Posted on Mar 25, 2015
To Shave or Not to Shave? That is the question.
176K
1.88K
312
42
42
0
In modern times, many police and military forces prohibit beards for one important reason that came up during World War I. In order to get a clean seal on a gas mask, you must have a clean face, so soldiers made sure to shave. They may or may not have been worried about the pulling of beards during hand-to-hand combat, as Alexander the Great was.
Excluding limited exemptions for religious accommodation, the United States Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps have policies that prohibit beards on the basis of hygiene, the necessity of a good seal for chemical weapon protective masks, and the official position that uniform personal appearance and grooming contribute to discipline and a sense of camaraderie.
All branches of the U.S. Military currently prohibit beards for a vast majority of recruits, although some mustaches are still allowed, based on policies that were initiated during the period of World War I.
So, the discussion is, Should military branches change the policy on shaving due to a legacy concern of chemical/biological warfare from WWI?
IMO, Proper grooming standards should be considered. If a service member wants to grow facial hair while not in a deployed location where the threat of a chemical/biological attack could occur (this is hardly in any theater of operations anymore due to many regulations implemented internationally to destroy & manage chemical/biological weapons), they should be allowed to, but in consideration of grooming standards (i.e. length of facial hair, must represent professional appearance, etc.)
Photo: U.S. Army Captain Tejdeep Singh Rattan, 2010
Excluding limited exemptions for religious accommodation, the United States Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps have policies that prohibit beards on the basis of hygiene, the necessity of a good seal for chemical weapon protective masks, and the official position that uniform personal appearance and grooming contribute to discipline and a sense of camaraderie.
All branches of the U.S. Military currently prohibit beards for a vast majority of recruits, although some mustaches are still allowed, based on policies that were initiated during the period of World War I.
So, the discussion is, Should military branches change the policy on shaving due to a legacy concern of chemical/biological warfare from WWI?
IMO, Proper grooming standards should be considered. If a service member wants to grow facial hair while not in a deployed location where the threat of a chemical/biological attack could occur (this is hardly in any theater of operations anymore due to many regulations implemented internationally to destroy & manage chemical/biological weapons), they should be allowed to, but in consideration of grooming standards (i.e. length of facial hair, must represent professional appearance, etc.)
Photo: U.S. Army Captain Tejdeep Singh Rattan, 2010
USA
US Marine Corps (USMC)
Shaving
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 133
108
107
1
I think if we spent less time worrying about facial hair and more time getting our weapons out of the armory and teaching Soldiers to Soldier, then it would have a tremendous impact on our warfighting ability.
Beards only bother many Soldiers because they're taught to hate them during training. This is dumb as crap. If maintaining a disciplined approach to your day to day activities by doing repetitive yet easily inspected work were really important, than we would still be shining boots. We would have nice neat creases in our combat uniforms. The shaving standard is the last bastion of a culture that uses repetitive activity as a way of discerning discipline and consistency.
I'll meet you in the middle. You let me grow a beard, and I'll gladly starch my uniform and get out the black boots. They'll shine extra bright so I can see my beard in them.
Beards only bother many Soldiers because they're taught to hate them during training. This is dumb as crap. If maintaining a disciplined approach to your day to day activities by doing repetitive yet easily inspected work were really important, than we would still be shining boots. We would have nice neat creases in our combat uniforms. The shaving standard is the last bastion of a culture that uses repetitive activity as a way of discerning discipline and consistency.
I'll meet you in the middle. You let me grow a beard, and I'll gladly starch my uniform and get out the black boots. They'll shine extra bright so I can see my beard in them.
(108)
(1)
SFC Walter Mack
Honestly, I'll chance it. Also, the mask doesn't filter out carbon monoxide. You need a contained suit for that, which allows for a beard, which firefighters in many places have. A mask without a carried oxygen source does you little good in a fire. I am a respiratory therapist, with a very thorough understanding of what it is we are defending against. I don't buy any argument that a day's missed shave should be the most important part of my day. Nope, still not convinced. Good try though.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSgt Tye Keppler - If you take a look at most of the pictures of SF in theater, you'll note the absence of a protective mask. They carry it, or not, based on risk.
A beard can prevent a proper seal of the protective mask, but the length permitted for a Soldier with a shaving profile shouldn't interfere with achieving a seal.
If there is a risk, or scheduled training, shave. No risk, no scheduled training, pick the length, grooming standard (e.g. edged, no more than 1" in length, no lines cut into it, no coloring blue, whatever the decision makers decide), and update AR 670-1.
A beard can prevent a proper seal of the protective mask, but the length permitted for a Soldier with a shaving profile shouldn't interfere with achieving a seal.
If there is a risk, or scheduled training, shave. No risk, no scheduled training, pick the length, grooming standard (e.g. edged, no more than 1" in length, no lines cut into it, no coloring blue, whatever the decision makers decide), and update AR 670-1.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
GySgt Dawson Webb - Us old ones still knew that even with the reg and the label saying DO NOT STARCH, if you weren't breaking starch twice a day at the dog and pony show you were wrong. 1SGs were quick to inform "that's not starch, that's sizing" (of course, sizing that isn't made from vegetable starch is made from plastics and give the sharpest creases). In any case, Garrison BDUs are not Field BDUs, and if the flag goes up, our Garrison BDUs will stand waiting in the corner of our wall lockers for our return.
(0)
(0)
75
75
0
I would love to see this policy changed. I see people all the time with beards in uniforms for one reason or another. If the reason we can't have beards is in order to get a good seal on the gas mask, then are we telling the people with sensitive skin who get no-shave chits or the people that have religious accommodations that they are expendable? I've heard others bring up the argument, "Well some people can't grow a beard or it comes in patchy and wouldn't look good," or, "People would push the limits and not follow the grooming standards." Have you seen some of the cheesy mustaches that people wear in the military? And as far as pushing the standards, that's one of the jobs for small unit leaders, to ensure that their subordinates maintain the standards. They already do it with current hair and mustache standards so why do we assume that grooming standards for beards would not be enforced in the same way?
(75)
(0)
LTC Bink Romanick
I have a cheesy mustache, I've had a cheesy mustache since 4 July 69. I made it to SSG with a cheesy mustache and to LTC with a Cheesy mustache so LT maybe if you grew a cheesy mustache you could be a success too. just advice from an old soldier.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
LTC Bink Romanick Thanks for the advice sir. But it would never work. I've tried growing just a mustache before. There's no way I would be promoted. The board would be laughing too hard. :)
(1)
(0)
SSgt Rob Millard
You do make some valid points. However, in my opinion, the single most important argument to maintain the standard is for the preservation of uniformity. As military members, we are trained from the very beginning that there is something larger than the individual. That sense of spirit de corps and dedication to the unit as a whole are reinforced in the wearing of a uniform that every person must wear in the exact same manner. Sadly, it appears that the military is contemplating more and more the open expression of individuality over the whole. I don't care specifically about the wearing of a beard. Nor do I care specifically about men wearing earrings. However, when in a uniform of the United States Military, you should present a standard that is EXACTLY uniform with the military member standing beside you.
(0)
(0)
46
46
0
My answer is going to very unpopular. I say change the standard but not in the way people think. I say aside from our Speciel Operation units that sometimes must grow a beard no one should have one. No exeptions for religion, no exeptions for razor burn. No exemptions. The only reason i saw Spec Ops is because i see it as a part of the uniform depending on the mission. They dont where big grizzley beards all the time. Only in the parts of the world that not looking like a Soldier is advantage to them. It is a uniform item to them not a fasion statement.
(46)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
I see some folks would rather their personal opinion be applied, rather than what the Army policy is with regard to shaving profiles for a medical condition or religious accommodation.
Your duty and responsibility is to enforce the Army standard, not enforce your personal standard or bias.
You are 100% permitted to enforce your level upon yourself, but the Army's standard is the one that applies to your Soldiers.
If the Army COS decided to change AR 670-1 to permit beards, it is likely nobody at our grade level would be consulted. Yet, if it were published, that would be the standard.
Your duty and responsibility is to enforce the Army standard, not enforce your personal standard or bias.
You are 100% permitted to enforce your level upon yourself, but the Army's standard is the one that applies to your Soldiers.
If the Army COS decided to change AR 670-1 to permit beards, it is likely nobody at our grade level would be consulted. Yet, if it were published, that would be the standard.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see) - Shaving is different because it doesn't keep the Soldier from performing their duties. A Soldier with a shaving profile and beard groomed IAW AR 670-1, is meeting the standard.
If a Soldier with the shaving profile there are no less than 4 people who own that. The Soldier, and the Soldier's first, second, and third level NCO in the NCOSC.
If a Soldier with the shaving profile there are no less than 4 people who own that. The Soldier, and the Soldier's first, second, and third level NCO in the NCOSC.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Jay Rose
As you already anticipated, I must disagree for several reasons.
First, religious exemptions, are you serious that you would be totally willing to essentially strip a service member of their first amendment right to freedom of religion, a right that they are voluntarily signing-up to defend?! By definition, Congress cannot make laws that prohibit the free practice of religion. On the flip, they cannot make laws to establish a religion as they must adhere to the separation of church and state. It’s just as bad under the first amendment to force a particular religion on a citizen as it is to deny them of the free practice of their chosen religion. After all, it’s not just me saying this, but the Bill of Rights!
Besides, how many excellent service members would you turn away if this is the case?! I’m talking about qualified people that the services need! This would be detrimental to the services by denying those with specialized, necessary skills and training access to being able to serve using those specialized skills. It doesn’t make a difference if it’s a Sikh that wants to enter as a Cyber Officer or an Orthodox Jew that would make a fine Rabbi in the Chaplain Corps. You’d be screwing the service over this, aside from denying citizens their rights.
Second, medical exemptions, unfortunately certainly painful skin conditions exist whether you like it or not, e.g. pseudofolliculitis (PFB), which also happens to be most prevalent in the African American community. So, whether it’s actually a racist move or not, it would absolutely be perceived as a racist stance, and would open up the services to so much litigation that your great grand children would still likely witness the fallout! Many young men don’t even realize that this is a factor before entering the military. So, it won’t be easily caught at MEPS, and even if it was, again, we absolutely need qualified individuals to join our all volunteer services!
That begs the question, would you believe it to be a more professional appearance if a serviceman has a face covered with nasty nodules and bumps because they must shave?
A simply policy of using a trimmer on its lowest setting would usually alleviate the effects of PFB.
Now, legally speaking, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not hiring those based on shaving requirements is in violation of the Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yes, there have been other rulings, such as the one by Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled the opposite, however, that was not precluding general hiring, but in consideration of a job where SCBA is the norm, rather than the exception (firefighters). There are many jobs across all services and some will never need to wear a SCBA. I could absolutely understand that it would not be prudent to allow someone to be regularly exposed to smoke inhalation, but that has nothing to do with the general hiring of qualified individuals. That’s clearly the distinction between the above two cases. Besides, nobody should have the need to protect themselves from chemical and biological weapons these days as there have been treaties for nearly a century, so any country or entity that would dare probably would be a “parking lot” within 24 hours. Additionally, the “confidence chamber” in bootcamp has people with PFB exemptions going through all the time and have no exposure to the gas until the planned removal of their generic mask.
To note, I did have to require carrying a mask and kit sometime around 1998 during the beginning of OSW as we believed Iraq could turn those weapons on us, but that’s an exception rather than a norm. Ultimately, those thoughts are your own, but whatever the basis is to your reasoning, I guarantee that the perception would not be taken lightly and could be extremely detrimental to the services as it’s opening up a HUGE “can of worms.” I would implore someone at your level to really ponder these outcomes for the good of the service that you clearly love. Believe me from a hiring standpoint as I eventually worked my way up to CFO of a global manufacturing company before having to medically retire.
First, religious exemptions, are you serious that you would be totally willing to essentially strip a service member of their first amendment right to freedom of religion, a right that they are voluntarily signing-up to defend?! By definition, Congress cannot make laws that prohibit the free practice of religion. On the flip, they cannot make laws to establish a religion as they must adhere to the separation of church and state. It’s just as bad under the first amendment to force a particular religion on a citizen as it is to deny them of the free practice of their chosen religion. After all, it’s not just me saying this, but the Bill of Rights!
Besides, how many excellent service members would you turn away if this is the case?! I’m talking about qualified people that the services need! This would be detrimental to the services by denying those with specialized, necessary skills and training access to being able to serve using those specialized skills. It doesn’t make a difference if it’s a Sikh that wants to enter as a Cyber Officer or an Orthodox Jew that would make a fine Rabbi in the Chaplain Corps. You’d be screwing the service over this, aside from denying citizens their rights.
Second, medical exemptions, unfortunately certainly painful skin conditions exist whether you like it or not, e.g. pseudofolliculitis (PFB), which also happens to be most prevalent in the African American community. So, whether it’s actually a racist move or not, it would absolutely be perceived as a racist stance, and would open up the services to so much litigation that your great grand children would still likely witness the fallout! Many young men don’t even realize that this is a factor before entering the military. So, it won’t be easily caught at MEPS, and even if it was, again, we absolutely need qualified individuals to join our all volunteer services!
That begs the question, would you believe it to be a more professional appearance if a serviceman has a face covered with nasty nodules and bumps because they must shave?
A simply policy of using a trimmer on its lowest setting would usually alleviate the effects of PFB.
Now, legally speaking, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not hiring those based on shaving requirements is in violation of the Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yes, there have been other rulings, such as the one by Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled the opposite, however, that was not precluding general hiring, but in consideration of a job where SCBA is the norm, rather than the exception (firefighters). There are many jobs across all services and some will never need to wear a SCBA. I could absolutely understand that it would not be prudent to allow someone to be regularly exposed to smoke inhalation, but that has nothing to do with the general hiring of qualified individuals. That’s clearly the distinction between the above two cases. Besides, nobody should have the need to protect themselves from chemical and biological weapons these days as there have been treaties for nearly a century, so any country or entity that would dare probably would be a “parking lot” within 24 hours. Additionally, the “confidence chamber” in bootcamp has people with PFB exemptions going through all the time and have no exposure to the gas until the planned removal of their generic mask.
To note, I did have to require carrying a mask and kit sometime around 1998 during the beginning of OSW as we believed Iraq could turn those weapons on us, but that’s an exception rather than a norm. Ultimately, those thoughts are your own, but whatever the basis is to your reasoning, I guarantee that the perception would not be taken lightly and could be extremely detrimental to the services as it’s opening up a HUGE “can of worms.” I would implore someone at your level to really ponder these outcomes for the good of the service that you clearly love. Believe me from a hiring standpoint as I eventually worked my way up to CFO of a global manufacturing company before having to medically retire.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google