Imagine you’re at home getting dressed to leave for the airport. For many of us in this situation, we’re not consciously deciding which items in our wardrobe would be most appropriate for the security check. However, some people are forced to carefully analyze how their outward appearance will make other passengers feel. The last thing someone wants is to appear threatening in an airport, as this can lead to anxiety on the flight and/or increased security screening. For these reasons, many people find themselves having to choose between their personal identities and their fellow passengers' piece of mind.
This dilemma is often experienced by Muslims, especially those who regularly wear turbans. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, turbans have been immediate flag-raisers in airport security lines across the nation, often prompting extra screening. While objections to this profiling have arisen and TSA has made amendments to their policies, agents still routinely force passengers to either remove their turbans or undergo additional screening. Moreover, there is a general tendency among Americans to identify someone wearing a turban as threatening since the 9/11 attacks. Since the Sikh religion (which is said not to be associated with Islamic extremist groups) maintains that a turban is essentially part of one’s head and publicly removing it violates these beliefs, much more is at stake for turban-wearing airplane passengers.
Muslims are not the only ones who experience this predicament when dressing for the airport. As seen in a Boston airport recently, African Americans and Hispanics are often racially profiled at airports based on what they wear and where they travel. For example, “Blacks wearing baseball caps... [or] expensive clothes or jewelry” were seen as exhibiting “suspicious behavior” and were pulled aside for more screening. This threatening idea of African American men carries over into society; googling “black man” images will prompt a list of suggested narrowed searches - the first of which is “gangster.” Black men dressed a certain way in an airport may cause anxiety among passengers because of their presupposed violent character.
So is it better for these and other "visually threatening" individuals to cover at airports? Maybe. According to my boyfriend — who has half-sleeve tattoos on both his arms — he gets stopped for extra screening every time he fails to (literally) cover his tattoos. He says he knows that tattoos appear threatening to some people (especially in an airport), and he thinks the comfortability of everyone boarding the plane is more important than his own right to expression. African Americans and Muslims would also probably do better to racially/religiously cover for the short time they’ll be flying. Wearing more neutral clothing wouldn’t distinguish them from the rest of the security line as much and would probably make those around them feel safer.
But isn’t it a matter of principle? I mean, really, should racial/religious minorities or those who choose to get tattoos be forced to make concessions for society’s inherent prejudices? If they do, this might send the message that some discrimination is okay.
I really don’t know where I stand. It’s easy to say that people shouldn’t cover and society should get over itself; most of us would probably agree that people should stop using these visual stereotypes in the first place. But until society fixes itself in that respect, covering at airports may have its merits. Here’s the real question: Is the personal cost of covering greater than the benefits it may bring to the unique and delicate airport experience? I’m leaning more toward yes, but what do you guys think?
Note: When I discuss racial/religious covering, I'm only referring to individuals who feel more comfortable dressing in a fashion that is stereotypical to their race/religion. People who already dress more "neutrally" and do not feel the need to cover do not directly apply to these airport security covering demands.
Note: For the sake of simplicity, I chose not to delve into the differences between Sikhism and Islam. If someone would like to add information about this, I would appreciate it, as I don't want to say anything that isn't 100% accurate.
Note: For the sake of simplicity, I chose not to delve into the differences between Sikhism and Islam. If someone would like to add information about this, I would appreciate it, as I don't want to say anything that isn't 100% accurate.
Note: The Boston airport also discriminated against Hispanics traveling to Miami, which I chose not to address because it doesn't directly apply to the specific issue of covering.
Kim, you’ve brought up an extremely interesting topic in your blog post, one that I have been thinking about for years. Ever since 9/11, I have thought about this idea of racial covering (or non covering) that happens at airports. You ask the question is it better to put aside personal beliefs and conform to make others feel “safer”? Well my answer to that is no. This may be a naïve way of looking at things, but just because a person takes off their turban, hijab, bandana, or baseball cap, it doesn’t mean that they somehow change something in their personality that makes them less harmful.
ReplyDeleteWhat really bothers me about this idea that one should cover at airports, is that it is an idea that breeds intolerance. Why should people have to change a part of themselves so that they appear less threatening to airport security? But the bigger question is why does a turban raise a red flag to the public? It saddens me that a piece of clothing is looked at by society as something menacing. It seems to me that we should not be advocating covering because by doing so, we are implying to specific groups of people that the way they dress, the religious beliefs they hold, the culture that they embrace is not okay and is something that they should hide.
Something else to think about would be that even though some do not even wear these “controversial” pieces of clothing (but are a part of a targeted group), are they still “randomly picked for additional screening”? The likelihood these groups are chosen for extra security is still higher than normal, which also makes me think that they should choose not to cover because they’ll be subject to lengthier screenings anyways.
In your note, you said that you did not distinguish between Sikhism and Islam but were open to a clarification. Sikhism is a religion entirely separate from Islam. Sikhs are commonly from India whereas Muslims are commonly from the Middle East and Southeast Asia. People often conflate the two religions even though they are not very similar. Islam has more in common with Judaism than any other religion, so it would logically make more sense to compare those two religions. Because of the way in which the media portrays Muslims, westerners tend to assume that all Muslim men wear turbans, when it is actually not as common as you might think.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether the personal cost of covering is worth it, I am not really sure. Any woman who chooses to wear a hijab is automatically searched because the covering of her hair is a national security threat. It is especially problematic because once a woman decides to wear a scarf, there are rules as to who can see her without one on, so it isn't like she can just take it on and off at her leisure. At the same time, I personally try to act as white as possible whenever I go to the airport because I do not want to go through the hassle of being questioned. I am privileged to have fairer skin and an easily pronounced name which makes me inconspicuous, but a lot of my friends and family don't have that privilege. Personally, I think it's worth the cost of covering to me, but I can't speak for others.
Thanks for your comment, especially clarification on the two religions. I tried to find a concise explanation of how they were different, but I failed to do so. Really appreciate this!
DeleteI'm more towards the idea of NOT necessarily having to "cover" because of racial intolerance. Yes, perhaps I could change my clothing, but I can tell tell you from experience that wearing a suit on a plane vs. wearing a t-shirt and shorts have both gotten me 'randomly' searched by security - when I was the only non-Caucasian male in line.
ReplyDeleteI should be able to go on an airplane with a beard, unshaven. I paid for the service. Is my beard offensive (well, if I had a beard)? Does it bother the passenger sitting next to me?
This whole idea of "covering" goes further than just the clothing one is to wear, as you stated it goes into skin color and whatnot. It goes beyond your boyfriend covering up his tattoos. I don't believe that your boyfriend would be doing any wrong in covering his tattoos, but rather it is the fault of society for not allowing this to happen. But then again, racism is always around.
I'll end with a story. A close friend of mine was on an airplane. He was born in the states, current medical student, has a small beard and is brown. No accent on him, nicest man ever. He boarded a plane and sat down in his seat. The man sitting next to him became visibly irked, and decided to tell the stewardess that he was uncomfortable. Well, my friend ended up getting kicked off the plane for doing nothing wrong at all. Even the stewardesses could do nothing about it - there were no open seats.
Like some of the comments above, I think that covering for the sake of avoiding extensive TSA screening simply reinforces the discriminatory intolerance of various peoples in America today. Like Asif, I find it problematic that people are forced to conform to a socially acceptable norm of appearance in order to avoid additional search procedures in an airport, especially when we pay quite a premium to fly from one place to another. At the root of this problem is the mentality that "certain people" are more likely to be dangerous or potentially harmful and in order to combat this fear, we single them out and make 'damn well sure' they aren't. Aside from these largely offensive notions, I think that we can reform our security system to approach security in a much more tolerant way.
ReplyDeleteThe first step towards combatting this racial intolerance is defining (on part of TSA) what exactly the grounds for deterring/searching a passenger may be. Perhaps frequent flyers could pass through expedited customs, on the basis that they are loyal and trustworthy customers.
Terrorists don't fit any particular profile, can come in all forms, and certainly can't be identified by a computer...so if we want to select people in any way, we should randomly select (based on some random computer method) from all passengers. Behavioral screening may be beneficial to us sometimes, but automatically profiling based on appearance or nationality can be beat. As Kim suggested, for some it's as easy as covering up your arm tattoos-- but in some cases, as Asif suggests, you can't [easily] change your skin color or your passport.
I recently read an article about a Muslim man who challenges the TSA and wears a T-shirt that says 'zomg terrorists zomg bombs on planes' and what not. He gets the additional screening every time because he's on the SSSS List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_Security_Screening_Selection). My first thought was "maybe he should stop wearing that shirt, he's just looking for trouble." I told that to a friend of mine and his response was: "'looking for trouble' is the problem." I had never thought of it that way. For some reason, certain types of clothing or actions in an airport can get you in trouble, so for most of us our first solution is to cover. Juts do what the authorities say, and don't challenge them. I think that through this form of covering we're giving up our rights and freedoms to challenge authority and express ourselves; we are fearing the government. And that's just sad.
ReplyDelete