Dear Alma, Our new violist wears a hijab
NewsFrom our agony aunt’s mailbag:
Dear Alma,
There’s a new player in our viola section and she wears a kind of hijab – a black headscarf that also covers her shoulders. For what I can hear she’s not that good, but she must have sneaked through some kind of audition and now we are having to adjust both to her playing and to her presence.
What bothers me is not her religion – I treat all faiths as nonsense – but the effect she is having on our section. We cannot socialise the same way any more. Can’t go as a group to the bar, or to a club. We can’t even invite her to a barbecue without first having to research what she’d eat. For the first time, I feel uncomfortable in my own orchestra.
I bought her a coffee at intermission the other day. She thanked, but never touched it. I asked after her family. She said they’re fine.
There’s a new CFO upstairs, also wearing a head-scarf. Tell me if I’m being unreasonable for being so put out. Tell me if you know of such issues in other orchestras.
Bothered and bewildered
Dear Bothered and bewildered,
I can see that this is troubling you. You seem to be confused by a number of different prejudices which are becoming mixed up with your insecurities. I am not saying you are a bad person, although your questions are glaringly racist, just that this could be a moment where your eyes and heart could be opened to a new experience. If I were a member of your orchestra, I would hope that there would be obligatory diversity and inclusion training, as there is in most universities. For all of your sakes. Let me answer your query with an imagined query from the other side.
Dear Alma,
I have landed a new job in a good orchestra. I am a violist who graduated from a strong music school, and have worked my way up the orchestral ladder in the last several years. Last year I won a blind audition and am now a member of a wonderful group. I am working hard and doing my best.
I wear a hijab (a scarf which covers my hair, ears, and neck). I have had to overcome many pressures from my faith and community to pursue my passion for classical music, which is almost universally considered forbidden. I played in school as a young student, and was strongly encouraged to give it up as I grew older. One day my teacher invited me to attend the Zohra Symphony Orchestra, and my life changed. This all-female orchestra from Kabul is conducted by a woman and plays classical music and wears hijab. That day I decided I would be a professional violist and I have never turned back.
My struggles have been all worth it. But small struggles still enter my every day life. In orchestra, any slight mistake I make is noticed with a glare and snide remark from a member of my section. I can hear them talking, saying I got into the orchestra because of this or that reason – that I am a bad player. They all know each other and for the most part don’t speak to me. Last week a man from my section bought me a drink which has caffeine, and I thanked him (I don’t drink caffeine) and he glared at me across the cafeteria as I politely sat with the drink in front of me.
After all I have been through, these small problems are nothing to me. I am here to do my job. To play the music I love, even though it has separated me from some of my family who I love.
But, dear Alma, is there a way to help my colleagues become more comfortable around me? They seem frightened or intimidated.
Please Advise
I for one have never heard of all members of an orchestra’s viola section all going out to socialize together. Do all other members of the section drink alcohol? The incoming “letter” is rightly described as racist. It’s also nonsense! If by some odd chance it is genuine – and yet again I have serious doubts – the writer should resign and find an orchestra more suited to his bigoted views. Then he’ll discover that it’s far from easy getting through auditions!
Why assume the sex of ‘Bothered and bewildered’?
Agree — the letter read to me more female.
Besides the point, Just Asking…..
Well said, Nick2!
The Equality Act 2010 makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on grounds of their religion or belief. This includes if an employer were to ban hijab in the workplace.
Some good websites devoted to Hijab orchestra so outfits – on Pinterest here:
https://www.pinterest.com/cdaisynd/concert-outfit-hijab-ideas/
TikTok Hijab orchestra outfits:
https://www.tiktok.com/discover/orchestra-outfit-hijab
Get over yourself. If socialising is that important to you perhaps you should re-examine your priorities.
You have a point, and yet socialising is good for the cohesiveness of groups working together. Can’t this woman come along and order orange juice? I’ve seen that happen in group outings after work.
Absolutely. Think about someone other than yourself, question person! It’s not about socializing. It’s a job.
“Your questions are glaringly racist” said Alma. That is absolute rubbish. Race has nothing to do with the case – we do not even know the “race” of either party.
The same kind of social unease occurres even when secular and religious Jews mix – and is bound to occure whenever different cultures meet. What’s natural for one is unacceptable to the other – food, clothing, hand shaking, behaviour in mixed company, language.
Once upon a time these difficulties would have been resolved by tact and good manners. Nowadays they are regulated by legality, political slogans, and condescending hectoring.
Agony Aunt is by no means the first person to get race and religion mixed up.
Racism is a much broader term than discriminating against a race. According to the American Psychological Association:
Racism is a form of prejudice that generally includes negative emotional reactions to members of a group, acceptance of negative stereotypes, and racial discrimination against individuals; in some cases it can lead to violence.
Discrimination refers to the differential treatment of different age, gender, racial, ethnic, religious, national, ability identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, and other groups at the individual level and the institutional/structural level. Discrimination is usually the behavioral manifestation of prejudice and involves negative, hostile, and injurious treatment of members of rejected groups.
I think you’ve misread what the APA say (and in any case, they might even be wrong!). What you say seems to connect racism with race (not exactly innovative). Yes, *discrimination* is not confined to discrimination against people on grounds of race, but when it’s dicrimination against other sorts of people, it isn’t *racial* discrimination.
Yaron – racism has a wider definition –
adjective
characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
“we are investigating complaints about racist abuse”
1. The case in the Slipped Post doesn’t satisfy bthat definition of racism, because that definition is still about, specifically, race, not about any old discrimination.
2. Is the definition you cite TRUE? Proffered definitions shouldn’t be accepted in the way Moses hoped the Ten Commandments woul be accepted.
3. “Racism” is not an adjective.
Oxford Dictionary:
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Are you saying that you think the person is being completely fair in their complaint, or just that you have a different opinion about the definition of a particular word? Not quite getting your point here, Paul.
I said only and precisely what I meant, namely, that in the case as described the attitude towards the violist is not racism because there is no mention of her race. And to say that is not to say that the person is being fair in their complaint. As for my having a “different opinion” about the definition of a particular word–look, racism says what it’s about on the tin, namely, that it has to do with *race*. Someone horrible might beat me up for being gay, but they are not, in so doing, being *racist*. “Racist” is not an all-purpose word for nasty discrimination against others.
Any sort of religious head covering has no place in a European orchestra. I hope the orchestra management is able to rectify their error. It should have been made clear to the musician that she would not be allowed to go on stage with a hijab.
Really? Any sort? I have seen musicians wear a kippah without evident disruption of the ensemble. For all I know I have seen Jewish women musicians in orchestras wear a sheitel (wig). The great Ida Haendel wore a sheitel and I’d assume she was a welcome guest at any orchestra. If we had a musical pope would we not fully expect him to wear his zucchetto?
Demonstrative religious symbols have no place in a Western concert hall for classical music, as far as appearances on the stage are concerned. That also goes for crosses or turbans or hijabs or kippahs. But in the audience that is a different matter.
“Demonstrative religious symbols have no place in a Western concert hall for classical music”
Why not? You don’t say.
Western (European) classical music, as performed in a concert hall specifically built for the purpose, is a VERY secular art form, even if Mahler II is performed. The art form was born from the Roman Catholic Church in Medieval times and has liberated itself, sometimes with painful side effects, from its parent. All the values inherent in the music, especially the implied spiritual ones, and the halo of respect and awe surrounding performances, plus the traditional rituals in the halls, are remnants of the Eucharist, but secularised, as most of the values of the Enlightenment (18th century) are in fact secularised Christian values. Classical music should be kept free from any suggestion of organised religion and any spirituality singing-around it should be freefloating and to be experienced individually according to any listener’s perception, without any obligation.
I never thought so this way, but when I read this book, I saw how true all of this is: mostly, audiences are not aware of the connections:
https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-5275-5314-9
“Western (European) classical music, as performed in a concert hall specifically built for the purpose, is a VERY secular art form”
Respect for the personal dress preferences of people belonging to different religions or none is *itself* secular.
Of course, but why should that apply to an art form that is free from organised religion? It is not a religious thing. The traditional way of dressing: in a modest, dark way as to not draw attention to the players – orchestras, conductors, ensembles, soloists – is in harmony with classical music, as the conspicuous outfits of certain soloists are obviously not.
Dressing on the stage should not draw attention to the players as such, and also not to the players’ cultural or religious convictions. In the end, any such attention is vulgar.
Was it another John Borstlap who wrote that book?
No it was the same but sometimes he seems to forget.
Sally
“Western (European) classical music, as performed in a concert hall specifically built for the purpose, is a VERY secular art form”.
So we should never perform, say, Mozart’s “Coronation” Mass in the concert hall? Definitely written for the Catholic Church – nothing secular about it.
That’s about the music, not about the presentation. You can perform a whole program of Renaissance choral music with catholic masses but please not by priests in gowns and nuns in habits.
I have seen american singers wearing a
Large cross. Especially country music singers. This in london.
That is NOT classical music.
What kind of bullsh*t is this? Why is a musician not able to openly express their religious identity, just as they would in virtually any other setting in their daily life? Explain it to me like I’m a five-year-old, May.
Why do you need to ‘express your religious identity’ while playing music? Should we also ‘express our sexual identity’ at the same time? What about a few flags while we’re about it?
Once again, it’s all about me, me, me…
To me, on the contrary, it’s all about respecting other people culture (religion is part of it). If it does not harm anybody, what’s the issue?
Talk of “expressing your religious identity” suggests you want to make a provoking show of it. But dressing as she does may just be normal clothing to her.
Actually, clothes do express sexual identity. Men tend to wear trousers, women often wear dresses.
I find disguising myself with a burka has helped me a lot when there are these silly protest groups at the gates here after some crazy SD comments. I can climb over the fence and slip into my work room undetected. The burka makes women invisible. I think it’s a great invention!
Sally
“Any sort of religious head covering has no place in a European orchestra.”
Why has it no place? You don’t say.
What makes you sure its an European orchestra, maybe a British one but in general, professional musicians from all parts of the word are not so much into strict religious representations as this life as a pro with the permanent stand by situation contradicts with strong religious rules.
May – head coverings are protected by law. Otherwise no one can wear a cross, nuns would not be able to wear their habits.
But if an orchestra would be made-up of nuns in their habits, that would distract from the music.
There’s not a lot of difference between nun’s habits and the all-black outfits orchestras standardly wear.
An orchestra composed entirely of people in nun’s habits might startle on our first being acquainted with it but the clothes would soon slip into unnoticeability.
I wonder what the young ladies Vivaldi wrote for wore.
They may have been quite frivolous nuns, because Vivaldi tought and led them while they were behind bars, just to make sure.
John – we are not talking about an orchestra made up of nuns. Or buns, or mums. We watched orchestras made entirely of white men for a long time, and it didn’t distract from the music. What about an orchestra of skinny people or birds? Or the orchestra that wears shoes?
May – are you also going to tell Yuja that she has to cover her knees? Your comment is wrong. People do not look uniform in the workplace. They have the freedom, lawfully, to wear a headscarf, or a cross, or a kippah.
Ultimately, the OP has no right to resent the fact that one (or more) of his/her colleagues appears not to drink alcohol. In any workplace, one has to accept that one may have colleagues who do not subscribe to one’s own framework of preferred social activities, for any number of valid reasons. As for the question of researching dietary requirements, I would say that it is a basic courtesy for any organiser of an event involving food to ask *all* attendees/invitees proactively to specify what they can and cannot eat.
If there are genuine doubts about a person’s artistry, professionalism, and/or competence, that is a separate matter that should be evaluated on those grounds without any account being taken of the person’s being perceived as a social misfit by the OP. For instance, any discussion of a person’s capacity to “blend with the ensemble” should be evaluated solely in artistic terms.
Anyway, you can go to a bar with your colleagues but not drink alcohol yourself.
Exactly – the person asking the question has their facts and complaints all mixed up together. They are a hot mess.
What rubbish, Alma. It’s entirely possible this violist was given a position in the orchestra because of her religion rather than her skill. As long as there are DEI departments and their resultant quotas and insistence on hiring by skin color and gamete size rather than skill, then people will rightly suspect that maybe the new member did not meet the rigorous standards to win a position in the orchestra.
And the stand-offish behavior that Bothered and Bewildered describes in her new colleague would put anyone out.
As another commenter here suggested, May, no religious symbols should be worn in public performances.
It is a law that people are are allowed to wear head coverings at work. Not in France. People wear head coverings in all kinds of jobs. Orchestras are no different.
France has a very strict republican (secular) constitution which forbids wearing religious symbols in public places run by the state, like schools, city council services, etc. and for good reason: religion is considered a private affair and not a state affair. Since orchestras and operas and theatres are paid for by the state, they are in the same position as city council services and the like.
The Equality Act of 2010 makes it illegal to discriminate against someone based on religion, including if an employer would ban a headscarf at the workplace.
Which country’s equality law? Surely not France’s. And in Canada there is a Quebec case about to go to the Supreme Court. It has given rise to a request that one judge — who happens to be Muslim — recuse himself (not because of his religion but because he represented a group campaigning for human rights on some related issue).
England’s law…
“England’s law…”
The UK’s, actually.
This is a wonderful opportunity for the viola section to get to know something about another culture with its culinary choices, etc. I suggest an after concert party with small samples of dishes from the rejected player’s kitchen. Food from that part of the world she comes from is fabulous. And she can explain which foods are off limits because of her religion, which, after all, mirror Jewish Kosher restrictions.
Thank you. Some people here seem so afraid of cultural differences that they forget how enriching they can be.
Yes – and to see inside an orchestra a bit of variety is most welcome!
I once went on holiday to Asfahan to taste a bit of cultural difference and Persia seemed the best place to find the famous charms of 1001 Nights. Alas, my long blond hair disrupted the local community, which seemed to entirely consist of men, to such extent that I had to break-off my stay and be rescued by a UN convoy. Also I found that nobody there had ever read about Sheherazade!
Sally
Margaret – a much better solution than just plunking down a coffee in front of someone and judging them for not drinking it! Good suggestion.
I wonder if the complainant asked the violist if she liked coffee. It was a pleasant gesture, and politely acknowledged. But that’s all I could do as, in the UK occasionally, I am given a cup of tea without anyone asking how I take it. I am violently allergic to milk, and would have to say thank you and not touch it if someone plopped a cup of milky tea down in front of me.
Exactly, V. Lind. Not asking a person what they would like to drink is in itself a power play or just plain ignorant.
Agree. In fact bringing/buying someone a cup of coffee unsolicited, and without enquiring first, strikes me as the kind of passive-aggressive behaviour a person might indulge in having observed that the recipient never seems to drink coffee.
Really? “Passive-aggressive”? Golly, the number of psychiatric experts going in for free diagnosis of others’ mental states on this board and others is astonishing.
It was probably innocently done, but the reaction to the recipient not drinking it might have evoked a response such as “Sorry — perhaps you don’t care for coffee?” This coffee-donor asks for analysis by his or her sharp, judgmental response.
And the recipient could have said, “Oh, that’s awfully nice of you, but I’m sorry to say I can’t take caffeine.”
I’m regularly exposed here to passive-aggressive gestures like: ‘Would you like some coffee or tea?’ It gets on my nerves really.
Sally
“The incoming “letter” is rightly described as racist.”
There is no mention in the letter of the viola-player’s race.
Islam is not a race. What if the writer and new viola player were both American citizens?
Humans have no “races”…
I fear the real “”racist” here was Alma, assuming too much about both viola players.
You are silly. Racism is discrimination against minorities or people with less power than the ruling class.
No, it isn’t. Disabled people are not, as such, subject to racism. Racism may be discrimination against SOME people with less polwer than the ruling class but that doesn’t mean that ALL discrimination against people with less power than the ruling class is racism. You have committed the classic logical howler of Affirming the Consequent.
No it’s not, and you know it.
The “and you know it” move is usually a bit too inventive. We really don’t know whether they know it.
If you are implying that the term racism means against a race, you need to look at a dictionary.
The dictionary in question might be wrong!
By your logic, discrimination against black people is homophobia.
Of course Islam is not a race. Racism is not people against races. It is discrimination. It’s a basic term that you should know.
Yes, but let’s face it: in today’s vernacular usage, “Islamophobia” and other discriminations against Muslims are routinely referred to as racist. Rightly or wrongly, but routinely. And everyone understands what it means.
That’s because of a silly assumption that all Muslims belong to a certain race or at least aren’t white.
But white people can be and sometimes are Muslims.
Racism is any old discrimination? If I won’t hire you for my orchestra only and precisely because you’re a woman, that’s racism on my part?
Rotten reasoning:
1. Racism is discrimninating against others.
2. Homophobia is discriminating against others.
3. Therefore, racism is homophobia and homophobia is racism.
Some of the pro-or-con comments about the letter inadvertently (or purposefully?) come off like sarcasm or a parody.
The original letter and, even more so, the subsequent comments make it clear how important it is that most orchestras today employ blind auditions. It’s clear that this violist’s prospective orchestral colleagues would not have been able to see past her attire, no matter how well she played.
I’m not impressed with the argument that their expressed biases “can’t be racist”. Racial divisions are entirely social in nature; scientists tell us that racial distinctions have no biological basis whatsoever.
I wonder if I, as a white male, would be equally ostracized in this orchestra. After all, I don’t use caffeine, can’t drink alcohol and avoid eating meat. Somehow, I think none of that would matter as much in my case.
Disappointed to see the number of comments about religious symbols having no place in a concert hall.
We listen to music, we don’t watch it. It’s just not important what people wear or what faith they have.
I’ve also sat next to people in orchestras wearing crosses and I’m sure the people commenting wouldn’t insist others took those off. Are we going to start banning religious works next? Are we going to start banning works from religious composers?
Music would be a lot poorer without it.
That is nonsense. It is about the visuals and about not distracting from the music, of whatever kind.
Let’s take this apart for a sec. Obviously the racism is not OK. She has just as much right to be in the orchestra as the writer of the letter.
However, what I came here to say is: it’s ok to lament the changing landscape of the orchestra. Orchestral musicians spend loads of time in casual socialisation: breaks, meals, tours etc. When the landscape changes, it’s ok to be sad about that, because people that have been there for a long time, suddenly can start feeling like they dont belong.
In our orchestra, the older musicians have been retiring over the last 5 years or so, and in their place lots of younger people have been coming in. While they have brought their amazing skill and musicality with them, they have also brought the societal trends the younger people these days have: less drinking, more conversations about different forms of discrimination etc. Of course that changed the landscape of the orchestra, it has become more serious. While it’s natural and it reflects society as it is now, it’s ok to feel sad about it.
Most young people of today are bores.
That’s what many people tell me when I want them to listen to Boulez.
Sally
Sounds ghastly.
@Guest:
more conversations about different forms of discrimination etc
Sounds like a barrel of laughs, doesn’t it? I remember what we talked about (and did) when we were young and it certainly wasn’t that…
Too many people are assuming that the viola player isn’t white. Don’t assume. Remember that white people can be Muslims! I’ve met a white girl who converted.
OP sounds like they fit the stereotype of violists’ intelligence levels.
Invite her to the bar. She can order a mocktail. Most places have them. If she doesn’t want to go maybe she has some social anxiety issues unrelated to her faith.
If you invite anyone to a BBQ there are likely to be food allergies and dietary restrictions across the group. Make it a potluck and then she can discreetly bring something that works for her.
Give up your symbol of oppression, at least when you are playing and interacting with the orchestra. It is a choice, after all. Is anyone else wearing an overt symbol of religion? The problem is that you have no perspective and seek to impose your religion and culture on others who are bothered by it for good reasons.
The muslem headscarf can mean many different things: being oppressed in a male patriarchal society, being an expression of religion, being an expression of a cultural identity (within a muslem society or in a Western society), being a gesture of rebellion within a lefty family, being a cover-up of a bad hair day, or the result of complete confusion about head gear in general. Who is to tell in which circumstance? Who can check with which means the degree of free will involved? In each case what is needed to find-out: a cultural anthropologist, a psychiatrist, a legal expert of the local constitution, a fashion designer, parents, siblings, friends, neighbours.
“The problem is that you have no perspective and seek to impose your religion and culture on others who are bothered by it for good reasons.”
Wearing a garment that has religious connotations is not imposing your religion and culture on others. The lady isn’t trying to get others to wear the garment in question, let alone pray in a mosque. Seeing someone in a garment with religious connotations isn’t having their religion and culture imposed on you.
When I wear my necklace with the little cross under my dress, I still feel the suspicious piercing eyes at work, as if I want to convert them, while I merely want to keep the option of heavenly support open while I work my tail off here. People are so sensitive nowadays!
Sally