Known for its shirtless men and uber-suggestive advertising, Abercrombie and Fitch has never been a conservative store. If anything A&F encourages its employees to be fun-loving and to let down their hair. But is it ethical for the store to reject a potential employee simply becausethe individual wears religious coverings?  This is the dispute occurring at one of their locations south of the border.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a lawsuit against Abercrombie and Fitch on behalf of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim community college student in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  She was interviewed for a position at an Abercrombie Kids store, and was wearing a black hijab.  Elauf later heard from a friend that she was declined because of her headdress.

During the EEOC’s investigation,A&F claimed that “under the Look Policy, [the employee dress code] associates must wear clothing that is consistent with the Abercrombie brand, and cannot wear clothes that are the colour black.”  They added that the wearing of headgear is also prohibited.  Should the company have made an exception for employees who wear headgear for religious reasons?  Elauf’s grandfather saysthat  ”they put a wedge into her Americanism.  She grew up here speaking the language, going to school.  Why did they do this?  ” Elauf is suing for back pay, and emotional pain and suffering..

There are many people standing behind this case, criticizing the company’s hiring policy.  Razi Hashmi, the executive director of CAIR in Oklahoma, is repulsed.  “The discrimination that took place flies in the face of what America stands for.  We stand for pluralism and freedom, and especially freedom of religion.”

But on the business side of the matter, shouldn’t A&F have the corporate right to hire employees who uphold the store’s ambience?A spokesperson for them claims they do, in fact, “have a strong equal-opportunity policy, and accommodate religious beliefs and practices when possible.  Stephen Schwab, the dean of Cornell Law School says frankly, “Employers often win cases involving dress codes.  There’s a general feeling that employers are entitled to set an image in their stores.”  After all, how often do you see a Caucasian person working in a Chinese restaurant?However, A&F still appears to have violated a section  of the Civil Rights Act which stated that an employer’s refusal to hire an employee based on his/her religion is “unlawful”. To win such a case, the employer must demonstrate that he is “unable to reasonably accommodate an individual’s religious observance without undue hardship” on his business. So the final question comes down to this: would the hiring of Samantha Elauf have hurt the Abercrombie brand?

Although the lawsuit is still up in the air, there is no denying that Abercrombie and Fitchdoes not have a great track record with the hiring and dismissal of employees.  Prior to this, the company has been sued for limiting its employment of minorities, and the firing of a Pentecostal worker who asked to dress more modestly.

Did Abercrombie and Fitch discriminate against Samantha Elauf? Where should the line between a company’s dress code and religious discrimination be drawn? We would love to hear YOUR reactions!  Send your thoughts to forum@youthactionnetwork.org!

In an age in which a constant bombardment of ads fighting for a plethora of causes is ever present, how do we clarify the difference between a moral cause and an unethical one?  With a variety of social networking sites available, any average Joe or Jane can share their opinion with the world.  Any individual can express their passion for fighting against child labor in a third world country, or the need for more gay rights. However, while these causes may all be just, there are others who may believe that fighting for these causes is unethical and flat out wrong.

But who are they to question what is right or wrong?  If one is passionately defending a cause, who has the right to stifle that freedom of speech?  Should there be ethical considerations when expressing a raw and emotional point of view?  These are the big questions that must be asked.

Undoubtedly, everyone has the absolute right to voice their opinions.  With social networking sites available such as Facebook and Twitter, millions of users can share their values and opinions, regardless of class, race, gender or status.   A person from Toronto can share their cause with a diverse scope of people throughout the world from Paris to Hong Kong.

Social networking has given people the opportunity to fight for social change themselves, despite not belonging to famous worldwide organizations such as World Vision or Free the Children.   These websites become an open forum for people to discuss current world issues and make plans for social change.  Even issues that may not command authority in international headlines have an opportunity to be exposed to the world.

However surprisingly, there are those who may oppose this open forum of activism. It becomes confusing when others begin to say that it is unethical to share these issues with the world.  It would be understandable if these issues were to demonstrate hate or prejudice, but if these expressions do not offend others, why should they be suppressed?  If one does not agree with a cause that another is defending, there is no obligation to believe in that same cause.  An activist should not have to suppress his or herself in order to cater to the needs of others who may not agree with a given point of view.

Furthermore, activism is defined by the English Oxford Dictionary as “the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change”.  It says nothing of altering your point of view for others.  If in everyday speech we were required to censor our thoughts, our world would lack creativity that brings about radical changes.  Our way of life would be stale and unchanging.  For example, what kind of world would we live in if activist leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. who fought for civil rights and Harvey Milk who fought for gay rights were suppressed before they even had a say?  What if they gave up their fight because other people believed that their theories were wrong and unethical?  What kind of world would we be living in today?

Our world would certainly not be as liberal.  The truth is, not everyone is going to agree with your opinion as an activist.  Some may believe that what you are fighting for is wrong and unethical; they may believe that you should stop campaigning for your cause in order to please them.  The power of you, the activist, is to prove these people wrong. You have the ability to show the world an issue and rally people for social change.  You have the tenacity and the strength to change those once doubtful minds.   Don’t be afraid to express yourself. If it is a valid issue and you are passionate, no one can stop you in the pursuit of your cause.  You, the activist, must perform and protest, and in turn, bring radical change to an irrational world.