By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has mandated that any service member requiring a shaving exemption for over a year must be discharged, requiring a medical treatment plan for all such exemptions. This updated policy, communicated in an August 20 memo, applies across all branches of the military, and is intended to uphold grooming standards. The move comes after years of relaxed appearance rules, with the majority of shaving waivers granted for those with pseudofolliculitis barbae, a condition common among Black men. While the memo doesn’t address treatment costs or treatment plans, it does maintain that the grooming standard is to be clean shaven.
Read the original article here
Pentagon says troops can only be exempt from shaving their facial hair for a year, and it seems like this decision has sparked quite a reaction, and understandably so. The core of the issue appears to center on a potential shift in policy regarding shaving waivers within the military, specifically the length of time for which an exemption is granted.
The implications, as many are pointing out, seem to disproportionately affect specific groups within the military, particularly those of color, who are more prone to a skin condition called pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB). This condition, where hair curls back into the skin after shaving, causing irritation, is a common reason for shaving waivers. The new policy, limiting these exemptions to a year, raises significant questions about the practical impact on those affected and the potential for increased discomfort or even medical issues.
The timing and motivation behind this policy change are also being scrutinized. Some view it as a veiled attempt to implement stricter grooming standards that could inadvertently target certain demographics. There’s a sense that the administration is prioritizing superficial aspects of military appearance over more significant matters like readiness or the well-being of service members. The phrase “restoring the warrior ethos” is being met with skepticism, with some seeing it as a cover for actions they perceive as discriminatory.
The conversation then takes a turn, delving into the perceived hypocrisy of the situation. The point is made that a focus on something as seemingly trivial as facial hair restrictions, especially when shaving waivers are medically necessary for some, feels misplaced. The comments suggest that the focus should be elsewhere – such as addressing critical issues like healthcare, education, and economic well-being. Instead, this administration is perceived as focusing on superficial appearances while neglecting the actual struggles of people.
The discussion also raises the specter of religious exemptions. What about Sikh troops who wear beards for religious reasons? How will this new policy affect them? Then there’s the potential for this policy to hinder military effectiveness. Is the military truly going to be stricter with Delta Force, for example, which will need to be shaven to blend in with the environment? The idea is that there’s a disconnect between the realities of military service and the perceived priorities of those setting the policies.
The overarching theme that emerges is a feeling of frustration and distrust. This is compounded by a sense that the policy is not only impractical but also racially motivated. The concerns about targeting black service members are consistently echoed. The claim is that this is not only a poorly conceived policy but also an insidious one.
It’s worth noting that the military has long had grooming standards. However, the argument is that the enforcement of these standards, especially the shaving requirement, can have a negative impact on the morale and well-being of the troops. The implication is that this new policy is not about improving military effectiveness, but about something else entirely, and that’s what has many people so upset. The criticism boils down to the perceived unfairness of the policy and its potentially discriminatory consequences, along with the seemingly arbitrary nature of the whole situation.