AR 670-1 Racially Biased?

2014-03-31T21:40:58-04:00

I was reading the Army times and it was talking about the racial backlash towards the new AR 670-1 female grooming standards. Is it really so wrong for the Army to provide more guidance on grooming standards when it pertains to a certain group of people?

Black female soldiers say new grooming reg is 'racially biased'

Thousands of soldiers and others have signed a White House petition calling for the president to order the Army to reconsider just-released appearance and grooming regulations they contend are 'raci...

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 12:21 AM

2014-04-01T00:21:01-04:00

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 it up, but not much more because it was the same hair style the squared away person had. So with this change I see the easy choice of just keeping unquestionably professional hairstyles.  <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. ( 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.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 1:35 AM

2014-04-01T01:35:22-04:00

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.  If they refuse to use hair gel and hair spray, they'll just have to braid it or get it straightened. </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.  </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>

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 2:08 AM

2014-04-01T02:08:52-04:00

Ridiculous is the only answer for these complaints. I'm so sick of people using race as a reason for everything. Believe it or not, some people simply don't care what color your skin is, what religion you are, what sex you are, etc - myself included. <div><br></div><div>AR 670-1 is not racist. Nor are the people that wrote it (well maybe they are, but I don't think their personal opinions are relevant nor reflected in the new AR).</div>

Just to add on to this - you think I didn't want to keep my sideburns?! Boo hoo. What you say? We DID keep our sideburns. Not really. An 1/8" fully extended is a size one clipper. So you get buzzed down to a one which is barely anything and you're already at the max standard. So at least they aren't making the women shave their heads.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 5:15 AM

2014-04-01T05:15:54-04:00

<p>It is not racially biased. What 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>

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 8:37 AM

2014-04-01T08:37:55-04:00

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.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 11:15 AM

2014-04-01T11:15:16-04:00

As a Soldier for almost 20 years I have seen it all. I welcome this clarification in AR 670-1.  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. 

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Apr 1 at 2014 12:34 PM

2014-04-01T12:34:04-04:00

And so it begins...what about the biased against those Soldiers who like getting tattooed or whatever other group you can come up with to say the new AR 670-1 is "bad" in one way or another. Here are your choices everyone, comply and continue to do great work for this country, not comply and receive some sort of UCMJ punishment or comply and just not reenlist when the time comes and do whatever the heck you want with your body and/or hair.

To me, reading through the training deck and everything floating around about this site, I think the new AR 670-1 gives pretty clear instructions and pictures on how to comply with the regulation. I feel that is a great step by the DA to reduce confusion and to actually set rules that can be clearly understood by all.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 1 at 2014 12:43 PM

2014-04-01T12:43:19-04:00

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

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 1:08 PM

2014-04-01T13:08:54-04:00

Chain of Command!!! What happened to the chain of command? When did it become acceptable for a Soldier to try to go straight to the POTUS with an issue like this?

There are aspects of the 670-1 I would prefer to be different. But because I "choose" to stay in the military, I acquiesce to the policy. If I dont like it, I can try to use the system to change it or get out of the military.

I hope someone in her CoC has the courage to make this on-the-spot correction.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 1:56 PM

2014-04-01T13:56:44-04:00

<p>Sir,</p><p> </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>

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 2:19 PM

2014-04-01T14:19:11-04:00

DISCLAIMER! White, Male, and AF user responding

Our regulations may differ slightly, but they follow the same guidelines and I have read about your recent regulation revisions. They seem to do nothing but REALLY ensure people are following the original regulations. However, I think it's safe to say that it is much more difficult for a black female to comply with hair grooming standards than women of other races; that goes for every regulation in every branch. The term "racial bias" to me, though, suggests malice based on discrimination. I think it'd be more appropriate to say "racial inconvenience".

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 3:42 PM

2014-04-01T15:42:47-04:00

If you're not a black woman in the Army you can't say this isn't racially biased. It is. Period. No questions asked. Why is that the only people's hair that is considered "unprofessional" are African Americans? There's no problem when a white female dyes her hair blonde. But if a black female were to do it it'd be "unnatural." I bet the people who decided this and the people who don't think it's racially biased are mostly, if not all white men. I'm not surprised though. This new AR 670-1 is just another confirmation that we live in a misogynistic racist system.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 3:57 PM

2014-04-01T15:57:50-04:00

I do find it funny that the only folks I have heard called this "racist", are younger Service Members. GROW UP! I would love to rock a beard. My wife loves when my hair gets a little longer. However, I've chosen to be in the military, and with that comes expectations.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 4:31 PM

2014-04-01T16:31:35-04:00

I have 2 black female soldiers that have had a few discussions with me about this issue. Now that the reg is out There will probably be an office sit down. We will see after such a sensing session. I think that it is important that while we adhere to the standards that the army gives us, no matter how arduous. On the other hand, it is our responsibility as leaders to help our leaders make good decisions by providingrelevant feedback.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 5:56 PM

2014-04-01T17:56:44-04:00

I thought this was a joke. I dont think the regulation racially biased at all. I think that the reg is now enforcing ALL Soldiers to comply. One of the major issues that Soldiers complied with were hair and nails. Now that the Army is finally putting a stop to it is now causing issues. My response Senior or not, if you dont like it or want to comply, then GET OUT. I dont know another way to put it. If you expect all Soldiers to achieve the Army Standard in PT, Weight Control, Weapons Qual, then be damn sured that Uniform Wear and Appearance will also be enforced to all races, color, gender, nationality, sexual preferance...

Response by SFC Lamont Womack made Apr 1 at 2014 6:23 PM

2014-04-01T18:23:42-04:00

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. <div><br></div><div>Second, my major problem with this post is the responses.  One of the biggest areas EOAs deal with are climates of units.  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.  When the Soldiers don't feel like their issues are being heard, that's when things like this start happening.  </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. </div>

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 6:35 PM

2014-04-01T18:35:28-04:00

The new 670-1 being racially biased is total BS. If it's racist, then it is also sexist because there are different standards for males and females.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Apr 1 at 2014 6:45 PM

2014-04-01T18:45:05-04:00

When the Army let that Sikh soldier get away with not shaving and getting haircuts, they opened a Pandora's box ......

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Apr 1 at 2014 6:49 PM

2014-04-01T18:49:33-04:00

Not really ... I knew a white female soldier with blonde hair who had natural highlights who had to dye her hair so it would look more "natural".... see, it affects white females also.

Response by SFC James Baber made Apr 1 at 2014 7:14 PM

2014-04-01T19:14:19-04:00

Bottom line this is just another excuse for those Soldiers that have for years never been properly corrected by NCOs or Officers because many were afraid to make a correction because they were either going to be accused of being either racist or sexist have allowed the lax culture to be progressed to the point that now that it is in black and white print, it has nothing to do with race but standards that haven't been enforced for a good part of the past decade due to being more concerned with dual wars and deployments instead of normal military standards.

Cut and dried now that standards are in writing instead of "hearsay" or what it used to be, the offenders that haven't had to comply are now going to be forced to and they don't like it.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 7:30 PM

2014-04-01T19:30:57-04:00

The rules are the rules, follow them and ANY soldier will do fine in the military.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 7:32 PM

2014-04-01T19:32:06-04:00

I am confused over much of the responses to the new changes. My confusion comes from the fact that when I came in back in 2002, almost every one of the changes was already in the regulation. I think the problem came in as over 10 years of war we relaxed the standard and now a lot of Soldiers are upset because of the way they were used to doing things was never corrected in the first place. This isn't just directed at a particular race or group. It is an across the board fix to re-enforce the standard. I would be willing to bet that if giving the opportunity to get out of the Army tomorrow or to adhere to the standard, 95% of the people polled would choose the latter. It has been an all volunteer Army for all of us who wear the uniform now and we have all always known we must do as the Army instructs.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 9:15 PM

2014-04-01T21:15:05-04:00

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. ;)

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 9:45 PM

2014-04-01T21:45:07-04:00

Not going to respond to PFC Williams. That's for her chain of command to deal with. I am glad to see specifics. If there is umbrage about it, it will be dealt with and AR 670-1 will change. Until then it is regulation...and regulation is the only standard. I don't agree with the new tatoo policies, but I will enforce them and be professional in my disagreement. Bottom line is, it doesn't matter. There are too many people in the military that believe their opinions matter when it comes to things like this. As soon as I own the same rank as the person who signed the regulation into order...I'll make my opposition known. That's likely not going to happen though. So, suck it up and drive on. This is a utilitarian system. You do well, you thrive. You do poorly, you do not. Find an organization in the world that truly lives up to that standard better than the United States Military.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 12:50 AM

2014-04-02T00:50:00-04:00

Wow, after reading the article, I am going to be brutally blunt: complaining is all I hear. Braiding everyday is damaging to ALL hair types. Ask any stylist. The reasoning is that twists don't have as neat an appearance as cornrows and regular braids do.

I am of mixed heritage, so I have thin strands of hair, lots of them, and they are stubbornly curly. I tried a gentle relaxer once and it just made my curls feel soft & moisturized! A straightening session at a professional stylist lasted one afternoon...

When I joined, I had no clue how to do anything other than a regular braid from a pony tail. My bangs never stayed in, & I got yelled at for it. One of the girls was teaching me how to french braid. After basic, I practiced everyday, and learned new ways to do my hair. I learned so many other ways to do my hair & still stay within regs that it earned me the nickname "Princess Leia." In fact for a long time, I had a different style everyday!

When the new reg in the AF came out, I could no longer do any of these hairstyles. I also can't do a ponytail because my hair is too long. I'm not allowed to double it over to shorten it anymore. The reg seems to cater to females with short hair - totally unfair! But oh well, I signed up for another 6 and will deal with it because it is the reg.

You know, I really like the old woodland camo better, but I can't get Congress or the Prez to change it. Appealing to the Prez also sounds more like seeking his aid for the simple fact of his skin color (I say skin color & not race because he is 75% white).

Like I said, I was going to be brutally honest. I do, after all, have a LOT of experience in this!

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 7:47 AM

2014-04-02T07:47:12-04:00

I read a comment earlier that says "you joined the Army, the Army did't joined you". We have to adhere to the standards rather we like it or not. Any time there is a change on a regulation there'sa BIG BOOM and commotion for a few months and suddenly nobody speaks about it. Who can forget all the commotion when the semi-centralized promotion rules changed a few years ago and lot of people lost hundredds of point for E5 and E6? If you are an S1 Soldier you know what I'm talking about. It is always going to be like this. I can't wait for an update to AR 600-9. It is going to be epic. Regarding 670-1, I myself have a tattoo below the elbow and I'm willing to remove it only if the case comes that the tattoo hinders a future position or rank.

Response by SGT James McCue made Apr 2 at 2014 10:00 AM

2014-04-02T10:00:29-04:00

I saw this on the ticker of Good Morning America this morning.

I am glad to see a regulation on female grooming standards, but appalled to see a backlash to it.

I have been seeing some ridiculous hair cuts on some females. Unnatural hair colors and some braids that affect the wear of the soft cap. While everyone's hair is different, we need to have some sort of uniformity and understand that this has a purpose in the ranks.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 11:50 AM

2014-04-02T11:50:35-04:00

saying that AR 670-1 is racially based is like saying that AR 600-9 is discriminating against overweight Soldiers, all they have is standards, we volunteered to serve and follow the regulations, as Soldiers we just have to adhere to the standards

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Apr 2 at 2014 1:22 PM

2014-04-02T13:22:26-04:00

PFC Williams,

I don't see how anyone can say that the system is misogynistic or racially biased. People are, for sure, but it's a lot harder to pin it on the entire Army and/or one of its regulations. Here are some examples of wear and appearance that are different between different groups of people:

-Why don't women have to shave their heads when they go to BCT? Historically, we shaved our heads to limit lice in a barracks. Nowadays, we do it for comradery.

-Why do black men get shaving profiles while white men with the same condition (pseudofoliculitis) often don't? I have this problem and have been denied shaving profiles in the past (Until I got an infection, then they would give it to me).

-Why can a Muslim chaplain wear a full beard because of religious reasons but other men can't? I was told early in my career that we couldn't grow beards because our Pro-Masks wouldn't fit over them.

Frankly, if you have a problem with a regulation because you think it unfairly targets you or a group to which you belong, you have an avenue to make a change. The easiest step would be to write a carefully-worded change request to the following, which is found on the first page (After the changes) of every Army Regulation:

Suggested improvements. Users are
invited to send comments and suggested
improvements on DA Form 2028 (Recomm
e n d e d C h a n g e s t o P u b l i c a t i o n s a n d
Blank Forms) directly to Deputy Chief of
Staff, G–1 (DAPE–HRI), 300 Army Pentagon,
Washington, DC 22310-0300.

If you don't know how to fill out the form or are unsure of how to handle it, ask your NCOIC. If they don't know, follow the NCO Support Chain to the 1SG/SGM/CSM and you will find help. Also, you can ask if people on this site have ever been involved in a DA 2028. I have no experience with this but I am sure that if you asked for help, you would get it.

Admitedly, I am neither black or a woman woman so I can only take my own experiences and offer them here. I am a minority in the Army and I have felt oppressed several times in my career. I have done some things to alleviate this problem and have been turned down for some changes I requested. I don't know if filling out a DA 2028 will help to address the problem, but it is a good first step to take. I suggest you do so and then come back and update us here.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 1:56 PM

2014-04-02T13:56:31-04:00

Kinda off topic BUT...... I and many other male soldiers will NEVER be able to grow or wear our hair like we want to and still be in regulation. Why should it be any different for females? If you cant maintain your current hairstyle within regs, change your hairstyle. Plenty of females are within regs. Just because you dont like the way it looks matters none. I look like a 12 year old with a short haircut and hate it, I think I look better with a beard, but the Army demands I shave and wear my hair short so I comply. Whats so hard about that if the army says no (however long/think/styled) braids and you cant maintain your hair unless its braided that way then cut it. Simple.

"Females with natural hair take strides to style their natural hair in a professional manner when necessary; however, changes to AR 670-1 offer little to no options for females with natural hair,” she said in her petition."

It all boils down to how she WANTS to STYLE her hair. 670-1 offers plenty of options she just doesn't like the options.

As far as being racist. Am i to think when the medic requires me to carry sunscreen he is being racist? or do I just realize it still applies to everyone else just the same.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 1:56 PM

2014-04-02T13:56:41-04:00

We can't pull the race card every time a policy affects our specific race/ethnic/gender. That makes the Army look unprofessional and ridiculous honestly. That's like me saying I'm being discriminated against for my tattoos below my elbows.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 2:54 PM

2014-04-02T14:54:33-04:00

<font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Calibri">BLUF...If you are a soldier prior to 9/11 all that has
happened is that they have merely given some clarity to the regulation. Prior
to 9/11 you were not allowed to have tattoos on the back of your hands, your
neck, or any other place on your body that gave off an unprofessional appearance.
If I’m not mistaken it was only allowed if you were a new soldier entering the
military and you already had it. </font></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">Females had to keep their hair (just like the men) in a
military style and manner. In other words these were already ESTABLISHED STANDARDS
that became laxed and convoluted to accommodate the need to plus up numbers at
the start of the War. In fact I will take it a step further and say that not
only did they become laxed, soldiers along with leadership started to simply ignore
good order and discipline and allowed this to get to the stage that it’s at
now. What the SMA has done is to try and bring us back on track. We as leaders
should explain to these soldiers that this is in no way, shape, form or fashion
racially biased. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></font></font></font></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 3:06 PM

2014-04-02T15:06:39-04:00

The comment is not racially biased, the army is trying to promote a more professional image. Frankly wearing a flower pot of hair extensions on your head is not professional; AR 670-1 is simply narrowing down and ensuring that there is a concrete standard from which to hold Soldiers accountable.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Apr 2 at 2014 5:32 PM

2014-04-02T17:32:10-04:00

All I wanna know is CAN YOU WEAR 2 BUNS!?!?!?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 6:22 PM

2014-04-02T18:22:46-04:00

Does anyone other than me realize that it's basically against regulation for black women to wear their hair as it naturally grows?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 7:01 PM

2014-04-02T19:01:31-04:00

PFC Williams,

Might is be better to further explain your point other than just giving the perceived "rant" about the new AR670-1 and DA PAM 670-1. Please give a concise critique that is free of emotion and I think that will give you a better understanding of why the regulation needed to be changed. Our senior leadership of the Army determined that many changes needed to happen in order for us to continue to be the professional Army we always were. These changes are just a small part of that vision and we will likely see more changes coming.

Would you feel the same way if AR 670-1 and DA PAM 670-1 told you that as a female you must wear a skirt, a dress or dress slacks all the time? The bottom line is that the SMA and the Chief of Staff for the Army decided a much needed changed was needed. As with change we can never please everybody but only hope to please the majority. I hope you enjoy your time in the military and learn a lot from your time serving. Don't let a small issue like this ruin your sense of pride or accomplishment.

Should you need further guidance or mentorship you can always reach out to me and I will help any way I can.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 11:37 PM

2014-04-02T23:37:46-04:00

Long story sort, the new clarifications in the reg are to bring in line the small percentage of Soldier's not in keeping with the standards of professionalism of our institution. I persoanlly believe 99% of Soldiers ARE in compliance with the new reg, and were in compliance with the old one. But, the clarifications are aimed at bringing the other 1% into the fold. Many of us can remember seeing those Soldiers who have the wildly robust moustaches, or the female with the 2 inch long fingernails, or the one that had to use bobby pins to keep her headgear in place because she had 8lbs of hair in her head. But, we remember them because they were isolated incidents. That being said, if the shoe fits, wear it. If it is absolutely necessary for you to wear your hair exactly how you want it, be it twisted or long sideburns; you have to have 2 inch fngernails; you want to have gauged ear rings, then the choice is simple. Exit the military. But, you signed the contract, you agreed to the standards. So either get yourself within them or get out. No matter what color, race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. As someone stated pror, you joined the Army, the Army wasn't established for you.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 11:50 PM

2014-04-02T23:50:47-04:00

I do not feel it is Racist! I do believe that clarity has finally been added to what had become an outdated REG.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 12:55 AM

2014-04-03T00:55:41-04:00

Firstly, I apologize for my comments coming off as "attitude" as some put it. Secondly, I simply commented on a post with my opinion. That doesn't mean I feel personally targeted and for some of you to say I should get out of the Army not knowing me or my work ethic is unjust. I am black and my hair is natural and past my shoulders and I'm always in compliance. However what I was trying to convey in my post is the way my hair naturally grows from my head shouldn't be considered unprofessional. I'm still new to this site which is why my profile isn't complete yet, so no I'm not trolling. I wish I could address everyone who commented but there was a lot to be said.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 5:00 AM

2014-04-03T05:00:31-04:00

The AR 670-1 has always indicated the correct way that hair is suppose to be set for both male and females. Though the majority who it is effecting are ethnic women, it is still stated that natural hair is the only thing that can be on the head. Though some women get perms or relaxers to make their hair straight, but as long as it is maintained and does not interfere with the uniform or head gear. But it is also up to the first line leaders to implement these regulations. Especially when it comes to Reserve and Guard members. I have seen in so many cases where women come to drill with 10 pounds of weave and braids/corn rows, etc that have never been authorized by the AR 670-1. If the leaders are not doing their jobs, than both the leadership and Soldier fail. This issue should have never been set as a race bias issue and more on a clear cut issue that should have been set correctly the first time. Just as some will say that shaving the head is unauthorized, which is true to an extent, unless you are completely shaving the whole head. People are taking context from what they are reading, and not using the common sense to to do it correctly.

Response by CSM Christopher Irwin made Apr 3 at 2014 8:01 AM

2014-04-03T08:01:03-04:00

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.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 7:29 AM

2014-04-04T07:29:42-04:00

The hairstyles they showed that could not be worn, i have worn all of them and had not trouble wearing a PC, beret or PRO-Mask. I know some hairstyles go a little far but the reg has gone a lil extreme. I guess we will have to adapt and overcome. Like anything else it will change again.

Response by 1SG Jason Fitzpatrick made Apr 7 at 2014 12:11 PM

2014-04-07T12:11:12-04:00

<P>I remember quite vividly a comment that was posed to my platoon by my old crusty platoon Sergeant...  "All of you Soldiers that were drafted, please take one step forward."  </P>
<P> </P>
<P>A lot to be said for that comment.  Soldiers signed a contract to obey the orders of the Officers appointed over them in accordance with the rules, Regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 21 at 2014 2:39 PM

2014-04-21T14:39:33-04:00

I just want to know why women can grow beards and I can't! =o)  I know I'M not making that on the spot correction.. That's an EO complaint waiting to happen... "PFC Ladybits, shave that beard!".

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2014 6:33 PM

2014-04-21T18:33:34-04:00

I don't fully agree with ask the new standards however the problem that most young soldiers have is not realizing that they are a small piece to the greater whole. There may be something you don't understand our agree with, but someone who is higher and more trusted than you has a reason and can see the full aspect of the situation. The sooner young soldiers realize this the better out they will be. Granted it makes things easier to swallow when you see the whole picture but things as large as an Army wide regulation should be understood that even if you disagree you don't know or see what the people at that level do.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2014 7:49 PM

2014-04-21T19:49:45-04:00

LT, great question.

Here is my position on the racially biased comments. Let me start by saying that I was not impacted by the changes in AR 670-1. Secondly, nor as a leader could I stand by while people fail to adapt and overcome. Finally,I do not believe that the changes in AR 670-1 is not and was not created to be racially bias; rather to create firm standards.

Now that I have stated my position on where I fall into this. Let me give you a better understanding as to why it maybe perceived that way. The biggest issue is that while majority male or female only have to cut or style their hair differently to meet compliance. The "Naturalist" hair would have to subject their hair to wigs, chemicals, and/or artificial extensions to be in regulation. Which is one expensive, two damaging to people's hair. Finally, on a deeper level suggests that the ideal hair type is that not of their natural birth. Most "kinky" hair grows out versus straight down. The concept that "kinky" hair is unprofessional or not suited in uniform could be the reason why racial implications is perceived here.

Is it wrong for the Army to make standards? Absolutely not. As a Soldier, you must comply or simply face the implications of your decision. As leaders we must be able to see all points of view and be impartial. So, while I wouldn't dismiss someone who is feeling that way. I would remind them that the Army Appearance is to create a uniformed look. It does not fit well with individuality. It does not sway based on physiological differences. Could the Army have done a better job of incorporating some of these physiological difference? Yes, but there is no way that 100% of people would be able to fall in a regulation designed to limit variations in grooming standards.

Part of being an Army Leader requires you to have high social intelligence. An Army Leader requires conflict management. People are entitled to their opinions that doesn't necessarily mean they won't comply. While we often require action versus conversation. The power to communicate change is important in our ever changing Army is necessary.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2014 11:43 PM

2014-04-21T23:43:26-04:00

The Army has standards for a reason. It is not here for people to join in order to look pretty or be on display. If you want to be a model, leave the Army and go be model. For too long I have seen Leaders too afraid to correct a female Soldier because they fear the possible repercussions. The same goes for the males. If wearing your hair spiked, with multiple body piercings and crazy amounts of tattoos is for you then you're in the wrong profession. The tattoo policy was in effect when I first joined the Army. Because of two wars Leaders chose to ignore the policy in order to get maximum recruitment for those wars. Hair and nail standards were already in place prior to the new 670-1. This standard is nothing new, at most it just clarifies what was already in place and what should have been enforced from the jump.

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made May 6 at 2014 11:43 AM

2014-05-06T11:43:23-04:00

No way is it racially biased. I knew MANY white WM's who wore their hair in a French braid, because it kept it neat and orderly. The Black WM's I knew, rarely had hair long enough to use braids, but the two that I was aware of, kept their hair in a tight bun on duty, just as the rest of us did.
I can honestly say, I never saw any WM's who used corn rows or twists because it added to the hat size, and who wanted to buy more uniform parts?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2014 8:35 AM

2014-05-07T08:35:48-04:00

The bottom line is this. Get over it and drive on. We are all apart of an organization and the organization has policies and regulations. If you don't like the policies or regulations then find greener grass somewhere else. Retire, ETS, it doesn't matter. If you don't like it then it's time to leave. It's bullshit like this that causes conflict within an organization. And honestly, if people are going to claim racial bias they better have some strong points to back their claim or they are doing nothing more than whining and bitching. Please excuse the language, this type of crap fires me up.

Response by CSM Chris McKeown made May 7 at 2014 2:09 PM

2014-05-07T14:09:59-04:00

I have to agree with 1SG Erik Whitman. The new 670-1 just takes out the gray areas when it comes to how females should wear their hair.

The regulations on males hair have been set for decades with very little change, I feel these new regulations on females hair will stand and will not be changed again for a decade or so.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 8 at 2014 12:39 PM

2014-05-08T12:39:17-04:00

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140507/NEWS05/305070075/Congress-votes-to-halt-new-Army-hair-reg

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2014 1:29 PM

2014-08-27T13:29:25-04:00

There are a lot of good statements and some great ones about AR 670-1 and it’s changes here in the forum. But the one thing that I have always been told by Leadership, “The Army is not a Fashion Show for Males or Females. We are a Fighting Force that is to be reckoned with and must show PROFESSIONALISM
at ALL times“. Weather a Solder is on or off duty, you are expected to uphold the Standards (or Higher Standards) set forth in the UCMJ.
If this is NOT a Standard you can not uphold, please get out of the ARMY and go find a job with less standards. The Military is NOT for you at all. Please don’t get me wrong, you joined for a good or great reason, I’ll stand and salute you for your Service. But as for AR 670-1 being Racially Biased sir, not at all.

Response by SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA made Jan 26 at 2015 5:52 PM

2015-01-26T17:52:28-05:00

I was going to respond but @1SG(P)EW covered my answer better than I could have.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 23 at 2015 11:24 PM

2015-02-23T23:24:09-05:00

I do not think so, but I also learned in my Army career what I think doesn't always carry the day. It is about what Soldiers think. So, it appears there is concern, so it needs to be address no matter it leads.

I think what is important is that all Soldiers can understand, agree with and support the rules. We need a 670-1 that is clear and concise, so we all know what is acceptable and what is not. I just want Soldiers to look sharp, and professional.

There are reason we have grooming standards, one of which I was told, to ensure you can wear all Army headgear and also to ensure you don and seal year pro-mask...

That should be the test... Can you wear the beret or patrol cap and look professional (yes still subjective)... and can you don and seal your pro-mask in within the standards.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 25 at 2015 10:50 PM

2015-04-25T22:50:19-04:00

in modern times we have lost sight of the fact that, a claim in the media of bias does not equal bias

Response by Cpl D L Parker made Jan 3 at 2017 10:43 PM

2017-01-03T22:43:30-05:00

If men can wear a turban. Then woman should be able to wear braids if it doesn't interfere with the wearing or the appearance the uniform

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2017 11:15 PM

2017-01-03T23:15:43-05:00

I am honestly fed up with everything nowadays being marked racially, sexually, or religiously insensitive. Christ, it seems like one cannot have a conversation without one of those three being addressed. I honestly do not know what racism is anymore as it is now a label for everything.

Response by SGT Steven Hines made Nov 21 at 2017 12:09 PM

2017-11-21T12:09:50-05:00

Disclaimer: White male over 50, Veteran 27 years.
I am tired of the PC crap. If it doesn't go your way, the first knee jerk reaction is its racial or sexist. B.S. Follow the standards or get out.

Response by CSM Thomas Ray made Oct 12 at 2023 2:51 PM

2023-10-12T14:51:48-04:00

I am just waiting for someone to say that MRE's are racist, everything else is.