FACING ISLAMOPHOBIA: THE CHALLENGES FOR VISIBLY MUSLIM WOMEN IN TÜRKİYE
By Nisa Efendioğlu
December 2023
This report explores the experiences of the headscarf-wearing Muslim women in the job market and career growth in Türkiye. There are in-depth interviews conducted with 20 headscarf-wearing women who were overtly informed by the employers that their headscarf is the reason for rejection of their job applications in the last six years.
The key findings of the report are as follows:
- Even though the official ban on wearing headscarves is lifted in all public institutions in Türkiye, the headscarf-wearing women face discrimination in the private sector.
- Attributing negative connotations to the headscarf as a symbol of backwardness, the employers feel entitled to interfere with the appearance of the headscarf-wearing women candidates, regardless of the profession and the context of the applied positions.
- Headscarf-wearing women experience discrimination, particularly in the jobs that require interactions with clients as employers are concerned over the image of their businesses and the visibility aspect of the headscarf.
- Discrimination against headscarves creates barriers to the career growth and academic progress of headscarf-wearing women, as their visibility receives greater attention as a criteria for advancement than the qualifications, skills, and experiences they have.
- Headscarf-wearing women face more challenges finding employment in certain locations as they are otherized by the lifestyle of the population.
- Some businesses systemically discriminate against the headscarf through the organization’s policies, hiring processes, and overall work culture.
- Experiencing discrimination leaves the headscarf-wearing women in psychological distress, leading to frustration and desperation.
- Being left with limited options for employment due to the discrimination, the headscarf-wearing women are coerced to accept low-paying jobs, affecting their economic situation.
- By some, the issue of headscarves is heavily politicized, and it is used as a means to criticize the government, consequently, inflaming discrimination against the women who chose to wear it.
- Even though there are anti-discriminatory laws, they are not used efficiently in cases of discrimination. Awareness raising and enforcement of the laws are recommended to address discrimination.
- It is recommended here to have comprehensive policy changes with better enforcement of anti-discriminatory laws, awareness raising against discrimination in society, promotion of equal opportunities, and promotion of normalization of visibility of headscarf-wearing professionals.
Introduction
While academic studies on Islamophobia primarily focus on Western countries, the phenomenon’s presence within predominantly Muslim countries often remains understudied. Türkiye, a country with a significant Muslim majority, provides an intriguing case study. In this context, manifestations of Islamophobia, or more specifically, a deliberate aversion towards Muslim or Islamic symbols and practices, can be observed in various aspects of daily life.
The concept of Westernism, which originated during the Ottoman Empire and evolved further during the Republic of Türkiye, idealized Western Europe as the ultimate benchmark of progress. This perspective often perceived traditional values as obstacles to societal advancement (Bayraklı and Yerlikaya, 2017, p.56). Abdullah Cevdet, a prominent advocate of Westernism, notably proclaimed, “There is no second civilization, civilization is the European civilization” (Hanioğlu, 1981, p.359). Associating the traditional values with religion, to modernize the country, the founding elites of the Turkish state were inspired by the French model of secularism that aimed to separate religion and state (Yel, 2022, p.14). In France, the law constituted in 1905 was a consequence of the ‘battle’ between the state and the formerly privileged Catholic Church, which led the state to regulate religious affairs such as removing the presence of religion in the public sphere (Guerlac, 1908, p.259). As Waxman (2000, p.1-22) articulates, “the construction of Turkish national identity was deeply rooted in the concepts of secularism and nationalism,” however, adapting French-style strict secularism in a top-down approach resulted in the enforcement of a rigid removal of the Muslim faith from the political, public, and even social life during the establishment of the Turkish Republic (Yel, 2022, p.16).
While the state had assertive policies on the appearance of its citizens in the name of modernizing the country such as introducing the Hat Law in 1925 for men, anti-veiling campaigns were carried out for women: The Western-style dress codes for women were implemented by the local governments, monitored by the police, and civic organizations were assigned to advocate for transformation of the image of Turkish women (Adak, 2014, p.62). There were reforms made that viewed women as the proponents of secularist nationalism (Toprak, 1994, 294). This particularly singled out the headscarf and the women who wore it, connecting it with notions of backwardness and reactionary ideologies. Instead of recognizing it as a religious practice, this approach viewed the headscarf as a threat to the secularist regime and treated it as a public security concern. While urbanization after the 1950s enabled more women to participate in formal education (Keleş, 1990, p.6), the implemented policies since the 1960s restricted women who wore headscarves and limited their opportunities for higher education and employment in public institutions (Cindoğlu 2010, p.5). The 1980 military coup paved the way for increased state intervention in the lives of the people. Referring to the 1982 constitution that emphasized secularism, in the following years, the state promulgated various regulations and guides on dress codes that forbid wearing a hijab in public spheres and its implementation was enforced at all levels. The assertive stance against the headscarf led to the exclusion, or at the very least, the marginalization of the women wearing headscarves from public life. The ban was expanded in 1997 to include all universities in Türkiye. Starting as a violation of their religious freedom, their basic citizenship rights such as the right to education, the right to participate in labor, and the right to equality have been violated (Cindoğlu, 2010, p.7). The issue gained further political traction in the 2000s when numerous protests were held against the ban. The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) pledged to repeal the ban once in power but faced significant resistance from secular groups. Eventually, the ban was progressively lifted: in universities in 2010, in state institutions in 2013, in high schools in 2014, and in military institutions in 2017.
Yel (2022, p.13) argues that the appearance of people such as skin color is at the center of racism that degradation and hatred are directed towards, and it is extended to all visible features; clothing is observed to be a racial bias that wearers could experience hatred and bigotry. Because the hijab is a compulsory religious garment agreed upon by mainstream Islamic scholars, it is the most visible aspect of Muslim religious identity. Therefore, particularly in Western societies, it is often perceived as an ‘image of otherness’ (Williamson & Khiabany, 2010, p.85), and studies show women wearing headscarves experience racism and discrimination in various aspects of life from education to employment in the form of Islamophobia (Weichselbaumer, 2016, p.1-27; Ghumman & Ryan, 2013, p. 671-698; Beydoun & Sediqe, 2023, p.1-58). As a form of prejudice and discrimination against Muslims, Islamophobia is experienced differently by men and women. Gendered Islamophobia views Muslim men as potential terrorists and villains, Muslim women are considered oppressed and submissive victims of such masculine tyranny and need to be rescued while being perceived as a threat at the same time (Perry, 2014, p.9; Beydoun & Sediqe, 2023, p.15). This perception is also present in Muslim-majority countries where the Western appearance is taken as a reference for modernization by the self-orientalist, Westernized elites as a form of Islamophobia (Bayraklı, Hafez & Faytre, 2010, p.5-20).
In the Turkish context, the prolonged institutional exclusion of the hijab was an outcome of the belief that it poses a threat to the secular system, intertwined with the belief that it is an outdated and redundant practice. This perception casts doubt on the capability of headscarf-wearing Muslim women to adapt to the demands of the modern world. Depicting hijab-wearing as a symbol of backwardness has cultivated an environment where secularists harbored some ethnocentric beliefs and practices. This mindset fosters the belief, whether consciously or unconsciously, that their secular culture and worldview represent an ideal standard (Baylor, 2019) that the headscarf-wearing women lack. Therefore, with the notion of superiority and encouragement by the policies that regulated the lives of headscarf-wearing women by commanding ‘how they should look like,’ secularist segments of the society feel entitled to interfere with the appearance of the headscarf-wearing women on any occasion. Examining the language used by the media for covering the news about the ‘headscarf-wearing pianist Büşra Kayıkçı’ who became a finalist at a prestigious jazz festival in 2020, Ekmekçi and Aydın (2021, p.991) introduced another term, sexist Islamophobia, to characterize the act of delineating borders around the individuality of women who wear headscarves by the seculars, along with the critics by religious conservatives.
Nişancı (2023, p.53)’s study indicates that 48 percent of the adult women in Türkiye wear headscarves regularly, which corresponds to over 15 million women, excluding the hijab-wearing youth under the age of 18. Making a substantial size in the population, hijab-wearing women had been subjected to the institutionalized headscarf ban in the previous decades that directly shaped their lives and society in general. According to the national education and gender statistics (TurkStat, 2022), the number of females over 18 who participated in the education ban increased by over 4 million between 2007 and 2012, whereas the increase for males was 2 million. Given that the research periods correspond to the times before and after the lift of the ban at schools, it is very likely that the abolishment positively contributed to female education figures as it enabled a significant number of women who chose to wear hijab to access formal education.
Studies show that women with higher education are more affected by the headscarf ban. In the article titled “The Wearing of the Headscarf & Labor Market Outcomes for Women in Turkey” Uğur (2018, p.66) discussed the likelihood of labor force participation of college-educated headscarf-wearing women. She found that among the women living in urban settings, women who wear headscarves are 3.5% to 8.5% less likely to be employed. The figures are around 17% to 28.2% for those who have a college degree. Confirming these findings, in her study that focuses on the headscarf ban and discrimination, Cindoğlu (2010, p.10) uses the term “spill-over effect” to elucidate the private sector’s reluctance to employ women who wear headscarves. Despite the private sector was not prevented from employing headscarf-wearing women, many employers viewed it as a hindrance to interactions during business dealings with the public institutions – where the official headscarf ban was implemented. Therefore, even in the private sector, the headscarf-wearing women were left to accept the positions with lower status and income, and were not promoted. In times of economic crisis and downsizing, the women with headscarves are the first ones to be laid off.
The lifting of the headscarf ban in Türkiye indeed led to an increase in women’s participation in work and public life as it removed a formal barrier for almost half of the women in the country. Before the ban was abolished in universities in 2010, female labor force participation was around 20 percent. It increased to the level of 30 percent in four years – when the ban in public institutions was lifted and the first group of hijabi college students graduated (along with those who had to take their headscarves off or sought alternatives such as wigs or hats). Taking other factors that contributed to the increment of women’s labor participation, it is highly likely that the lift of the ban played a catalyzing role.
However, this change was met with resistance from certain segments of society. This resistance, subtle or explicit, continues to perpetuate discrimination against women who choose to wear a headscarf, highlighting the perceived image of headscarf-wearing women as unmodern – and therefore contemptible. Consequently, they are often undesirable in the labor market.
On top of the challenges women experience in the labor market such as unequal pay, patriarchal dominance, family roles, and household responsibilities (Zeren and Kılınç Savrul, 2017, p.92), the decades-long ban further created a hostile environment for headscarf-wearing women that its impacts continue even after it was abolished. It normalized discrimination and violated the rights of these women to the level that the employers perceived themselves as having the right to intervene in the appearance of headscarf-wearing employees or job applicants. Although there is no legal barrier to headscarf-wearing women’s participation in the labor force, they continue to face many challenges that are considered under Islamophobia.
Methodology
This research aimed to understand the current challenges faced by visibly Muslim Turkish women during their job applications and employment. The study focused on the experiences of 20 women who reported being rejected solely due to their choice to wear a hijab and accepted to be interviewed on the issue. The project limited its scope to incidents that occurred within the last six years, i.e., post-2017. This time frame was chosen because 2017 marked the year when the headscarf ban was lifted in military institutions, the last public sector in Türkiye where such a ban was in place.
Prior to this period, job rejections due to the wearing of a headscarf were more prevalent due to the official bans in various sectors. However, even in the absence of an official ban in the last six years, the women interviewed for this research reported experiencing discrimination solely on the basis of their choice to wear a headscarf. This suggests that despite legal advancements, social and institutional biases against visibly Muslim women persist, impacting their opportunities and experiences in the job market.
The pressure is also observed at the high nonresponse rate in this study. More than half of the women who were invited for an interview as they experienced discrimination against their hijab, refused to participate in the research due to the fear of being identified and losing their jobs. This was particularly more prevalent among those who work in unskilled or semi-skilled labor. Participation in the research was entirely voluntary. However, even the interviewees who accepted to participate had a sense of apprehension. Their concerns were allayed by assuring them that their identities would remain confidential. Consequently, pseudonyms have been employed to present the data for all participants, effectively safeguarding their anonymity and privacy. to share their experiences candidly. The only exception is the case of a news reporter, whose case became a public issue.
Having referrals during the recruitment process helped the interviewer to persuade some of the women to be involved in the study. As the interviewer was also a hijab-wearing women, the rapport built during the interviews allowed honest responses, which is important for the quality of the study.
The potential participants were selected from various age groups, sectors, and educational and socio-economic backgrounds to capture the discrimination against hijab at different levels and areas in the labor market. The participants were living in different cities in Türkiye, such as: Ankara, Istanbul, Antalya, İzmir, Samsun and Bursa. However, their experiences include incidents in other provinces as well.
The interviews with each participant consisted of approximately six questions including demographics and lasted around an hour in length. For thoroughness and ease of later analysis, all interviews were documented with a voice recorder. The questions presented to interviewees were designed to draw out their personal experiences with Islamophobia in Türkiye, with a particular focus on their encounters with job rejections due to their headscarves. These queries aimed to create an environment where participants felt comfortable discussing their experiences and expressing the impact of these rejections on their lives.
It is important to note that all interviews were conducted in Turkish. The subsequent translations to English, used in this research, were carried out by the researcher to ensure accuracy, and maintain the integrity of the participants’ responses.
The objectives of this research were twofold:
To investigate the form and scale of Islamophobia experienced by visibly Muslim women in Turkey.
To propose a set of recommendations to mitigate Islamophobia, derived from the perspectives articulated by the participants during the interviews.
Findings
This research underscores several critical points concerning the prevalent and systemic discrimination faced by women who choose to wear headscarves in Türkiye:
- Prevalence of Discrimination: The narratives of the women interviewed reveal a widespread discrimination across various sectors, including academia, hospitality, banking, retail, and the health sector. Employers often explicitly prohibit the wearing of headscarves in the workplace, and headscarf wearers are frequently overlooked for forefront positions. Furthermore, particularly in the service sector, discrimination varies by location, with certain regions and places demonstrating higher levels of bias.
- Barrier to Advancement: These discriminatory practices significantly impede career and academic advancement. Highly qualified individuals are often judged based on their attire rather than their skills, qualifications, and experience. This is particularly evident in job postings where the term ‘Presentable’ is used, often implying an unstated preference against hiring employees who wear a headscarf.
- Consequences of Systemic discrimination: Discrimination appears to be entrenched within organizational policies, hiring and selection processes, and workplace environments, suggesting a systemic issue that goes beyond individual biases. The systemic discrimination has two major consequences:
- Psychological Impact: The discrimination experienced induces profound psychological distress, resulting in feelings of helplessness, frustration, despair, and disheartenment among the women affected.
- Economic Impact: The discrimination has palpable economic consequences as well. For example, teachers who wear a headscarf have fewer workplace options and are often forced to accept lower pay, further exacerbating economic inequality and marginalization.
- Politicization of Headscarves: The issue of women wearing headscarves has been heavily politicized and often associated in a negative context with the government, exacerbating the discrimination faced.
- Lack of Legal Protection: Despite the existence of anti-discrimination laws, there is a lack of enforcement and awareness. Legal recourse was seldom pursued, with most women not considering it as an option, creating an environment where bias can persist unchecked.
Prevalence of Discrimination
The accounts shared by interviewed women shed light on pervasive discrimination experienced in diverse sectors when they sought employment. All of the participants reported that the employers openly expressed their refusal to hire a headscarf-wearing woman. Such reckless rejection and the confidence to ask for the removal of the headscarf by the employers reflect the notion of having the right to interfere with the applicants’ choice of wearing headscarf as individuals, violating their boundaries. The employers attempt to justify their demand to remove headscarves by claiming that the headscarf is not suitable for the image of their businesses and customer profile, particularly for positions that require interaction with clients.
The response Merve, a public administration graduate, has received is a sheer example of this attitude in the service sector. When she applied to work as a waitress at a chain restaurant in 2019, the employer bluntly informed her, “I can’t employ you with a headscarf, but if you want to work in the background washing dishes, you can work there.” Merve states that she experienced no difficulties when she worked as a waitress without wearing a headscarf. However, upon choosing to wear one, she found job-seeking substantially more challenging.
Busra, a dietitian, also witnessed a similar incident in the hospital, where she did her internship, hiring for a waitress position. A woman applicant wearing a headscarf was informed that she could not work in that role while wearing her headscarf, as it was deemed inappropriate in the presence of doctors. She was offered a dishwashing position instead, but they expressed concern about her being too thin to handle large pots. The interviewer then suggested, Come on, what if you take off your scarf while working? It’s not a big deal.” According to Busra, she never saw anyone working in these hospitals wearing a headscarf.
Necla, who has been working as a cleaner and tea lady, saw a job posting online in 2022 for a private advertising company and was invited for an online interview. The employee said, “We would like to hire you, but we have a request, once you come to work, we want you to remove your headscarf. We have guests at the office, and we do not want them to see you like this.” Necla was so surprised and rejected the request. She says it is not the first time she has been discriminated against because of her headscarf. She applied for many jobs where she was not accepted but her friends who were not wearing headscarves were accepted even though she was more experienced. Necla’s experience shows that employers in the service sector prioritize the appearance of their employees who are in forefront positions over skills. Elif, who is in culinary arts, also mentions a similar story of being rejected by two different brands she applied to work as a part-time sales assistant at a shopping mall during her college years. Despite her qualifications, her applications were declined solely because she wore a headscarf, as she would be perceived as the face of these brands. Merve also mentions that she left her CV at a clothing store that was hiring, only to see her application torn apart. At another clothing store, they told her outright that it was impossible to work there with a headscarf, refusing to even accept her CV. Merve got rejected also due to her headscarf when she applied to a bank at the suggestion of a friend who worked there. Reflecting on discrimination in the service sector, Rumeysa says: “I have been denied employment for product promotions on numerous occasions due to my headscarf. They openly rejected me, stating that they do not employ women who wear headscarves. Most recently, I applied for a coffee promotion at a shopping mall, but I was declined for the same reason. Prior to that, I was set to promote a food product at a supermarket. They suggested that I could participate if I wore a hairnet instead of a headscarf, but I refused to compromise.”
Aside from the service sector, the headscarf is viewed as unmodern by employers in educational institutions and should not be worn by a person who is in positions that require interaction with others. Leyla, a graduate of Hacettepe University who completed her master’s degree at the University of Bath in school psychology, never anticipated that she would face such challenges, as she was filled with great hopes. After graduation, she began applying to preschools. At a well-known kindergarten, they invited her in for an interview. The interview seemed to progress well, but then the interviewer stated, “Okay, we will arrange another meeting for you. We really liked you and we want to work with you, but I forgot to mention one thing - you will remove your headscarf while working, right?” Surprised, Leyla asked why, and the woman replied that there was no need for her to wear a headscarf as there were no men at the school. This incident took place in 2017. The woman also noted that Leyla would not even meet with the parents, despite her role as the school psychologist. Leyla mentions that she frequently encountered the response, “We have a certain profile of parents and they do not want to see a person with a headscarf.” in her job applications.
Sena, a graduate of English Language and Literature from Bogazici University, also faced discrimination by educators. Upon graduation, she sought to gain practical experience and applied for a position as an English teacher at a kindergarten. The official at the kindergarten, after examining her CV, expressed interest in her qualifications and promised to call her back in a few days.
A few days later, Sena was invited back to the kindergarten. During this meeting, the official said, “I have reviewed your CV and I really liked it, but I have one question. We would require you to remove your headscarf while working within our institution, as we do not accept it in its current form.” Sena was shocked by this discriminatory stance in 2018 and promptly informed them that she would not accept a position under such conditions.
Emine, a dietitian and a graduate of Ankara University, faced discrimination during her initial job applications due to her choice to wear a headscarf. Upon graduation, she promptly commenced her job search, but her first two applications were rejected because of her headscarf. In her first application, she was favorably considered and invited for an interview. However, upon her arrival wearing a headscarf, the interviewers’ attitudes drastically shifted. They claimed that they could not hire someone wearing a headscarf as they prioritized appearances, which they felt were crucial for their client relationships.
Similarly, in her second application, she received positive initial feedback based on her online CV. However, the prospective employers retracted their interest once they saw her wearing a headscarf. These back-to-back rejections led Emine to anticipate a challenging job search, prompting her to start preparing for examinations to enter state institutions, as the headscarf ban is lifted. However, in the interim, she received a work offer from the organization where she had completed her internship.
These experiences of women in diverse sectors indicate that employers are considering headscarf-wearing women as a risk to their business reputation, particularly for positions that require interaction, perhaps by associating it with inferiority, consciously or unconsciously.
Intertwined with sectors, geographical locations also play a significant role on normalizing discrimination against hijab. Despite the fact that half of the women in the country is wearing headscarf, there are certain places that make it more difficult for the headscarf-wearing women to find employment as these places are densely populated with citizens who live a secular lifestyle.
Merve, asserts that the discriminatory situation in the service sector is even more challenging in Antalya, a city on the Mediterranean coast. She explains, “In Alanya’s hotels, they categorically refuse to hire waitresses who wear headscarves. Unless you’re in the cleaning department, you simply can’t work there at all. Even cleaning staff need to wear a hairnet. My mother works in kitchen services at a hospital where they must wear short hairnets; headscarves are expressly forbidden.” Not only in different provinces, but it is also difficult to find jobs with a headscarf in any sector in certain neighborhoods within provinces.
Barriers to advancement
In addition to the discrimination faced during the hiring processes, it was found that the headscarf became a barrier in front of higher career opportunities for many participants. These discriminatory practices against the headscarf-wearing women pose substantial obstacles to their career and academic progression. Despite their high qualifications and capacities, their appearance often overrides their skills, qualifications, and experience.
Esra, a biology student at Hacettepe University in Türkiye, is one of many women who have faced discrimination due to her headscarf despite the absence of formal barriers. Known for her exceptional academic performance, she had always aspired to pursue her master’s degree at the same institution, a plan her professors were well aware of and supported throughout her undergraduate tenure.
However, when she inquired about the application requirements for the department’s graduate program in 2018, the response she received left her deeply disheartened. Her professor said: “You’ll get the points anyway - the only requirement is that there should not be a piece of cloth on your head – this is for your own good – I cannot endorse you in this way against other teachers – continue your faith but keep your head generally completely open.” Esra is one of the women who faced biases in academia for wearing a headscarf and her career path has been blocked by those she had considered as her mentors.
Elif also encountered a significant challenge during her 2018 internship as a high school culinary arts student at a renowned restaurant in Istanbul. When she applied for the internship, she was armed with a reference from her teacher, who had high hopes for her prospects. Yet, despite the lifting of the headscarf ban that year, the HR department told her that she could not work while wearing her headscarf. They deemed it inappropriate and offered her the option to wear a cap instead. This was particularly perplexing given that all kitchen staff were already required to wear caps for hygiene purposes. As a student, Elif had no choice but to accept these conditions, as she was unable to change her internship placement.
Busra, a dietitian, experienced difficulties during her internships in the private sector. She shares that she did not encounter any problems at state institutions. However, her university also required her to complete internships at private hospitals, and arranged placements at two renowned hospitals in Istanbul. In 2019, on her first day as an intern, she was asked to remove her headscarf. Upon refusing, she was then suggested to wear a coif, akin to a hat. When she expressed her discomfort with that option, she was finally allowed to wear a white headscarf, but with a caveat – she was forbidden from visiting the patients’ floor because of her headscarf. While other interns had the opportunity to interact with patients, Busra was barred from doing so.
Meryem Nas experienced discrimination across multiple career fields. As a graduate in Television News and Programming, she struggled to land an internship during her studies and to find employment after graduation. When she sought an internship at one of the private channels, the feedback she received was, “Meryem, you are doing great, you are talented, but you wear a headscarf.” The difficulty of securing an internship was so distressing that it led to her losing weight.
Eventually, Meryem was accepted for an internship at a channel, and, recognizing her talent, the channel made her their first correspondent who wore a headscarf. She recalls, “When people saw me on the screen, they were so surprised. I received many messages from girls who aspired to be on-screen but believed it wouldn’t be possible because they wore a headscarf.”
Meryem is currently a presenter at a private channel. She notes that while many of her friends have received invitations to join other channels, she has not. She believes this is because these channels do not employ presenters or correspondents who wear a headscarf.
A poignant memory she has is when the general manager of a channel said to her, “I wish you did not wear a headscarf.” He went on to say, “Your path would have been brighter and clearer. I’m not saying this for my channel.” His words hurt her more than an insult would have.
In terms of pursuing career improvements, the headscarf-wearing women were imposed that their headscarves made them defective and inadequate for the positions they actually deserved.
Psychological and Economic Consequences of Systemic Discrimination:
In this study, it has been found that some businesses in the private sector, discrimination against the headscarf is institutionalized. The organizations have certain policies, criteria set for human resources, and overall environment that is shaped in a way that excludes the headscarf-wearing women from being part of it.
For instance, after facing numerous rejections despite her strong CV, Leyla decided to remove her picture from her resume. This led to a call from a special education center which expressed interest in her CV and invited her for an interview. However, upon her arrival, they immediately told Leyla, “I never consider hiring someone who wears a headscarf. These are special children, their minds are already complex. I can’t explain why your head is covered and why mine is not.”
Reflecting on her journey and the experiences of others like her, Emine says: “Many of my friends who wear headscarves could not find a job. The situation has improved compared to the past, and it gets better every year. As students, we were warned by previous graduates about the difficulties of finding a job while wearing a headscarf. Our profession requires us to be at the forefront, and private hospitals or offices often hesitate to hire us, fearing they might lose clients.” Both Leyla and Emine are in high-skilled professions, yet, the sectors of the professions limit their employment opportunities as the exclusion of headscarves became a part of the system in these sectors.
Nuray’s experience of systemic discrimination unfolded within university settings while working as a cleaning lady with 17 years of experience. She has never been able to work while wearing her headscarf throughout her entire career. In 2021, she commenced a new job at a university dormitory in Ankara where wearing a headscarf was explicitly prohibited. She describes this period as one of the most challenging times in her life, caught in a dilemma between her personal beliefs and workplace regulations.
Currently, Nuray works at the faculty of administration where she continues to confront the same issue. She has to remove her headscarf at work, a rule she attributes to the differing mindsets of university scholars. She states, “In the university dormitory, cleaning staff can work while wearing a cap. However, in faculties, even wearing a cap isn’t allowed. Staff members are required to remove their headscarves.” Her experience underscores the persistent issue of dress code discrimination in the workplace – where a systemic change was already implemented for the students with the lift of the headscarf ban.
When Merve applied to a coffee chain for a position as a waitress and barista, she also experienced systemic discrimination. She recounts, “They looked at me and said they did not need a worker at the moment, even though they were hiring. My roommate, who does not wear a headscarf and has no experience in this field, was immediately accepted by this place. I had previously worked at one of the most renowned coffee chains and had substantial experience. It became clear that that business simply does not hire someone wearing a headscarf.” These stories indicate that at some jobs, the discrimination against the headscarf is beyond individual biases and has become a consolidated part of the system.
1. Psychological Impact
The discrimination the headscarf-wearing women endure triggers psychological distress, especially in the absence of an official ban, or a ground for such discrimination leads to overwhelming negative emotions. For instance, as an accomplished student, Esra was particularly devastated when she was let down by her professor in her graduate school application process for not removing her headscarf. She never anticipated facing such an obstacle. She expressed:
“I was incredibly successful and deeply passionate about this field. When I heard those words, I felt a cold shiver down my spine because I had not considered an alternative route. I could not bring myself to share this with anyone for a long time, it triggered an overwhelming sense of despair. I could have accepted rejection based on my scores or some other academic reason. But I was even informed that I could not pursue my PhD there, as my profile was considered inappropriate. While admission to undergraduate studies is based on scores, for master’s and PhD programs, the decision lies with the department. They explicitly told me they would not select a female candidate who wears a headscarf.”
Reflecting on her internship experiences in a private hospital where she was prevented from interacting with patients, Busra says, “I was naive and lacked the self-confidence to challenge the situation. I thought it was already difficult enough to secure an internship, so I remained silent.” Luckily, these challenging experiences motivated her to open her own practice, as she says “I believed it would be incredibly difficult for me to work in the private sector wearing a headscarf.”
Some others had to go through other forms of psychological challenges. Elif, who had to complete her internship in a restaurant where she was not allowed to wear her headscarf and used caps to cover her head as she was not left with another option, recounts a particularly unpleasant incident during her tenure: “The chef would occasionally make inappropriate jokes. One day, he casually pulled off my cap as he passed by me. The incident left me frozen in shock, unable to react. My friend who witnessed the incident was equally taken aback. Grasping my cap, I made my way to the bathroom, struggling to comprehend what had just happened. I was overcome by tears and could not stop crying, leaving my eyes swollen. When I returned, I was too embarrassed to meet anyone’s gaze. Near the end of the shift, the chef approached me, saying he had not intended to upset me. I tried to downplay the incident, but it had already left a deep impact.” Her experiences serve as a sobering reminder of the discrimination and challenges that many women face in the professional sphere due to their choice of attire.
Working as a cleaning staff, Nuray felt compelled to remove her headscarf as she neared the university every day, only to put it back on as she left the campus at the end of her shift. This constant cycle of concealing and revealing her headscarf took a toll on her emotionally. The distress led her to seek employment elsewhere as a cleaner and tea lady. Regrettably, the firm she applied to also rejected her on the same grounds. Even when she offered to remove her headscarf, they deemed her long dresses inappropriate. The traumas experienced by the headscarf-wearing women often left them frustrated as such discriminations are considered as attack on their personalities and values.
2. Economic Impact
The discrimination in the labor force leaves headscarf-wearing women with limited options they can accept. These options often offer lower status and low paying jobs, which leads to economic inequality and marginalization.
Fatma, a graduate specializing in preschool teaching, faced a series of rejections in her final year of university (2013-2014) when she applied for internships. In 2018, she decided to apply to a private school in Ankara. However, she was explicitly told that her wearing a headscarf was a hindrance to her employment. Later that same year, she applied at another preschool, only to be told: “A headscarf does not present a professional or contemporary image, it doesn’t give a normal appearance. You are influencing the children with your demeanor, and because a headscarf signifies something, a teacher should not express anything.”
Fatma further elaborated on the predicament she and others in her situation face, stating, “Currently, we can only secure jobs in certain schools, and we are compelled to settle for lower salaries. We are caught in a bind: either we work for the state, or we must accept even lower salaries in the private sector.” Similarly, with limited options in the education sector by discrimination against the headscarf left participants, Leyla began working at a place that paid her poorly. She had no choice but to accept her circumstances.
These individual stories collectively illuminate the widespread discrimination faced by women who wear headscarves in their professional pursuits in Türkiye, a reality that remains largely unreported and overlooked.
Lack of Legal Protection
Even though there are overarching anti-discrimination laws in Türkiye include discrimination against religion, the headscarf is not specifically mentioned. As the headscarf is perceived as a threat to the secularist regime for so long that it established systematic and institutional discrimination backed up by the state policies, the anti-discrimination laws are not perceived as deterrent for those violating the rights of headscarf-wearing women. Discrimination against headscarf was normalized by many that they act with grandiosity and feel entitled to set exclusionary rules against headscarves in their business, despite the laws.
Rumeysa, a part-time pharmaceutical representative, shared that she frequently encounters discrimination due to her headscarf. In 2023, she was eager to participate in a promotion for an herbal product at a pharmacy. She had previously worked with a woman involved in the event, who initially agreed to include her. However, when the woman failed to follow up, Rumeysa inquired about the silence. The woman then disclosed that they did not want to hire Rumeysa because she wore a headscarf.
Following this incident, Rumeysa shared the conversation on platform X. In response, she received numerous calls from both the woman and others who slandered her, claiming that the conversation was fabricated. Despite the accusations, the conversation was indeed real. Rumeysa subsequently filed a lawsuit against those who had insulted her. Rumeysa’s experiences spotlight the ongoing prejudice that visibly Muslim women face in the Turkish job market.
Discriminatory messages Rumeysa received in her attempt for an employment opportunity.
Aside from the enhancement of the sanctions of the antidiscrimination laws, there is a need for sensitization to increase awareness among the headscarf-wearing women to exercise the legal rights when faced a discrimination.
Toward the end of 2021, Meryem encountered a troubling incident. While reporting in Besiktas as a journalist, a woman approached her for an interview. However, upon seeing Meryem’s headscarf, the woman's expression changed. The woman stated, “You headscarf-wearing women are all the same, you come out into the streets without knowing anything.” The sight of a reporter in a headscarf clearly upset her, leading her to say, “Take off your headscarf, let some oxygen get to your head.” This incident greatly angered Meryem, who subsequently filed a lawsuit. The court ruled in Meryem’s favor, imposing a judicial fine on the woman for her insult.
In light of such incidents Meryem experienced, women wearing headscarves are given additional burdens that they are actually not a part of. As in the case of Merve, who had originally aspired to work as a news presenter reconsidered her career path, acknowledging the challenges of performing this role while wearing a headscarf.
Given that it was the current government that lifted the headscarf ban despite the opposition of certain groups, some people emerged to view the headscarf as a tool to criticize the government, - through discriminating against women wearing headscarves even though they are not affiliated with any political party. It should be noted that, regardless of the motivation of discrimination, it is predictable to have more incidents of discrimination as the presence of headscarf-wearing women in the labor force increases since the legal barriers are removed. These women have already experienced or witnessed the official headscarf ban, which left many of them timorous to defend themselves in the case of discrimination, Therefore, they need to know their legal rights to take appropriate action.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this research underscores the profound and pervasive discrimination faced by women who choose to wear a headscarf in Türkiye. The experiences of these women reveal an institutionalized prejudice inherited by certain segments of the society towards headscarf and such bias marginalize highly qualified and capable women from labor participation, academic pursuits and career growth, solely based on their religious attire. The discrimination against headscarves affects the labor market at various layers. Despite the lift of the official ban in public sector, discrimination against headscarves continues in the private sector – which was technically exempted from the ban even at the times it was in effect. Being ‘visible’ is observed to be an additional challenge for headscarf-wearing women at (1) the hiring process, (2) compensation policies, (3) during employment, and (4) career advancement.
Discrimination is widely spread across various sectors, types, and levels of professions. It also appears to be systemic, woven into organizational policies and norms that push the headscarf-wearing women to the periphery, particularly in the professions that require interaction with others. Depending on the sector, it is more evident in certain locations where the population has more secular lifestyles. Experience of discrimination based on their religious attire creates an immense psychological toll that leads the victims to feelings of despair, frustration, and disappointment. By limiting the options, discrimination against headscarves compels the women who wear them to accept ill-paying jobs even though they are overqualified.
The discrimination against headscarves is not a matter exclusive to the women who choose to wear them. The issue needs to be approached through the lenses of equity and fairness in the labor market, and the utilization of women’s participation in the labor force to overcome the gender gap. The discouragement of women who wear headscarves from job markets undermines the struggle against challenges that women – regardless of whether they wear headscarves or not – face in their professional lives. In terms of the integrity of the struggle for women’s participation in the workforce, it is essential to incorporate the impact of the headscarf ban into the bigger picture.
Furthermore, given the substantial number of women wearing headscarves in Türkiye, it should be highlighted that the women wearing headscarves are not a homogenous group. Defining a diverse group of women with different social and educational backgrounds, of different ages and personalities, by only their appearance with a religious garment confines them in a single identity and dismisses the richness of their diversity.
This research further highlights the urgent need for change on multiple fronts. There is a critical need for more comprehensive and strictly enforced anti-discrimination laws, and for organizations to revise their policies to foster inclusivity and respect for cultural and religious diversity. On a societal level, education and awareness programs are essential to challenge prevailing prejudices and foster an environment of acceptance and understanding.
In conclusion, this research emphasizes the urgent need for comprehensive policy changes, better enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, public education, and a societal shift to challenge prevalent norms and prejudices. The discriminatory practices against headscarf-wearing women underscore the importance of fostering inclusive environments that respect cultural and religious diversity. These findings serve as a call to action for institutions, organizations, and society at large to address the discrimination against the women-wearing headscarves – who make up about half of the female population in the country – and work towards a more equitable future.
Recommendations
- Having prolonged institutional discrimination against headscarf-wearing women with official bans, comprehensive policy changes are needed for better enforcement of anti-discriminatory laws. Protection of the rights of individuals and prevention of discrimination based on appearance needs prioritization to avoid potential social tensions and resentment of a substantial size of people in society.
- Another recommendation for policymakers is to reapproach the issue of headscarves from a broader perspective of labor market participation and women empowerment, as it hinders gender equality as well as equal opportunities among women, regardless of wearing the headscarf or not.
- The rights and entitlements of those who have been removed from the labor force in the public sector due to the official headscarf ban should be restored. When possible, it is recommended that they be reinstated in their duties. In other cases, compensation should be provided for the unfair treatment they have received.
- Civil society and media are recommended to initiate awareness raising against discrimination in society and promote inclusiveness, inform about the legal rights in the cases of experiencing discrimination. Per the context of this study, these entities are recommended to promote the normalization of the visibility of working headscarf-wearing women in diverse sectors and professions through events, TV series, commercials, and public displays. This is necessary to unlink the headscarf from the perception of backwardness and security threat that had been unjustly imposed for years. Highlighting the diversity among the headscarf-wearing women in terms of their backgrounds and individual characteristics is also important.
- Chambers and labor unions are recommended to organize events and activities to promote equal employment opportunities for women in general and normalize the visibility of working headscarf-wearing women in diverse sectors and professions.
- More academic research is needed to examine the consequences of the exclusion of headscarf-wearing women in labor from the perspectives of multiple disciplines such as economics, sociology, women studies, and public administration.
- Along with the discrimination rooted in Islamophobic connotations that associate headscarves with backwardness, the negative attitudes of certain religious communities towards the women wearing headscarves – from those who discourage female employment to those who argue that the headscarf is not mandatory – should be studied in another research.
Bibliography
Adak, S. (2014). Anti-veiling campaigns and local elites in Turkey of the 1930s: a view from the periphery. In (Eds. Cronin, S.) Anti-veiling campaigns in the Muslim world gender, modernism and the politics of dress. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Baylor, E. (2012). Ethnocentrism. obo in Anthropology, Oxford Bibliographies. doi: 10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0045
Bayraklı, E., Hafez, F. & Faytre, L. (2010). Making Sense of Islamophobia in Muslim Societies. In (Eds. Bayraklı, E. & Hafez, F.) Islamophobia in Muslim Majority Societies. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Bayraklı, E., & Yerlikaya, T. (2017). Müslüman Toplumlarda İslamofobi: Türkiye örneği. Ombudsman Akademik, (7), 51-70.
Beydoun, K. A. & Sediqe, N. (2023). “Unveiling” California Law Review, 111, 465- 527. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4054865
Cindoğlu, D. (2010). Başörtüsü Yasağı ve Ayrımcılık: Uzman Meslek Sahibi Başörtülü Kadınlar. İstanbul: TESEV Yayınları.
Ekmekçi, Z., & Aydın, A., (2021). Islamophobia and Headscarved Women in Turkey: Sexist Islamophobia . Uluslararası Medya ve İslamofobi Sempozyumu (pp.991-1019). Ankara, Turkey
Ghumman, S. & Ryan, A. M. (2013). Not welcome here: Discrimination towards women who wear the Muslim headscarf. Human Relations, 66(5), 671-698.
Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (November, 1925). Şapka İktisası Hakkında Kanun. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.3.671.pdf
Guerlac, O. (1908). The Separation of Church and State in France. Political Science Quarterly, 23(2), 259–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/2141325
Hanioğlu, Ş. (1981). Bir Siyasal Düşünür Olarak Abdullah Cevdet ve Dönemi. İstanbul: Üçdal Neşriyat.
Keleş, R. (1990). Kırdan kente göçün tarihi ve Türkiye’nin durumu. Tarım, Orman ve Köy, 57, 6–7.
Nişancı, Z. (2023). Sayılarla Türkiye’de İnanç ve Dindarlık. Istanbul: International Institute of Islamic Thought & Mahya Yayıncılık.
Perry, B. (2014). Gendered Islamophobia: hate crime against Muslim women, Social Identities, 20(1), 74-89. DOI: 10.1080/13504630.2013.864467
Toprak, B. (1994), “Women and Fundamentalism: The Case of Turkey”, Valentine M. Moghadam (ed.), Identity Politics and Women: Cultural Reassertions and Feminisms in International Perspective, San Francisco: Westview Press.
Turkish Statistical Institute. (March, 2022). Gender Statistics 2012. Ankara: Türkiye Istatistik Kurumu. https://www.tuik.gov.tr/media/announcements/toplumsal_cinsiyet_istatistikleri_2021.pdf
Turkish Statistical Institute. (2023). Main Labour Force Indicators (15+ age), 2005 – 2023. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=istihdam-issizlik-ve-ucret-108&dil=1
Uğur, Z. B. (2018). The Wearing of the Headscarf & Labor Market Outcomes for Women in Turkey, KADEM Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi 4(1), 51-75.
Waxman, D. (2000). “Islam and Turkish National Identity: A Reappraisal.” Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, 30, 1–22.
Weichselbaumer, D. (2016, September). Discrimination against female migrants wearing headscarves. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). Discussion Paper No.10217. https://docs.iza.org/dp10217.pdf
Williamson, M. & Khiabany, G. (2010). “UK: the veil and the politics of racism.” Race and Class, 52(2), 85-96.
Yel, A. M. (2022). Islamophobia as a Phenotypical Racism. Islamophobia Studies Journal, 7(1),12-24.
Zeren, F. & Kılınç Savrul, B. (2017). Kadınların İşgücüne Katılım Oranı, Ekonomik Büyüme, İşsizlik Oranı ve Kentleşme Oranı Arasındaki Saklı Koentegrasyon İlişkisinin Araştırılması, Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(30), 87-103.