AR 670-1 Racially Biased?

<p>It is not racially biased.&nbsp;What&nbsp;this does is eliminate any confusion over the "gray areas" in the regulation. If you feel it is being biased then you were probably on the wrong side of right to begin with. </p><p><br></p><p>Furthermore, not only is it not racist, it's not even sexist. There are a ton of changes aimed at males. To include many that affect a bunch of the "Old Timers". So much so, that even my DCSM changed how he wears his hair in order to be in compliance with the new regulation.</p><p><br></p><p>The whole notion of "I’ve been in the military six years, I’ve had my hair natural four years, and
it’s never been out of regulation." is akin to a serial (insert your choice) saying, "I've been doing this for 10 years and nobody said anything about it". Just because nobody told you it was wrong doesn't mean it wasn't wrong. Now you are being told in black and white it is wrong, so if you are wrong, you're wrong. Fix it and drive on.</p><p><br></p><p>Besides this new version of 670-1 is nearly word for word identical to the USMC appearance standards. I haven't heard anyone call the Marine Corps racist. </p>

That's it... Shaved heads for everyone... This is why we can't have nice things..

As a Soldier for almost 20 years I have seen it all. I welcome this clarification in AR 670-1.&nbsp; I was so tired of correcting females of all races on their hair and the only thing I had to back me up was that it looked unprofessional and fadish.&nbsp;

Okay I have a few issues with this topic. For those who don't know I'm an Equal Opportunity Advisor and let me tell you my take on this. For one, stop using "racism" and "race" in vain. The title alone just turned off half of the people reading it. I do not believe the regulation is racially bias. However, I do feel if Soldiers are bringing this issue up it should be addressed. Using "race" loses the audience. Even if this affects certain races I'm sure it was not done purposely.&nbsp;<div><br></div><div>Second, my major problem with this post is the responses. &nbsp;One of the biggest areas EOAs deal with are climates of units. &nbsp;One of the biggest leadership mistakes I see made by leaders is "discrediting" and "blowing off" Soldier's issues. Many leaders take this attitude of if they can't relate to a Soldier's issue or that issue doesn't affect the leader then automatically there is no issue. This is the wrong approach. Just because someone can't relate to the issue or the leader has no personal stake in the issue does not mean that issue is not negatively affecting a Soldier. &nbsp;When the Soldiers don't feel like their issues are being heard, that's when things like this start happening. &nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>Like I said, I personally do not believe the regulation is racially bias but I can see the issue the Soldiers have with it. Instead of telling Soldiers to "suck it up" (which is one of the fastest ways a Soldier will lose respect for that leader), take the time to educate the Soldier. Tell the Soldier the proper way to bring up their issue and let the powers that be address it. Just my two cents.&nbsp;</div>

Sir,<div><br></div><div>It seems to me that those Soldiers will just have to embrace the suck and use a ton of hair products the way the rest of us do. &nbsp;If they refuse to use hair gel and hair spray, they'll just have to braid it or get it straightened.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>I understand that they want to remain "natural", meaning not straightening their hair or putting chemicals in it, but we can't all live by our preferences when we're in the Army. They're not the only ones making sacrifices to keep their hair in compliance, so calling the reg "racially biased" is misguided. &nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>How is it that the civilian in this photo can get it right, but a Soldier can't?</div><div><br></div>

No,<br><br>I have seen horrible responses on both sides of this issue. In my opinion the actions of SOME have resulted in tighter standards for everyone. (Not just hair, take for instance fingernail polish. At first it could be natural colors, but the SOME decided all types of colors to be natural. Which has led to now the color being clear only). I have known plenty of Soldiers that wear the now unauthorized hairstyles in a professional way and IAW with the old 670-1. But on the other side of that coin, I have known just as many that have taken the same style to the extreme. Some with so much hair bundled up that their PC or Beret looks like a yamaka. You could tell them to tighten&nbsp;it up, but not much more because it was the same hair style the squared away person had. So&nbsp;with this change&nbsp;I see the easy choice of just keeping unquestionably professional hairstyles. &nbsp;<br><br>What I find most appalling is the way some of our SR leaders are commenting on these public posts. Some outright saying they will not comply and that its not fair and this and that. I don't always agree with everything the Army does, but I wont be posting my disdain on public forums for all to see. In my opinion that is an easy way to compromise your values.&nbsp;( If you put it out there that you don't agree or wont enforce one Reg, what about all the others?)<br><br>I always thought we were in the business of protecting democracy, not using it. The Army is not, and should not be a democracy. The Army has spoken, if you don't want to comply...I thank you for your service but it may be time for some to hang up their boots.<br><br>Just my two cents.

<p>Sir,</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It is ridiculous to consider this regulation to be either racist or sexist. The problem is that for too long females went without being corrected the way they should have been corrected and the situation blew out of control. With too many male Soldiers afraid of either the backlash from the female herself or the complaint that 9 out of 10 times would be filed against him for making the correction, more than a few female Soldiers began to take advantage of the already loose uniform policies. There is absolutely NOTHING racist or sexist about putting your hair into a neat style, above the collar, without outlandish hair art. No one cares how cute you look or how fashionable you are, and if they do, then you have a whole new level of problems. No one joins the military looking for love or happily ever after romance. There is no reason that nails need to be long and polished. They do not aid in any military function I have ever seen and there is absolutely no reason why anyone should be questioning the off-post guidance for civilian attire. It simply states you look professional. Too many Soldiers forget that they represent the Army off-duty hours as well. Perhaps with a little more discipline in the wear and appearance of our uniforms the discipline of self will slowly start to reshape this Army. </p>

Let's have a quick EO class (or lesson). The only people that would potentially think this change is racist, are the ones that have associated stereotypes with certain groups of people. Stop with the stereotypes and no one will find it "racist". Nothing in the reg says anywhere, anything, that particularly pertains to any specific race.

So I'm going to start this off with the following: I've been out of the service since 2012.

HOWEVER. I had a love/hate relationship with 670-1. Here's my little story. When I first joined (2003), my hair was down to my lower back, thick, and curly. Couldn't put that bad boy into a bun no matter how I hard I tried. Looked like I had a beehive on the back of my head. What did my DS have me do? Chop it off. I chose to get it into a bob, because really, with how thick my hair was and the fact that I didn't have access to good hair product, a professional appearance just wasn't possible. (Not the wisest route in the middle of a Missouri summer, but hey.)

To put it into perspective, I lobbed off 15 inches of hair.

Come AIT time, I was able to care for my hair, but I was constantly harped on for it touching my collar (if I straightened it), being too curly and unruly, etc., to the point where my DS gave me a counseling statement for not being within regs. Threatened me with an Art. 15 and all that joy. So what did I do? Invested in a TON of bobby pins and flat clips and Aquanet and made it work. Hell, I even bought one of those silly little bun extension things because my little nub of hair looked unprofessional. Grew it out, thinned it out as I went, and maintained a professional appearance from then on. In fact, hair maintenance on both males and females became my "thing" - if I had a Soldier with some crazy looking hair, I would take her/him aside, show her/him the reg, and recommend that he/she make the necessary adjustments. Verbal warning, then written.

Now, meanwhile, two doors down from my company, there was a senior NCO with bleached, ratty hair, fake nails that exceeded regulation, and outlandish makeup. She looked RIDICULOUS and unprofessional. Couldn't take her seriously. Same with another female NCO who couldn't wear her beret/PC properly because her hair was too big. "SGT B, why is SFC So-and-so wearing her hair like that? Why are you recommending that I change my hair color? Her hair is BLEACHED. I only have highlights."

The point is - males and females need to look professional. You want ombre hair? Wait till you get out. You want cherry red hair? Make that your ETS beauty present. There's a forum for female servicemembers and veterans on Facebook that was LIT UP with all sorts of opinions, responses, backlash - the common one being, "You're not ::insert race here:: so you can't have an opinion on my hair" or "I'm a naturalist, I won't put product in my hair and the Army can't make me." Fine. The regulation is now a punitive one. Let's see how strong in your stance you are when the command starts enforcing the standard. The bottom line is - you can't look crazy in uniform. Think of the hair regulation as the new "you must starch and iron your BDUs and polish your boots" rule. The Soldier with the wrinkled uniform and unpolished, dull black boots looked sloppy and shitty. The same will most likely be said about the Soldier with unnatural hair colors, faddish styles, and what not.

I end with this: in another discussion on this site, a senior NCO really put it into perspective by stating "If you wouldn't wear it like that in your DA photo, why are you wearing it like that now?"

Just my veteran two cents. ;)

Most of this entire thread spins right back to my politically correct post of about a week ago. There is nothing whatsoever racist in the regulation. The racists are the ones that insist on receiving preferential treatment BASED on their race.....HMMMM, seems sort of odd, don't you think that Soldiers OF a certain race would cry racism to get what they want? If you ask me, the last three generations haven't the foggiest idea what true racism is....I wish I had a time machine.