An interesting perspective on the issue and the deeply personal choices involved came 35 years ago when Nat Lewin, one of the most outstanding appellate lawyers in the U.S. (and himself a frum yid whose zeida was the Chief rabbi of Rzeszow) argued a case before the Supreme Court on whether the military could prohibit any religious-based head coverings. (For those not familiar, Lewin had an eclectic client roster including, Richard Nixon, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Z’tl, Jodie Foster, John Lennon and Shlomo Rubashkin)
The particular case focused on a frum psychologist working in a military hospital who wanted to wear a yarmulke at work. Lewin argued that that the First Amendment guaranteed Dr. Goldman the free exercise of religion and thus should have been granted an exemption from the Air Force’s dress code. He stressed that the yarmulke was ”a neat, small, personal article of clothing that does not interfere with any military mission.” Lewin’s personal practice at the time was to not always wear a yarmulke in Court but in response to a question, he pulled his kipah out from his pocket and held it up to make his point that it would not interfere with his clients work in the hospital
But the government and several Justices, including then Justice Renquist, expressed concern that an exemption for yarmulkes might defeat the goal of the uniformity which Renquist noted terminology was to help foster discipline and morale and to
make everybody look alike.” Other Justices invoked the multiple religious groups in the U.S. and their respective head wear requirements, some of which were potentially problematic with the military mission.
In response, Lewin said a Sikh turban might be different constitutionally from a yarmulke, ”because it’s larger.” Finally, Justice Stevens pushed back at Lewin and asked whether his client’s religious beliefs might be satisfied by ”wearing a toupee.” Lewin said it would. But when Justice White asked why Dr. Goldman could not just solve the problem and wear a toupee instead of a yarmulke, Lewin remained silent for a moment and then responded with one of the great lines of modern Court History.
”Well, because he’s not bald” at which point the transcript shows extended laughter….
There have been many frum yidden who made personal decisions that wearing a kipah would complicate their workplace relationships, prejudice their clients’ interests, etc while others felt exactly the opposite and insisted on their right to do so without restrictions from their employer, government or private sector. It might have been easier in an earlier generation when just about everyone wore a hat or cap of some sort and a yid doing so was not readily identifiable as a frum yid. Today, it stands out more but the younger generation seems so much more confident in their own expression of their yiddeshkeit.