Why is there a ban?

Because the Turkish Republic has a clear-cut definition of the ideal citizen: Someone who speaks Turkish, praises “Turkishness,” is culturally a Muslim, but is not too observant. Since the 1920s this officially defined identity, that of, say, Homo Kemalicus, has been imposed on citizens by state powers. The Kurdish language was banned for decades for this very reason.

As for religion, as the Kemalists always say, it is acceptable if our “grandmothers” are observant — because they represent the past, and won't live too long anyway. But the new generation should stay away from it. Especially universities should be purified from signs of religious observance, because their very raison d'être is to raise young generations of Homo Kemalicus. As some Kemalist academics openly say, there is no point in having a university if it will not “save students from religious dogma.”

Is it a ‘political symbol?'

Well, perhaps, but only in the eyes of its haters. Polls show that virtually all females who wear the headscarf point to “religious requirements” as their motivation. Those who insist on the “political symbol” idea note that “our grandmothers” wore more lax scarves, whereas the “turban” of the urban girls and women is tighter and actually a bit more stylish. The fact is that young girls cover their heads in a different way than their grandmothers did, simply because they don't want to look like old rural women. That's why some secular sociologists have argued that the “turban” is in fact a sign of modernization – as evidenced by Turkey's “Islamic feminists” who cover their heads yet call for an end to “male-dominated Islam.”

Moreover, if the headscarf really corresponds to some political view, who knows that it is “political Islam.” Actually surveys show that the majority of the covered females in Turkey are asking for a democratic state that grants religious freedom, not a “shariah state.”

Will uncovered girls face pressure?

The proponents of the headscarf ban argue that if those “tightheads” – a contemptuous term similar to “nigger” – enter the campus, other female students will feel “psychological pressure.” There might be a grain of truth in this, but the reasoning is totally flawed.

First of all, the covered girls are currently deprived of their basic right to education due to “state pressure” – something incomparable to “psychological pressure.” Moreover if psychological pressure occurs, how do we know that it will only affect the uncovered students? Perhaps the covered girls who get into campus will feel under pressure because of the unwelcoming looks and remarks that some of the quintessentially first class (i.e., Homo Kemalicus) students and their illiberal teachers might well throw at them.

The fact is that the state and university administrations are supposed to protect everybody's freedom, whether they are covered or not. If some students are forced to wear the headscarf in some ultra-conservative town in Anatolia, then that will a problem that the authorities –and civil society – should deal with. But you can't say you are defending the freedom of some students by suppressing that of others.

Will this harm the secular state?

Well, this depends on what you mean by a secular state. Is this a secularism similar to the one promoted by, say, Voltaire and Diderot? They believed in the suppression of religious belief by state powers to achieve “enlightenment.” The latter even craved for strangling “the last king with the entrails of the last priest.” For the sake of efficiency, his followers preferred the guillotine.

But there is also the secularism of, say, John Locke. Here, religion is not seen as an enemy, but a legitimate aspect of an open society. The Lockian universe allows all belief systems, including non-traditional ones such as atheism, to present itself in the public square. In that sense, the freedom to wear headscarves in Turkish universities will actually be a strengthening, not an infringement, of the state's secularity.

Is the current bill liberal enough?

Some commentators note that the current legal package agreed upon by the incumbent AKP (Justice and Development Party) and the MHP (Nationalist Movement Party) is not actually liberal in its spirit. The detailed definition they bring to the acceptable headscarf in universities — the one that should be tied “under the chin” – is far away from saying that people can wear what they want. I agree. But that's probably the best we can get now. The “under the chin” formula is apparently a way to conform to the standard that the Turkish military uses in places that it is more lenient to headscarves, such as hospitals.

In an ideal universe, Turkey would be a full democracy and the parliament would have “unconditional sovereignty.” Unfortunately that is not the case – and that's why we still wrestle with silly rules defining how people should live.