Does the military need to dispose of antiquated "uniformity" in lieu of more individual expression?

670-1 is not about creating or equaling discipline.  It's about documenting the STANDARD.  These are a particular and set group of rules and guidelines that apply to everyone, not particular individuals.  It establishes that everyone is treated the same, not differently, based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion.  It is no different than BRM standards when it comes to qualifying, or the APFT.  And before anyone would like to argue the differences in that arena, they are purely physiological, and nothing else.  

Unity is often confused with uniformity. We need look no further than our own Revolutionary War to understand the difference. The British were uniform but not unified, we were unified but not uniform. The same case might be made for Vietnam and the current war on terrorism. The benefits of uniformity, certainly during the indoctrination and forming of a unit are well known. The benefits of uniformity operationally may be less so.

The way you phrased the original question is quite interesting, and maybe a tad bit leading.

Regardless you have created a very interesting discussion thread.

I think we could go down several different paths.

1) Stay the course and ensure good order, discipline while not usurping individuality.
2) Change the policies and skew them towards individual expression and liberties at the expense of the whole.
3) Go the route of the Village People and sing YMCA all day.  Please understand that this comment is not a jab at lifestyle, rather I refer you to the visual of the group up on the stage and the diversity in clothing and apparel only.
4) Take your discussion to the extreme and open the aperture widely.  Today your discussion is on Sikh's.  Lets open this up to every plausible scenario and see where that leads us.
- Turban's
- Beards
- Hijab's
- Bonnet's
- yarmulke  (OK, there is an interesting one.  What makes it different than the turban?)
- Talissman's
- Robes
- Hats ( or in Marine speak--religious covers)
- and on and on and on......

I am sure that we could take this list and many other examples of individual expression to extremes.  Then again, maybe the antiquated notion of  "uniformity" isn't that antiquated after all.

Grooming standards and dress code deviations should be mission driven, not personality or individual in nature.  There are reasons for uniformity.  One has a choice to enter and the rules, regulations and uniform codes that apply are all part of any consideration.

What happens next if you go the individuality route. Not just from religious preference and nuance, but look at your individual units.  Lets see how easy it will be to lead a gaggle of individuals who all have different beliefs, wear different clothes, think the mission and the way it is executed should be done differently, and on and on.

Then again, is it really that big of a deal?  Look at other military examples where Sikh's for example are allowed to serve.  Has it hindered their ability to execute their assigned roles and missions?

Just some thoughts.

The military is merely changing as America is changing. Just under 20 years ago when I enlisted, the world expected individuals to conform to the majority. Somehow the paradigm has flipped and now people expect the majority to conform to the individual. The concept of uniformity has been virtually eliminated from public schools in the 1990s (maybe slightly before that), and has been slowly eroding from the military since then as well. It is up to us old folks to accept that some things need to change, but that other things have been allowed to change because we have not taken a stand against those unnecessary changes.

Maintaining uniformity requires discipline (by shaving, getting a haircut, staying trim, not adhering to fads) in an age of no shine boots, no press uniforms, RFI, and RESET, the last thing we need is less discipline.

Absolutely NOT! There are reasons that the military has standards for uniformity. How many of you have seen a move with an American Actor (Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, whoever) wearing a US Army uniform and there was something wrong with their uniform, their salute or how they did something? We all have and picked up on those discrepancies right away. Those standards have been engrained in our very fiber from the first day of basic training. 

Hell NO!!! If that is the case, then why even bother wearing a uniform! Regardless of religion or nationality everyone that signs up for the military should go by the same rules and regulations! If people are going to be allowed to keep their beards and head dresses, then why bother having any grooming regulation! Just because someone is an officer and of different religion doesn't exempt them... If they can't be uniform with everyone else and respect the American uniform, get he hell out!

No problem There were Sikhs in the Army in the 70's and 80's. Wore turbans. I knew one that was an NBC NCO. When the mask went on the turban came off. The long hair in that event took a bit of getting used to, but he just followed the female standard and it was ok. A standard is a standard and should apply to all equally. Wait- whoa. Did I just say that?

The wear of the turban, and the prohibition on cutting hair aren't common to all Indians, just Sikhs (a religion, not an ethnic group).&nbsp;<div><br></div><div>Observant Sikhs embody more discipline, a stronger warrior tradition and better (just different) grooming standards than most. I have to admit I was pretty pleased to see that Captain wearing the US flash and his bars on turban. He has, I believe, and individual exception to the policy, and he's got to keep his standards high to retain it. I've seen picture of a camo turban, too.&nbsp;<div><br></div><div>I'm interested to see how things pan out and I wouldn't mind seeing other Sikhs accommodated in a similar fashion.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>A different hat? I think we've gotten way to bent out of shape about hats in the past few years, between the beret, patrol caps, the Marine's fuss over their rumor of adopting a perceived "female" headgear as standard for all, and now this. If he can still get a seal on a mask and wear a kevlar, that's the standard I would not be willing to veer from.</div><div><br></div><div>I expect to be the holder of the contrary and unpopular opinion once again, but I'm in general opposed to relaxing standards for "individual expression" but in favor of granting that Sikh soldier (and probably others like him) individual exceptions to the standard headgear and haircut/facial hair standards.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>

Individual expression is for civilian clothes not uniforms. Uniforms bring a sense of belonging of being part of something bigger than the individual and of unity. Changing that could have far reaching negative consequences.