Posted on Jan 1, 2014
Does the military need to dispose of antiquated "uniformity" in lieu of more individual expression?
17.9K
201
112
2
2
0
An article focused mainly on Indian-Americans was recently published where the discussion turned to changing policies (grooming, wear of uniform, etc) to allow more folks to join without comprising their religious practices/beliefs.<div><br></div><div>Without focusing on specific religions, but focused mainly on grooming and uniform standards, does the military need to dispose of antiquated "uniformity" in lieu of more individual expression?</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.indiawest.com/news/15912-sikh-soldiers-want-more-indian-americans-in-u-s-army.html#kaxMGk112xXGCIbO.99">http://www.indiawest.com/news/15912-sikh-soldiers-want-more-indian-americans-in-u-s-army.html#kaxMGk112xXGCIbO.99</a><br></div><div><br></div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://www.indiawest.com/indiawest_cms/gall_content/2013/12/2013_12$largeimg229_Dec_2013_102644053.jpg"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.indiawest.com/news/15912-sikh-soldiers-want-more-indian-americans-in-u-s-army.html">Sikh Soldiers Want More Indian Americans in U.S. Army</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">The United States should change its policy to allow more Indian Americans to join the military without compromising on their religious beliefs and practices, the only three Sikh soldiers in the U.S. A...</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 49
CSM,<div>I think the last thing the Army needs is to abandon uniformity in favor of individual expression. We already have droves of new recruits coming into the Army with a sense of entitlement and an inflated sense of self. Uniformity is the foundation of obedience and the abandonment of your individuality that is necessary to follow orders in combat. Uniformity may be a small thing, but the more disciplined a unit is in doing the little things, the more disciplined and effective that unit will be on the battlefield. The argument that Indian Americans have to compromise their religious beliefs and practices is illogical. That's a form of free speech under the First Amendment, but free speech is curtailed all the time! Especially in the military! The Army is not selectively restricting people's right to practice religion and dress the way their religion requires them to. The Army sets a neutral standard of uniformity for all Soldiers, which means that it is not discriminatory. Sure, in effect, many Indian Americans might be discouraged from joining, but so might many from the Amish community. The Army has a legitimate reason for requiring uniformity and it should not be forced to abandon it because some people might be less inclined to sign up.</div>
(28)
(0)
MSG Tim Waychoff
I think that you've nailed that response, Sir. Well said, and I concur 100%.
Nobody is forced to serve in our Army. If that were the case, I'd say that there was a stronger case for allowing individuals some freedom of personal expression. It is not the case however, so anyone who chooses to enlist chooses to accept our established standards of appearance, discipline, and order.
Nobody is forced to serve in our Army. If that were the case, I'd say that there was a stronger case for allowing individuals some freedom of personal expression. It is not the case however, so anyone who chooses to enlist chooses to accept our established standards of appearance, discipline, and order.
(2)
(0)
CMC Robert Young
CSM M, I have used that exact verbiage on more than one occasion when forced to issue an unpopular order. We all understand that as service members we forego some of the benefits of a free society for the greater good.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
While I agree in principle, it has been abused more often than not to dictate uniformity on petty things that had no military necessity, based on personal preferences of those giving the order.
(0)
(0)
Why,?Native American Indians are not able to keep their braids. We're made to cut our hair and the government never cared about our religious beliefs.......And don't to this day.....so why can an Indian American keep their long hair and grow a beard?.....Making a Native Amercan Indian shave even though we had nothing to shave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!then having to spend the rest of our lives shaving. A comment made by my platoon Sgt, Bahe just because your Indian, do you think you can grow your hair long......my hair was barely touching my Ears. I would have preferred to keep my braids and never shaved,
(14)
(0)
SFC Jason Porter
I agree SPC Bahe, double standards is what it is all about. As long as we make it the same standard!
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Fully agree. We still have enough double standards between male and female uniform regs and don't need any more. If you join, you know what you are getting into - change to be part of the TEAM, not to change it after you join.
(1)
(0)
The Army's mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars... etc. etc. With that in mind I suggest that we look to our MoH recipients as examples of grooming standards. First order of business, NO MORE HIGH AND TIGHTS! If you want to look like a hero, grow some hair like Audie Murphy! Second, the only acceptable mustache is a handle-bar like Lew Millett. NO MORE CHEESY STACHES. If you think your standards are higher than these two, seek therapy. http://www.badassoftheweek.com/millett.html<br><br><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://www.badassoftheweek.com/millett.jpg"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.badassoftheweek.com/millett.html">Badass of the Week: Lewis Millett</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">The ultimate list of all badasses past and present.</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>
(7)
(0)
It's a bad idea. We are here to protect democracy not practice it. We all understood when we enlisted that some of our rights would be curtailed for the greater good. This will be one more thing that allows people to think of themselves as individuals instead of recognizing they are part of something greater. Individualism is the enemy of unit cohesion.
(6)
(0)
Maj Walter Kilar
That is probably the best response I have read to this topic--"we are here to protect democracy, not practice it". I am going to use that one. We call "the service", not the "served to me". We sacrifice our lives, our fortunes, and our sanity as well as our right to excessive tattoos, full beards, long hair, handlebar mustaches, facial piercings, faddish haircuts. Even when it pertains to religion, I have had to work 12+ hours a day on the Sabbath. I have stood guard on religious holidays. I have missed the birth of children, countless birthdays, and anniversaries--for the sake of the team, the service, and my fellow countrymen. Despite all this, we have people who want millions of military members to change the rules for the few who think their religious expression is more important than sacrifice and service to the nation! Yes, I get it--one can sacrifice for the nation and wear a religious beard. I can turn that one around and say that you are not going to hell, Valhalla, or wherever for shaving off your beard to join the military. If you cannot sacrifice a bit of hair or some headgear, then how can we expect you to do your fair share of sacrificing your marriage, your sanity, and your life for your country? I just do not get it.
(3)
(0)
CMC Robert Young
I have offered that statement on more than one occasion both on formation and one on one counseling as a reminder that we serve a higher purpose, and voluntarily undertook our burdens.
(0)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
Gene Hackman is upset that you don't give him credit for that quote =) Crimson Tide, great movie...
(1)
(0)
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.
(6)
(0)
I have been in the Army for 17 years, I truly believe that, just as someones religion is a "way of life," the Army is also a way of life...with established roots, history, norms, and policies and procedures put in place in order to provide guidelines to good order and discipline. As it is, the longer I stay in...it seems like the percentage of people with shaving profiles had tripled...but, what cracks me up is too see their DA photo's, or they go to a promotion board....all of the sudden that shaving profile is not important.
(5)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Actually, what's probably happening is a cost/benefit analysis on the part of the soldier under consideration.
The shaving profile may very well be completely legitimate, but the board will never see it. DA Photos are a one time thing, not a regular thing, while shaving 5-7 times per week IS a regular thing, and more likely to exacerbate the problem that caused the need for a shaving profile in the first place.....
The shaving profile may very well be completely legitimate, but the board will never see it. DA Photos are a one time thing, not a regular thing, while shaving 5-7 times per week IS a regular thing, and more likely to exacerbate the problem that caused the need for a shaving profile in the first place.....
(0)
(0)
I think the problem becomes definitions. It is much easier to define "clean shaven" than "neatly maintained facial hair." Picture Seneca Crane's beard from the Hunger Games; is that Ok? http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2012/03/15/hunger-games-wes-bentley-seneca-crane-beard/
Even saying that people can do things as dictated by their religion, which religions? What about sects of mainstream religions? Can Jews grow Payot (long curly sideburns)? And if so, can everyone? Why not? In my mind, it is either permitted or not.
The problem is when you cannot provide exact definitions, the interpretation comes down to the leadership...and at what level? Even the "trendy hairstyles" phrasing has caused problems. Appeals and IG complaints about grooming judgement calls are a waste of resources.
My opinion is that there was a time when Soldiers could be trusted to, well, have a desire to look like Soldiers. That is gone, frankly. The current grooming standards are a reflection of this problem.
The actor's look took three hours to create each morning...
(5)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
Ma'am, definitely sounds like we're practicing risk elimination instead of risk mitigation. We can't trust our folks to do the right thing (grooming standards within reason), so we just restrict so that there is no room to look unprofessional.
If we make everyone do what we want, it's hard to tell who really buys in and is doing what we want because they believe in it.
I'm all for Mission Command - tell them the intent and see if they get it. If they demonstrate that they truly don't get it, then maybe they are not a fit and need to go.
(3)
(0)
Well on the subject of uniformity... This has nothing to do with long hair or tattoos, however. The best policy change I experienced for the better was actually when my unit decided uniformity was more of a hindrance than helpful. When it comes to wearing "KIT" in combat or otherwise. They used to like a uniformed standard. Everybody had to look exactly the same. Then they finally realized that it was actually impossible to have a uniformed formation since 19K don't use the same gear or weapons that 11C do and so forth etc... I don't get issued grenades, they generally give them to the scouts and infantry And most of the admin folks didn't get issued M9 pistols. So why am I wearing a grenade pouch if I'm never issued them and why does she have 9mm magazine pouches and no weapon to accompany it? It was simply ridiculous. They eventually changed the policy to state "You will have on your uniform at a minimum..." The essentials (eyepro,gloves,ach,iotv etc...). Where you put it was up to you with one exception. The IFAK must be placed in the same place on all soldiers for obvious reasons. Best common sense usage I've seen the Army implement in a long time. As far as hair goes, I don't have any problem with a soldier that has long hair if it is their religion. I have never been to a place on the battlefield that we did not have enough proper warning to get into MOPP gear. If you get any less warning than that, chances are you're dead anyways. If one of these soldiers finds themselves on that battlefield and chemical attack is likely, I'm sure they will shave on the spot in order to survive. As far as the "Professional" side of it, I like my high and tight. I always have. I think it looks more professional. But that's just me. When I retire, then i'll grow my hair out and look like a mountain man.
(4)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
I agree with KIT uniformity - unnecessary except for those things that would/could be used by others (IFAK, etc).
Just like we have a reason for a uniform load plan among all vehicles - so that anyone getting in that vehicle or needing something from that vehicle knows exactly where to find it.
(0)
(0)
CSM,
I had a Sikh in my BOLC class. The Army only made the exception because he was dentist. The problem I saw was that because he received "special" treatment" he acted "special". Without going into details, it was detrimental to good order. My last assignment was in a joint command and I was able to see how our coalition brothers/sisters worked. They allowed beards, long hair, relaxed uniform standards and it showed in their work and discipline. The way they spoke to superiors and how well they pulled their weight. For me, it simply proved that we have the best military for a reason. I think we need to focus on the fact that they don't have to serve in the Armed Forces, BUT if hey want to, then they need to conform. I bet if they were offered a Million Dollar a year job but they had to conform to a set standard that was against their "religion or beliefs" then I bet they would do it.......This is just my opinion
(4)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Lt. Samuel and therein lies the problem, getting over on the system and the feeling of being privileged.
(1)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
Great insight and observations and how that directly correlates ti performance/image sir.
(0)
(0)
Doesn't the military spend our first few weeks and months in the military teaching us the standards? Standards are standards for a reason. They are the rules that we as DoD employees have agreed to in order to receive the pay and benefits as said employee. I'm all for the freedom of speech and all that good stuff but where does it stop? "I'm sorry SGT, I can't wear my uniform correctly because my beliefs say I can't wear the color green." "I'm sorry SGT, I can't protect your back because my beliefs teach me not to shoot a gun but can you please help me fill out this tuition assistance form so I can go to school this year?"
If you want your college loans paid off or whatever from the service, then you must be willing to do what the military says when the military says. I'm sorry if that goes against your beliefs but that is how it is. You want this, well the military wants that.
(3)
(0)
Maj Walter Kilar
Your statement makes sense, until you realize that the military changes every few years. The Army that I joined and left in 1994 is nothing like today's army. The Air Force I joined in 1995 had very different standards than the Air Force that evolved after 2001 and the Air Force during the sequestration era post-2012.
To me the issue is not conforming to standards, but the ability to conform to evolving standards that reflect changes in American culture. After nearly 20 years in service I realize that it is more my inability to cope with these changes that bothers me than it is the inability for folks to conform to standards. In 1994, nobody seemed to demand that the military let us wear turbans, marry members of the same gender, not wear reflective belts everywhere, carry Luis Vitton purses in uniform, or wear strange hair styles. Then again, in 1994 I rarely saw people wear turbans and demand same-sex marriage out in the civilian world. Faster forward to 2014 and now I see folks proud to wear turbans out in public that I never saw in 1994, and there are more folks like that joining the military. In 1994 it was harder for Americans to spend $1500 on a purse, but with a decade and a half where anyone with a pulse could live off credit equalling 150% of their yearly salary there are people that want to push the standards to carry Luis Vitton purses in uniform. In 1994 DADT was in effect, so nobody wanted to publicly demand same-sex marriage, but now this is no big deal. Throw in just about any standard of uniformity from years ago and you can imagine that today's rapidly evolving society and dwindling populace representation make uniformity a tough issue--especially since the standards evolve more rapidly.
(1)
(0)
SGT Charles Tittl
It's called uniform for a reason! Being a completely volunteer force they had plenty of time to decide whether to be uniform with the rest. Don't like the rules? Then thank you for your interest!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next