Toughie. I'm still thinking about this one, so bear with me.

Going by the facts of your post, it sounds like everyone is following their respective rulebooks, which are unfortunately in conflict. I don't think anyone has yet acted inappropriately. It's kind of a test. NCAA says "you can't wear a different uniform than that of your teammates." Therefore, her coach acted correctly when telling the student that she could not wear these other clothes. The student is from a particular sect that demands a certain level of modesty from her, which she endeavored to follow. Therefore, she was correct in requesting the alternate dress, and also in removing herself from the situation which required her to disobey this rule. Ahmed Bedier is also correct to say, "an athlete should not be asked to choose between engaging in healthy sporting activities and her deeply held religious beliefs," which neatly brings up various "freedom and protection of personal religious practices" items guaranteed in our legal system. Is the NCAA rule discriminitory? No. Are the uniforms discriminitory? I doubt it. However, the combination of this rule and the uniforms provided (in this case) are obviously causing a problem for this individual.

America totes itself as the land of opportunity and equality, so we should be able to fix this. Let's see what we've got.

Okay...obviously, there are certain reasons why everyone on a team should wear the same uniform. I seem to recall an incident from the American Civil War wherein a certain Union unit decided that grey would make a much more dashing color for their uniforms than that dowdy old blue. Seeing as grey was the main color of the Confederates' uniforms, you can imagine the small disaster that occured when they met up with another Union unit. A different set of clothes might be too confusing or distracting, if not to her own team, then to the opposing team. That's hardly fair.

I start to get a little hung up here. I feel that a possible solution to the body covering issue would be a skin-tight (for mobility; think maybe leggings and a long-sleeved leotard/shirt thing) covering in the team colors underneath the regular uniform. That could keep the look of one team the most consistent. However, depending on how strictly the NCAA takes that rule, I don't want to inflict these extra clothes onto female athletes without her special restrictions. That's not right either. And if she requires something yet more substantial than a lycra catsuit, I grow even more concerned than I already am about overheating. "Healthy sporting activities" often require thinner, breathable material for the participants' safety. Also, there is the mobility issue.

Now, if this was about a woman in a burka wanting to work in a place with heavy machinery, I would say to her "Sorry, try for a desk job. We don't need people losing arms." I also remember being told that many sports give penalties for not keeping their jerseys tucked in (thus reducing hard-to-watch-for fouls of opportunity). If she just needs to be covered, end of story, and the NCAA is willing to be flexible about everyone wearing an additional covering similar to the one I suggested, I think people could be happy. It's that pesky headscarf that really trips me up. What is the range of peripheral vision in one of those things? How securely are they affixed to the woman's head? Can they shift around to dangerously obstruct vision in active situations? Imagine how debilitating it would be for her, personally, if someone snatched it off during a game! It would be a foul as well as a budding religious persecution lawsuit all in one. Perhaps that would have to be a personal risk of an Islamic, basketball-playing woman. Perhaps there would have to be "headscarf release forms," wherein the Islamic women would have to agree not to take action about incidents involving their headscarves in games, the NCAA promising, in return, severe penalties for players found to be purposely using these garments in dirty tactics (that would have to go for both sides in some scandalous incident someday, I'm sure). It's so tricky.

I don't really want to see an IWNBA arise out of necessity. But I also don't want to see people demanding to wear religious symbol necklaces on court, of any kind, since those are a proven strangling hazard. I want to see this young woman be able to play and keep her scholarship without compromising her morals. Whether I agree with that part of her church doctrine or not is really irrelevant here; the fact that she turned away from her talent and her ticket to stand with her church tells me that it's awfully important to her. Not every woman has the stuffing or the inclination to go around like Lady Godiva, which is probably what she feels like she's being asked to do.

I don't think anyone's a victim here yet, and I hope nobody becomes one. This could be an interesting chance for people to get together and review their rules. I doubt that the church will budge very far, so most of any bending that happens may have to come from the NCAA. I hope they reach a good compromise for everyone.

Beth