Exposing Liberals Daily
Posted on 05/02/2014 7:32:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
WASHINGTON — Some legislators are going to battle with the Defense Department over Army uniform regulations they say discriminate against African-American women wearing their hair naturally.
The Army issued AR 670-1 changes in a 57-page directive [1] in mid-March addressing male and female grooming standards, fingernails (“males may not wear nail polish”), jewelry, tattoos, and other items for clarification.
The male standards focused on strips of hair left on otherwise shaved heads, sideburn length (no lower than the bottom of the ear opening), and how wide a regulation mustache can be (not up into the nose and not past the corners of the mouth).
The female standards clarify rules for short and medium hair length, and stipulate that the “bulk” of the hair can’t extend more than two inches from the scalp. If long hair is tied back in a bun, that can protrude a maximum of three inches from the scalp.
The photos accompanying the guidelines about unauthorized hair include an Afro as an example of hair that’s too bulky. Dreadlocks and twists are also shown as non-regulation.
Multiple braids are authorized as long as they’re uniform and “tightly interwoven to present a neat, professional, well-groomed appearance.” They can be worn loose if they meet the collar-length requirement for medium-length hair or pulled back if longer. Tight, neat cornrows are also allowed, and hair extensions are authorized if they conform to natural hair.
In early April, the women of the Congressional Black Caucus wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel calling the regulations “discriminatory rules targeting soldiers who are women of color with little regard to what is needed to maintain their natural hair.”
“African American women have often been required to meet unreasonable norms as it relates to acceptable standards of grooming in the workplace,” stated the letter, led by CBC chairwoman Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio). “Understand that these standards should shift based on each community’s unique and practical needs. New cultural norms and trends naturally change, ensuring that no person feels targeted or attacked based on his or her appearance. We believe the Army’s updated rules and the way they are written fail to recognize this reality.”
“Army officials have responded to criticism of the regulation by saying it applies to all soldiers regardless of race, and that they are meant to protect their safety. However the use of words like ‘unkempt’ and ‘matted’ when referring to traditional hairstyles worn by women of color are offensive and biased. The assumption that individuals wearing these hairstyles cannot maintain them in a way that meets the professionalism of Army standards indicates a lack of cultural sensitivity conducive to creating a tolerant environment for minorities.”
The caucus women “strongly” encouraged Hagel to “reconsider the updated regulation as it relates to grooming standards and how it allows individuals from every community to feel proud and welcome to serve in our nation’s Armed Forces.”
On Tuesday, the CBC received a response from Hagel. “I want to assure you that, while none of the Army’s revised grooming and appearance policies were designed or intended to discriminate or disparage against any Service Members, I take your concerns very seriously,” the secretary wrote.
Hagel said he ordered the deputy secretary of Defense and the service secretaries to each review their policies within the next 30 days and “revise any offensive language.” Over the next three months, they will have to review the content of the policies to “ensure standards are fair and respectful of our diverse force, while also meeting our military services’ requirements.”
Hagel added that he’ll review the recommendations and “make appropriate adjustments to DoD policy.” He also offered to brief the CBC on the progress of the reviews.
Fudge lauded it as a “thoughtful response” from the Defense secretary.
“Members of the CBC appreciate Secretary Hagel for his prompt response to our letter and for seriously considering our concerns,” she said in a statement. “The Secretary’s response affirms his commitment to ensuring all individuals are welcomed and can continue to be proud of serving within our Armed Forces.”
Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby confirmed the reviews will be “specifically about appropriate service member hairstyles and, in particular, about hairstyles worn by African-American women in the military.”
After Hagel’s announcement, a group of House members led by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) urged the Pentagon to reconsider implementation of the policy while awaiting the outcome of service reviews.
“This regulation unnecessarily discriminates against African American and other minority women. While we appreciate that the intent of the regulation is to ensure uniformity in our military, we believe that the impact of this discriminatory policy will be to lower morale and make it more difficult for all Americans to proudly serve their country,” states the letters, signed by Reps. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), Andre Carson (D-Ind.), Marc Veasey (D-Texas), and Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.).
The lawmakers argued that the prohibition of dreadlocks “against the scalp or free-hanging” ranks among the words in the regulations that further “an offensive and biased perception that ethnic hair that is ‘natural,’ or not straightened with heat or chemicals, is somehow unruly, and must be carefully regulated.”
“While it is reasonable for the Department to expect some degree of conformity and neatness in hairstyles, those expectations must take into account the diversity and history of our country, and the variety of natural hair textures.… This updated regulation is offensive, biased, and divisive to thousands of our service members.”
Yah, because THIS is the most important thing Hagel has to be concerned about.
I’ve been lobbying for a new rule that says the Board of Uniform Standards should not be allowed to meet more often than every 10 years. These people MUST have something better to do.
Colonel, USAFR
Not in their minds.
Earth To Chuch Schmagel:”GET STUFFED”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Looking professional is discriminatory.
Next they’ll expect them to have an ID or something.
I they wanted to show off their individuality and "style", they should have joined the hip-hop groupies, rather than the US military.
Sympathy from this veteran? ZERO.
Amen! They should hold a uniform board every 10 years, for 1 hour maximum. Anything that can’t be solved in that hour can be safely ignored.
“If”...
I remember going through this crap in the Army during Jimmah Cahtah’s wacky 70s. Idiocy just doesn’t ever go away. It will always be with us.
Seriously?? These are probably the same idiots that think "black hole" is derogatory.
I would remind all of you who are complaining about this that the primary motivation for the review came from Sikhs, a community with religious obligations involving hair, beards, and the carrying of a knife, who have been cut slack on those points by the armed forces of the British Empire and subsequently many Commonwealth countries, who have served with great valor and distinction in those armies, and who, as a community, have been fighting against actively-jihadi Islam for longer than folks of European ancestry have lived in what is now the United States.
The media is retelling the story to make it look like the primary motivation is black hair styles. It is not.
The Sikh with whom I am most familiar was a bright, fun, diligent guy — who always wore a beard and turban. I wasn’t aware that he also always carried a knife (in MA).
Hagel, the faux SOD.
i went through it in the 50’s hair style the same for everyone,none
High and tight for everyone! Hagel cannot ignore a Congressional inquiry, but he doesn’t have to capitulate to the Klan with a Tan. Uniform standards for everyone is not discriminatory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.