New York is facing a couple of religious challenges to barring recruits from the police academy. The first is a Jewish applicant who was fired for failing to cut his beard to a proscribed length. The second is a Muslim applicant who was fired for saying that he believed homosexuals should be locked up in answering a series of questions on a police form.
In the first case, Hasidic police recruit Fishel Litzman was barred from becoming an officer after he allegedly repeatedly failed to trim his beard. While officers are required to be clean shaven, an exception is made for beards grown for religious purposes.
Litzman, 38, is alleging religious discrimination and his lawyer said that the police academy was fully aware at the beginning of his training that “he would not trim his beard.” The case will be a difficult one given the accommodation for beards up to 1 (millimeter) in length. He would have to show that such a length is still unacceptable for Hasidim and that longer beards do not pose any problems for officers or departmental discipline. Litzman insists that “as an Orthodox Chasidic Jew it is absolutely forbidden in my religious beliefs to cut or trim my beard in any way.” That would allow a very long beard, which could raise issues of greater vulnerability during scuffles and arrests of the officer. However, it is a clear benefit to have officers who can better interact with insular cultural and religious groups in New York. It could prove to be an interesting case.
The case involving an applicant referred to as “Farhan Doe” could be more difficult. He believes that homosexuality is wrong — a view probably shared by a number of officers. He was barred from the academy after checking the “yes” box next to the question, “Do you believe that homosexuals should be locked up.” The question in my view is dangerously imprecise for free speech purposes. It is not clear whether the question is suggesting that he believes that he should arrest them as an officer or whether he was being asked about his personal views of gays. The applicant is currently an auxiliary cop in Brooklyn and says that he is willing to soften his views to be an officer.
The issue raises the difficult question on whether racist or prejudicial beliefs are a barrier to service if they are stated as a personal rather than a professional matter. The problem is magnified when we are discussing an issue upon which many citizens have a strong moral disagreement like homosexuality. If this man was saying that he believed gays could be arrested today for being gay, I have serious qualms about his potential as an officer. If he was saying that he personally would like to see homosexuality as a crime, it raises a different issue. The problem is that the question does not appear to distinguish between the two. I will not deny that I would prefer to have officer who do not hold such prejudicial views. However, there are free speech concerns raised in the controversy.
What do you think?
If the military can ban a yamaka then why can’t the police dept do the same with the beard……
The Islam dude needs to see broke back mountain again….
@bettykath,
“Give him points for honesty and then see if, in spite of his bias, he is willing to enforce the law without letting his bias get in the way.”
That’s right. Use it as an opportunity to give him some training about free speech and diverse societies and the boundaries of his job.
Use it to kick people out and all you’ll get is liars that now know they must cover their tracks.
Same thing with bullshit psy ops like OS implements.
Train the people, monitor performance, and stop allowing psychologists to make thoughtcrime real.
“Dredd
1, June 13, 2012 at 1:17 pm
anon 1, June 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Let’s all thank the psychologists for paving the way to our Orwellian future.
They belong in a pit with the lawyers dumped on top of them.
=================================================
Wanna be a cop do you?”
By the way Dredd, this is the perfect example of why your blog and posts are such excrement.
You can’t even read two sentences without taking it far beyond it’s clear meaning into Dredd la la land.
Instead of blogging pages and pages of your usual endless drivel, why don’t you spend an hour wikiing logical fallacies, because you soak in them.
In this case, try “fallacy of the excluded middle”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle
re: the second candidate
How many of the cops already on the force answered the question honestly? Are there questions about other forms of bigotry? I suspect that lots of cops either weren’t asked or lied. Give him points for honesty and then see if, in spite of his bias, he is willing to enforce the law without letting his bias get in the way.
Yeah, I wanna be a cop. That’s why I said the psychs should get out of our heads and stop imposing their bullshit on society.
anon 1, June 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Let’s all thank the psychologists for paving the way to our Orwellian future.
They belong in a pit with the lawyers dumped on top of them.
=================================================
Wanna be a cop do you?
Let’s all thank the psychologists for paving the way to our Orwellian future.
They belong in a pit with the lawyers dumped on top of them.
Spam catcher has gone mad again.
What OS and frankly said! The guy with the beard should not be kept off the force if the beard doesn not prevent him from doing his job. The homophobe candidate is a time bomb looking for a time and place to go off and his prejudice could get in the way of him properly doing his job.
CLH,
Maybe the newly created unit in charge of locking up all homophobes 😉
Blouise- That was the reason the Navy stopped allowing facial hair. The Navy permitted facial hair for a longer period of time than other services, but after the navy went to the SCBA (type of firefighting apparatus) and several people were injured after the beards broke the seal on the mask. Up till 1985 you could have a beard. However, there may be reasonable accommodations that could be made, such as assigning him to a unit that would be unlikely to be required the use of gas masks.
I’ve heard that the facial hair issue has something to do with gas masks and the like sealing properly. Don’t know if that’s the reasoning here but it makes sense if it is.
@Frankly “That would may candidate 2 a problem. ”
I don’t think you have sufficient information to conclude that. I might have my suspicions. But it appears to me that no one has asked the candidate ‘despite any personal feeling or opinions you may have, can you fairly enforce the law?’
I think the real criteria is that: what ever opinions an officer may hold can he or she enforce the law as it is written?
I am making a point of this because I suspect it may be satisfying and seem efficacious to remove candidates due to their personal beliefs. Certainly I frequently hear of officers who seem to be enforcing their prejudices and that is a significant problem.
But I think the kind of people who read this blog and seem to hold beliefs at variance with the mainstream society are the ones with the most to loose.
My concern is that if we allow jurisdictions to delve into personal beliefs rather than verify a commitment to enforce the law, then it is the tolerant and the progressive who will be restricted from service and removed from the force.
At some point you have to inform people, train them and then give them a chance to perform and prove themselves.
“I believe homosexuals (blacks muslims, jews, native americans, people with tattoos) should be locked up. ” The bias seems clear on its face. It is a prejudice pure and simple. Personal views drive professional behavior, whether consciously or not. I would not want this cop in my neighborhood.
A cops job is to enforce the law of the jurisdiction under which they serve. Not their biblical laws, not the personal bigotry they carry with them, not the stuff they wish they could outlaw, just the actual laws as actually written. That would may candidate 2 a problem. Candidate 1 would only be a problem if his beard interfered with the performance of his duty.
“Litzman insists that “as an Orthodox Chasidic Jew it is absolutely forbidden in my religious beliefs to cut or trim my beard in any way.”
Litzman is correct in his belief which is why we see most “Chasids” with long beards. Permitting a beard only of a certain length does then limit the ability of “Chasids” to join the force. This would also be true for those who practice as “Sikhs”. The NYPD needs to decide if superficial constraints such as beard or hair length are inimical to the discipline of the organization. Personally, I feel if the new officer is otherwise qualified, the NYPD would benefit from having both “Chasids” and “Sikhs” on the force, if only at the least to relax the para-military mindset it is falling into.
In the case of “Farhan Doe” I agree with JT that the question is wrongly imprecise. It should be something like “would you enforce the law impartially towards people who differ from your religious values? This would devolve though to OS’ comment re: psychological evaluations. I’m sure many LEO’s did not openly admit to personal bigotry when the applied for the job, although we see there are those who really are bigots.
Bigoted cops are a danger to public safety, or haven’t you seen enough video of officers bludgeoning civilians? Keep them off the streets and away from weapons.
Actually, I think it would be dangerous for a police officer to think people “should be locked up” if they are certain kinds of people — and the public should not be endangered by the police any more than they already are.
Labor law does not really have much in the way of protection for free speech, even for government employees. There have been very few instances of courts upholding free speech arguments for employees. Ohio Employer’s Law Blog has a few good articles on that, as well as Screw You I’m Going Home blog. I don’t really know New York law on those issues, but generally speaking, the first one might have a case, provided he can show that beard length will not be detrimental to his safety, but the second case really has no leg to stand on. The PD has a right not to expose itself to potential litigation, and screening people who could create a potential lawsuit is well within their rights.
Most, if not all states, now require POST (peace officer selection & training) certification. That involves both a physical and psychological screening. As one who has been doing POST exams for a number of law enforcement agencies for the past forty years, I have a real problem with prejudices that could impair the ability of the officer to be fair and equitable in the course of his or her duties. If an officer believes a specific class or group of people ought to be discriminated against, then I have a problem with that. For those officers who fail the POST mental health exam, that is the end of the line. That is not appealable.