Although Sikhs are no strangers to discrimination, there was a noticeable uptick in incidents following the September 11 attacks as Sikhs became targets of xenophobic violence based on perceived similarities in the visible identity of Sikhs and “terrorists.” Specifically, the Sikh dastaar and kesh were conflated with the keffiyeh and beard maintained by Osama bin Laden and members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Indeed, a 2013 study published by Stanford Peace Innovation Lab found that Americans associated turbans with bin Laden and that 49 percent of Americans believed that Sikhism was a sect of Islam. Ironically, the vast majority of people who wear turbans in the United States are Sikh. But, through racial and religious heuristics, too many Americans often misidentify Sikhs as Muslims and, because of their prejudice, as terrorists.
Obviously, anti-Sikh hate is not always the result of this kind of “mistaken identity.” Defaulting to such a framework for understanding anti-Sikh hate can fail to account for other bias-related motivations behind discrimination against Sikhs and often inadvertently—and wrongly—implies that there is a correct target for anti-Muslim conduct. This framework, however, does warrant discussion in the context of September 11 because the backlash experienced by Muslims, and people perceived to be Muslim, following the attacks was notable in its severity and brutality.
For instance, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee reported over 500 violent incidents directed against Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim in the two months following September 11. The Sikh Coalition—the nation’s largest Sikh American civil rights organization founded the day after September 11—also documented approximately 300 anti-Sikh incidents in that same period.
One of the first people killed in a “revenge attack” following September 11 was Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh man who wore a turban and maintained a beard. Sodhi was shot in Arizona just four days after September 11 by a man who wanted to “shoot some towelheads.”
In the ensuing years, these so-called “mistaken identity” attacks continued. In 2015, Inderjit Singh Mukker was attacked and left unconscious in a Chicago suburb after being called “terrorist” and “bin Laden.” And in 2020, Lakhwant Singh was brutally attacked while working in Lakewood, Colorado. The attacker referred to Mr. Singh as an “older Arab” and repeatedly told Mr. Singh and his wife to “go back to your country.” These incidents were accompanied by other attacks on Sikhs with less clear motivations, from the 2012 assault on the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin by a neo-Nazi gunman to the 2021 Indianapolis FedEx mass shooting, where four of the eight individuals killed were Punjabi Sikhs.
The backlash following September 11 led not only to an increase in hate-based violence but also to an increase in school bullying, employment discrimination, and religious and racial profiling. A 2014 study by the Sikh Coalition found that Sikh children disproportionately experienced bullying in schools across multiple states. Sikh children shared how they were called “bin Laden” or “terrorist” and told to “go back to their country.” Their classmates would not only mock their turbans but also attempt to forcibly remove them. These bullying victims were then met with apathy, if not deliberate hostility, from teachers and administration.
Sadly, a 2024 study by the Sikh Coalition found that Sikh children continue to be bullied at rates much higher than the national average—and that turbaned male students especially remain frequent targets of physical attacks and bullying.
The post-September 11 backlash also brought with it intensified surveillance and blatant profiling. In April 2012, the Sikh Coalition launched a mobile application that allowed travelers to lodge complaints in real time if they felt that airport screeners had profiled them. The application was developed in response to years of Sikh travelers experiencing discriminatory treatment at the hands of the Transportation Security Administration. After the application’s launch, the Sikh Coalition reported that Sikh travelers had been subjected to secondary screening 100 percent of the time at certain airports. Unfortunately, such complaints persist to this day.
How should we react to these misconceptions? Legally, the issue of misidentification may seem irrelevant because it is not often outcome-determinative of whether someone committed a discriminatory act. Put differently, when assessing the examples of discrimination discussed earlier, it does not typically change the analysis if the perpetrator targets the victim as a Sikh or as a Muslim.
For instance, New York’s anti-hate crime statute provides, in relevant part, that a person commits a hate crime when they intentionally select a victim “because of a belief or perception regarding the” religion or religious practice of that victim “regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct.” New York Penal Law § 485.05. Accordingly, under this statute, a perpetrator commits a hate crime when they correctly identify someone as Muslim and assaults them on that basis. That perpetrator similarly commits a hate crime when they mistakenly attack a Sikh, believing them to be Muslim.
One notable exception, however, is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees and job applicants from discrimination based on religion, race, color, and national origin, among other categories. Unfortunately, federal courts are divided on whether Title VII protects individuals from discrimination based on perceived race, color, religion, and national origin. See, e.g., EEOC v. WC&M Enters., 496 F.3d 393, 400–02 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding there was sufficiently pervasive and severe harassment based on national origin even where discriminatory statements did not accurately describe the plaintiff’s actual country of origin); Yousif v. Landers McClarty Olathe KS, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154504, at *11 (D. Kan. Oct. 28, 2013) (rejecting perceived discrimination claims under Title VII).
In certain jurisdictions, Sikhs who become targets of anti-Muslim employment discrimination, and only anti-Muslim discrimination, will have no recourse under Title VII—no matter how pervasive or severe the conduct is. Given the problem of misidentification for Sikhs, this gap in coverage is egregious.
As Sikhs in America continue to fight not just for equity and tolerance but also for their identity, we should strive to create the spaces and opportunities for them to be seen and recognized. One success story revolves around the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) tracking of hate crimes. Before 2013, the FBI did not maintain statistics on anti-Sikh hate crimes, as it did for Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Atheists, even though Sikhs experienced a surge in hate crimes following September 11.
Because data drives policymaking, it would have been impossible to address the hate crimes against this community without attempting to measure and understand the scope of the problem. These statistics help law enforcement identify and protect at-risk communities, and they allow policymakers to dedicate resources more efficiently to support hate crime prevention programs.
Following a sustained advocacy campaign led by the Sikh Coalition, activists from the Oak Creek Sikh community, and others, anti-Sikh hate crimes and bias incidents have been included in the FBI’s hate crime metrics since 2013.
Measures that help Sikhs in their fight for equity and recognition, such as hate crime tracking, are more important than ever as the country experiences another notable surge in Islamophobia amid the Israel-Hamas war. It is indisputable that conflation between Sikhs, Muslims, and other communities persists in the eyes of many Americans—both those who are driven to acts of bigotry or violence and others who are quietly ignorant.
As the post-September 11 experiences of Muslims and Sikhs show, bias is complicated and often sits at the nexus of, one, intersectional aspects of identity and, two, reality versus perception. Until we have systems (legal, educational, and otherwise) to address these overlaps, our communities will remain at risk.
Please note: The views expressed herein have not been approved by the House of Delegates, the Board of Governors, the Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice or the Human Rights Editorial Board of the American Bar Association and, accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association. They are the views of the individual authors themselves in their personal capacities.
