Questionable Motives
January 18th, 2008 | 
Author: Once in a while a news story captures your attention and after reading it you find yourself confused. This article, D.C. High School Track Star Disqualified Over Muslim Uniform, had me scratching my head.
Juashaunna Kelly is a member of the cross-country and track team at Theodore Roosevelt High School. For the past three years she has worn a uniform that allows her to adhere to her Muslim faith by covering all except her face and hands. One of the places she did compete last year, wearing this modified uniform, was the Montgomery Invitational. This year, they have disqualified her because her outfit violates the competition rules. Huh?
What has changed since last year? Well, let’s see, her times for the 1,600 and 3,200 “are the fastest of any D.C. girl.” Running in the Montgomery Invitational with a fast enough time would qualify her for the New Balance Collegiate Invitational in New York on Feb. 8-9. The New Balance meet would put her in front of numerous college recruiters. This could be her ticket to a college education.
Could it be that the meet director, Tom Rogers, doesn’t want Kelly to upstage other runners desiring to be discovered by college recruiters? Such a circumstance is just as reprehensible as religious discrimination. If the uniform was appropriate enough for last year’s invitational, then it should be the same this year. This is a teenage girl looking to pave the way for her future and one man is effectively killing her chances.
Similar Posts:
- None Found
Posted in 
Tags:
NFHS Responds to Maryland Track Situation
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Becky Oakes
INDIANAPOLIS, IN (January 17, 2008) – Last Saturday, Juashuanna Kelly, a runner on the girls track team at Theodore Roosevelt High School in Washington, D.C., elected not to compete in the Montgomery Invitational indoor track and field meet in Maryland after meet officials advised her that she would need to replace her undergarment because it violated track and field playing rules published by the National Federation of State High School Association (NFHS).
The NFHS issues the following statement regarding this incident:
“The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), the national leadership organization for high school sports and fine arts activities, writes playing rules in 17 sports for boys and girls competition at the high school level, including track and field.
“Rule 4-3-1-d of the NFHS Track and Field and Cross Country Rules Book states that ‘Any visible garment(s) worn underneath the uniform top or bottom shall be a single, solid color and unadorned except for 1) a single school name or insignia no more than 2¼ square inches with no dimension more than 2¼ inches and 2) a single, visible manufacturer’s logo as per NFHS rules.’
“Using preventive officiating, meet officials at the Montgomery Invitational checked uniforms prior to the events to make sure they complied with NFHS uniform rules. Since Kelly’s one-piece undergarment was multi-colored (blue, orange, white), it was in violation of the uniform rules. The meet officials did not disqualify Kelly; they informed her she would have to replace the multi-colored undergarment with a single-colored undergarment, an option which she declined and, thus, did not compete.
“The head covering, which was a part of Kelly’s one-piece undergarment, nor the length of the undergarment were in violation of NFHS rules. She could have worn the same style of undergarment, with a head covering, as long as the undergarment was one color throughout the entire piece of clothing. The NFHS track uniform rule was put in place for consistency across the board and for ease in identifying runners at the finish line. Multi-colored undergarments cause greater identification problems for track officials.
“The track uniform is a point of emphasis by the NFHS this year in an effort to have more consistent and widespread enforcement of the rule. Because of her Muslim faith, there were reports that her uniform undergarment was ruled unacceptable on religious grounds. While Kelly’s faith requires her to cover all parts of the body except her hands and face, a single-colored undergarment with a hood would have been acceptable both from an NFHS rules standpoint as well as meeting the requirements of her Muslim faith.
http://www.nfhs.org/web/2008/01/nfhs_responds_to_maryland_track.aspx
I think I may have just been put in my place.
The above press release is all well and good but it still doesn’t address the issue of the uniform being allowed in previous years and not this one.
“The track uniform is a point of emphasis by the NFHS this year in an effort to have more consistent and widespread enforcement of the rule.” What makes this year different than previous years?
This is a quote from a post in the MDRUNNERS website forum: (http://md.milesplit.us/articles/16460)
“The clerk in the bullpen let Ms. Kelly know that her uniform was illegal. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HER HOOD. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT SHE WAS MUSLIM. It had to do with the fact that the unitard she wore as an undergarment was visible and was bi-colored, a clear infraction of the NFHS rule. (I keep reading that she has run in this uniform for three or more years without anyone saying anything to her: in an earlier interview she said she got the unitard custom made at the beginning of her junior year. That would be last year (she is a senior this year). If she ran last year in it, she was lucky enough to slip by the officials – at a meet of over 2,000 competitors, not every infraction is caught (just as there were probably infractions this year that slipped through the cracks. If we run a red light and there are no police nearby, we’re lucky. If we get caught doing the same thing the next time, we would be wise not to complain that “last time no one said anything.”)
The Meet Official was contacted by the clerk and verified that in fact the unitard was illegal in this meet. He informed Ms. Kelly that she could put a plain colored tee (hundreds of which were available throughout the arena) over the unitard, and then her uniform singlet, and no problems with disqualification would result. (Incidentally, Ms. Kelly, in an interview on WUSA this evening, said, (and I quote): “They told me that [about the tee shirt] too, but I was already crying, and I just didn’t feel like doing anything else after that.”
Fran, I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. It still dumbfounds me that she would be allowed to wear it last year, but not his year. I know some things slip through the cracks, but comparing a driver running a red light and letting a teenager run a race is stretching things a bit. There is also the fact that she’s worn the unitard in other meets with no problems; what makes the Montgomery Invitational so special that they feel the need to have such a rule? I guess it’s a moot point now.
A big thank you goes out to Sex & the South for including a link to this post in the SheBlogs Carnival.
Hi, Missy – not all races are sanctioned by the NFHS. Many of the races she ran in were not, therefore she isn’t bound by the same rules. Also, another point that hasn’t been made in the news or anywhere else, is that at the Coach’s meeting (held before EVERY meet), there was a special mention made that NFHS uniform rules would be strictly enforced and that any questions should be brought to the meet official’s attention. Either the coach wasn’t listening, wasn’t there, or for some other reason chose to ignore this announcement, but he had been well warned. Also, when she was informed by the clerk about the uniform violation, this was 20 minutes before the race — ample time for her to make a choice, not – as her mother and coach state – too late for her to change into an acceptable undergarment. Missy, there are so many mistakes in the reporting that I can’t begin to correct them all now, but I’m hoping that responsible journalism will out and that we will all hear the truth very soon. In the meantime, take everything you hear from the Kellys and Coach Bowden with a grain of salt, please.
I take the majority of the news stories with a grain of salt. By pointing out certain ones, you find out all sorts of things not mentioned in the original report. Someone dropped the ball on this issue for the girl to find out only 20 minutes before the meet. I’m a skeptical cynic and still feel that the fact that Kelly is one of the fastest runners could be one reason the rule is being strictly enforced this year.
I understand your doubts, Missy, and applaud your willingness to listen to the truth. Kelly is indeed one of the fastest runners in D.C. However, there are at least ten runners in Montgomery County alone (not to mention the other five states who attended the meet) who are faster. To think that officials would call a ruling on a uniform solely to keep an athlete from competing (especially a good one) is unfair — the officials want a good meet and to limit the talent would not result in very exciting races. Incidentally, last year there was only one clerk, this year there were four – that explains to some degree why the uniform was seen this year. Also, there were two other rulings made for athletes for the SAME violation — neither of which were brought to the press for any kind of discrimination. What you must understand is that this uniform rule disqualifies runners at almost every sanctioned meet … sometimes it’s the coach at fault for not knowing the ruling, sometimes it’s the athlete’s fault for not listening to the coach. One runner was disqualified at this meet AFTER running, because his two-toned unitard was not caught before entering the race. There are over 2,200 athletes — things are going to get by unnoticed. Even if Ms. Kelly had run, her time would not have been valid as she had worn a uniform that violated the NFHS uniform rule.
A huge thank you goes out to the Anything Goes & General News blog carnival for including a link to this post.
I sent my son who had run for Mr. Rogers a copy of the first article about the controversy. Before even reading it, he knew from the picture why Ms. Kelly was being disqualified. He said immediately it was her coach’s fault for not knowing the rules. He also commented that if that had happened to one of Mr. Rogers’s runners, that coach (Rogers) would have taken the blame for the error.
Mr. Rogers had a solution to the problem, but the runner and her coach did not accept it. Given the importance of the meet to her, she should have done what was necessary to run and having the appropriate colors.
This may be a stupid rule, but it is the rule. Coaches need to know the rules and adhere to them .
Hi Susan, I have a better understanding of the situation after discussing it with Fran. It’s a shame that it had to end the way it did. I feel sorry for the girl.
Hi, Missy … Fran here again! Not to belabor the point, but I think you may still be missing the integral fact here … Ms. Kelly had an option and still CHOSE not to run. She wasn’t disqualified. She was not victimized in any way. There is nothing to feel sorry for her about. It was her choice.