect theofficial position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. Armed and dangerous Texas bill to allow guns on campuses is unnecessarily extreme exas has a reputation for being home to some gun-slinging cOw- boys. But a bill recently passed by the Texas State Senate may turn Texas college students into gunslingers, too. The bill would allow concealed firearms on all public properties - including college campuses. But the Texas House of Representatives, which has not yet considered the bill, must realize its dangerous implications. The bill fails to recog- nize that colleges and universities are places of learning that should foster an environment of enlightenment, not fear. The Texas House must defeat this bill or risk encouraging a dangerous trend that disturbs college cam- puses and infringes on universities' autonomy. Religious discrimination in the courtroom is very dishearten- ing to many people of faith. One recent example here in Michi- gan is that of Ginnah Muham- mad, a Muslim woman whose small claims court case in near- by Hamtramck was dismissed because she refused to remove her veil while testifying. The judge's refusal to hear Muhammad's case violated her freedom of religion and demonstrated the discrimi- nation Muslims frequently face in the courtroom - a discrimination that needs to end. Muhammad wears the niqab - aveilthat covers her face fromthe nose down - in daily life as part of her religious practice. The judge presiding over the suit, District Judge Paul Paruk, stated that he needed to see Muhammad's face while she was testifying to be able to see whether she was telling the truth. When she refused, Paruk dismissed her case. In response to the dismissal, Muhammad sued Paruk in fed- eral court, alleging a violation of her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The federal court dismissed the case, stating that the state courts should han- dle the issue. Based on this rul- ing, Michigan's Supreme Court proposed allowing state judges leeway on the issue of dress in the courtroom.Ithas delayed avote on the change until its next adminis- trative conference on June 17. In two past United States Supreme Court case decisions, Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder, the court decided that there mustbe a"compellinginter- est" to override people's right to practice their religion. In the first case, the Supreme Court held that there was no compelling state interest that justified the with- holding of unemployment com- pensation to a woman who was fired from her job for refusing to work on Saturday on religious grounds. In the latter case, Amish parents refused to send their chil- dren to public school after the age of 16. The Supreme Court unani- mously held that the free exercise of religion outweighed the state's interest in compelling school T HUM BS U P/DOWN t THUMBS UP ( Your University-sponsored trip to Mexico, which the University recently ended restrictions prohibiting. * THUMBS DOWN Getting swine flu on your University-sponsored trip to Mexico. attendance. Muhammad's case is no dif- ferent. There wasn't a compel- ling state interest in Muhammad taking off her veil. Paruk did not even show consideration to other options that would be less burdensome, such as permitting Muhammad to appear before a female judge, for whom she would be able to remove her veil. Paruk blew this case complete- ly out of proportion. One would assume that the most important factor in a case is the testimony given and the facts presented, not the demeanor of a testifier's face. This kind of evidence is subjec- tive, and Paruk probably could not have determined Muham- mad's honesty just by seeing her face. Besides, Muhammad's eyes - usually considered the most expressive part of the face - were already showing. The benefit that Paruk could have gotten from judging the demeanor of Muham- mad's mouth and nose could not have been enough of a compelling state interestto justify overriding her right to free religious exer- cise. On a more dismaying note, Paruk seemed dismissive of Muhammad's religious beliefs as a Muslim, informing her that her decision to not remove the veil wasn't a "religious thing" but a "cultural thing." For Paruk to downplay her religious beliefs and amount them to a simple cul- tural choice is an insult to Muslim women everywhere who choose to wear the nigab as part of their Islamic religion. This is one of many instances in which Muslims have faced religious discrimination. The appearance of Muslims in reli- gious clothing has been used to push the idea that Muslims aren't real Americans. Steps need to be taken to ensure equal treatment of people of all religions, espe- cially in the courtroom. Religious discrimination does exist, but the courts should be a place where this discrimination is ended,rnot abetted. Aalaa Albaroudi is an LSA senior. SHARE YOUR VIEWPOINT The Daily is accepting submissions for viewpoints on a topic of the writer's choice. These submissions should reflect a personal interest. Viewpoints are 500-650 words long. They are edited for length, clarity, grammar, and factual accuracy. All submissions become property of The Michigan Daily. For more information, e-mail Rachel Van Gilder at rachelvg@umich.edu. The Texas Senate passed the bill on Wednesday by a vote of 19-12. The proposed law would allow concealed handguns on all public property, even elementary and high schools. Private insti- tutions would be exempt. The bill does not change laws that restrict concealed carry permits to those over 21 who have passed criminal background checks and other training requirements. Half of the members of the House of Representatives have already committed to support- ing the bill. If it passes, Texas will join West Virginia, Colora- do and Utah in allowing guns on public university campuses. But unlike these states, the Texas law will not let individual uni- versities decide whether or not to allow guns on campus. This bill challenges univer- sities' educational autonomy, which is essentialto maintaining institutions of higher learning. Under the bill, public universi- ties in Texas - even those that currently prohibit firearms on campus - would be forced to allow concealed weapons. Each campus is different, and each university should have the abil- ity to determine what is best for its students. For the state to con- tradict its universities' decisions regarding the safety of their stu- dents is naive and irresponsibly heavy-handed. The fear of being undefended in the event of a school shooting may have led more colleges and states to consider allowing guns on campus. But allowing guns on campuses isn'tthe way to assuage this fear. Guns are an unneces- sarily dangerous solution and better alternatives to keep stu- dents safe exist. Instead of arm- ingstudents and deputizing them to participate in a Wild West- style shootout, it's important for universities to focus on prevent- ing these attacks from happen- ing in the first place. Improving access to mental health care for students is one way of doing this. States, meanwhile, should main- tain sensible restrictions and proper screening procedures to obtain a concealed carry weapon permit, ensuring that those who should not have access to a fire- arm ever get it. Improved response plans can also eliminate the per- ceived need for firearms. Proper lockdown procedures and an informed faculty and staff can make a big difference in ensur- ing that campuses are safe, and so can emergency alert proce- dures like text-messaging and e-mail alert systems. The Texas House must defeat this bill and focus its attention on making campuses safer. There is no question that students must be protected, but adding more guns is not the answer. Editorial Board Members: Emad Ansari, Ben Caleca, Erika Mayer, Asa Smith, Patrick Zabawa LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Tell us what you think. Send letters to tothednily@umich.edu or visit michigandsily.com and click on 'Letter to the editor.'