Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estés, TMV’s Managing Director, in a recent article pointed out the arbitrariness — and insensitivity, I might add — of the recent changes to Army Regulation (AR) 670-1, “Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia.”
Estés describes the unique characteristics of the hair of African Americans:
To touch the natural hair of most African Americans is like touching cloud, like touching ebony feathers, like touching the softest brown wing of a dove, so soft it is, so so soft and cushioned. So beautiful.
Estés also points out that with the changes to AR 670-1, “African American women are singled out to be forced to meet norms not easily associated with the pride and heritage of their race…and specifically their hair which for many, does not ‘twist’ easily without loose ends springing free – as is meant for that kind of hair…it is living hair, often with a mind of its own, not just dead protein laying there.”
Others ask whether the changes (AR 670-1) are discriminatory to women with natural hair.
According to the influential Army Times, thousands of soldiers and civilians “have accused the service of creating rules targeting black women.” They argue that the Army, “through a handful of rules, has essentially made natural hair illegal for these female troops.”
They feel so strongly about the changes that they started a petition at whitehouse.gov asking the Obama Administration to reconsider the changes to the AR 670-1 to allow professional ethnic hairstyles. The petition reads as follows:
More than 30% of females serving in the military are of a race other than white. As of 2011, 36% of females in the U.S. stated that they are natural, or refrain from chemically processing their hair. 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. In the proposed changes, unauthorized hairstyles include twists, both flat twists as well as two strand twists; as well as dreadlocks, which are defined as “any matted or locked coils or ropes of hair.” These new changes are racially biased and the lack of regard for ethnic hair is apparent. This policy needs to be reviewed prior to publishing to allow for neat and maintained natural hairstyles.
In an April 6 editorial the Army Times says the Army should review the controversial hair rules and points out that in setting the standards “clearly something went wrong and the Army has upset a fair-sized contingent of the force…the service should work quickly to form a diverse, independent panel of enlisted and commissioned leaders to research specific concerns raised by these female soldiers. This panel could submit recommendations to the top. Perhaps it will mean more change, perhaps not. But at least the concerns of these women would be heard.”
The New York Times today joins the debate on this issue:
Although the new rules on tattoos have come under fire, particularly since body art became popular among soldiers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the regulations on black hairstyles have drawn more outrage and charges of racism. By Friday, more than 17,000 people had signed an online petition sent to the White House to get the hair regulations rescinded.
The Times also mentions that the 16 women of the Congressional Black Caucus have asked the Secretary of Defense “to overturn the regulation on behalf of the 26,700 African-American women on active duty in the Army.”
And what does Mr. Hagel say? Well, according to Defense Department officials, Hagel “appreciates the Congressional Black Caucus’s concerns regarding this issue,” but the Pentagon spokesman “quickly tossed the issue back to the people who had started the fuss. ‘We expect the Army to provide a response shortly,’” the spokesman said, according to the Times.
Everyone agrees that standards are necessary in the military as they are elsewhere. For safety and sanitary reasons, industry has hairstyle standards, too — for men and women of all races. But they are reasonable and necessary and not just for “uniformity” or, worse, insensitive, offensive and bordering on being racially biased and discriminatory.
Apparently, women soldiers in the Israel Defense Force, one of the best fighting forces in the world, have no such “uniformity standards.” (lead photo: Women in the Brigade. Credit: The Brigade.)
And, thank goodness, the U.S. Air Force has no problem with its airmen shaving their heads for a good cause.
Airmen from the 62nd Fighter Squadron with shaved heads pose March 7 in front of an F-16 Fighting Falcon on the flightline. The Airmen shaved their heads to show support for the son of a deceased 62nd FS pilot who is battling cancer. (U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman David Owsianka)
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.