By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Army is implementing a new policy that could lead to the discharge of soldiers with chronic skin conditions like pseudofolliculitis barbae, disproportionately affecting Black men. This policy will require formal treatment plans and may mandate laser treatments, with soldiers potentially facing separation if they need shaving exemptions for over a year. This move follows the Marine Corps’ similar program and aligns with concerns regarding racial discrimination. The policy is being implemented amid a recruiting slump, particularly among white recruits, and a broader review of grooming standards ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Read the original article here
New Army Shaving Policy Will Allow Soldiers with Skin Condition that Affects Mostly Black Men to Be Kicked Out is a deeply troubling development, and the implications are far-reaching. The core issue is a new policy that appears to target soldiers with a skin condition known as folliculitis barbae, which disproportionately affects Black men, leading to their potential dismissal from service. This is not just about facial hair; it’s about access to service, equal opportunity, and potentially, a deliberate attempt to reshape the demographics of the armed forces.
It’s hard not to see the underlying racial motivations in this situation. Several observations suggest the policy is not solely about maintaining a particular standard of appearance. The comments point out how this aligns with a broader pattern of actions: reduced recruitment efforts targeting minority groups, purging of diversity initiatives, and the potential removal of a significant number of Black men from the ranks. This raises serious questions about the priorities and intentions of those creating and enforcing the policy. The potential impact on the military’s readiness is a relevant point. This would lead to a smaller, less diverse, and potentially less capable force, which would weaken its capabilities.
The potential impact on a significant number of Black soldiers cannot be overlooked. They have been, and continue to be, an important part of the US Military. Removing these soldiers can be seen as not only discriminatory but also as a betrayal of the values the military claims to uphold. This isn’t just about individual careers; it’s about the opportunities being taken away, the benefits lost, and the messages sent about who is truly welcome to serve.
Looking beyond the immediate impact, this policy has broader implications for equality and justice. It fuels the growing sense that progress is being rolled back, that certain groups are being targeted, and that the ideals of fairness and inclusion are under threat. The loss of talent, the erosion of trust, and the diversion of talent into rival forces are real and damaging consequences of discriminatory practices. This kind of policy sends a clear message that certain groups are not valued or welcomed in the military. This can deter many from enlisting, undermining its ability to attract the best and brightest.
The comments rightly point out the potential for this to be a “textbook example of disparate impact discrimination,” where a policy, although seemingly neutral on its face, has a disproportionately negative effect on a protected group. The focus on gas masks and the need for a clean shave as a “bona fide occupational qualification” rings hollow when it’s being selectively enforced in a way that predominantly affects one racial group. It’s also worth noting that a “shave chit” for medical reasons has long been in place, highlighting the historical awareness of the issue.
The timing of this policy is also suspect. Some comments suggest that the military is already facing staffing shortages, making the decision to kick out otherwise qualified soldiers seem even more counterproductive. Many troops are worried about a looming draft, and this policy would likely affect the overall military force.
Ultimately, the new shaving policy is more than just a cosmetic issue. It’s a potential indicator of a deeper problem within the military and, by extension, in society. It raises serious questions about the values and priorities of those in power. It’s a reminder that the fight for equality and inclusion is ongoing and that vigilance is required to protect the progress that has been made.