Standards and Hypocrisy: Analyzing the Beard Controversy.

The following was submitted by a follower of the blog.

I’ve thought a lot about if/where to share this, but it’s bothered me enough that I just need to get it out. I heard a senior enlisted leader recently express concern about the way that Airmen today present themselves, how they need to conform to standards and the uniformity of service. The sentiment was along the lines of “You joined us, we don’t accommodate your individuality”. He was talking about beards.

The problem I had with this leader’s perspective…was that he was using the wrong words for what he seemed to have an issue with, his approach was hypocritical, and he had unrealistic expectations for the enterprise.

The more he spoke the more obvious it was a solid case of “that word doesn’t mean what you think it means” and when he complained that a bearded airman isn’t conforming to standards, he eroded his credibility.

For the record: The standard is ¼ inch for medical waivers and 2 inches for religious waivers. That’s the standard as it is written, by AFI, signed and approved by all appropriate authorities.

What I think he meant to say, was that he disagreed with the image of the modern Airman and questioned the standard as it is approved and established by our organization. His vision of the image, that matches the narrative in his version of service, is challenged by the Airmen who are adhering to the beard standard that exists. (So his opinion is somehow superior to that of the establishment, and that’s the Airman’s fault for doing what they’re supposed to be doing because a doctor or religious accommodation process approved it?)

He also expressed concern at his (non-medical) perceived lack of rigor in the medical process (broadly) to evaluate the medical necessity of a shaving waiver. He suggested that SNCOs should be the agent to challenge and question the integrity of this established system. Clarification was required to determine if we are to question the individual’s integrity, or that of the medical professional? To which his response was that our job is to somehow inject a filtration assessment to “weed out” the people who “don’t really need it".

He also suggested that the medical process should spend more time and resources on the assessment of whether or not someone medically requires a beard. This responsibility falls under medical professionals governed by DHA, the same organization that can’t afford to spend the time to input quarters into ASIMS so that we can accurately document when people are sick…is somehow supposed to find MORE bandwidth to more rigorously question if skin is really irritated on a face. They’re doctors. If you tell them you feel pain, they believe you. That’s their job. If you want to open that can of worms in making them question the integrity of someone in pain, that’s a tall order because pain is subjective. I’d love to see it, that would help us get the alleged malingerers back to work too…but that will never, ever, happen. It’s completely unrealistic to ask an organization that is conducting budget cuts left and right to do MORE. We need to be removing their workload from being bogged down with this by allowing beards for all and eliminating the amount of resources currently dedicated to the waiver process, which could be going to other ailments.

He ranted about the Facebook Beard Action Group page and said that people are copying religious waivers word for word and that is somehow problematic. He neglected to see the benefit of that page – which exists as a support system for those who are discriminated against because of their appearance. One scroll through and you’ll see that sure, there are some who are just there to try and take a chance at getting their beard…but if they achieve that goal, they’ve undergone a rigorous approval process that we trust our Chaplain corps to execute in alignment with our religious freedoms. Suggesting that process is not rigorous enough is a slap in the face of those we have charged with dedicating their time and effort to our constitutional right to exercising religious freedom while serving our country.

If the objective is to change the image, I could get behind that IF, and only if, the revised image is inclusive of all race, gender, hair texture, skin color, and truly reflects the melting pot that is the one that represents all of my brothers and sisters I proudly serve next to.

To the senior leader: If we have an image problem because it is somehow impacting our ability to accomplish the mission, let’s hear it. Show us the data. Demonstrate with facts and present the metrics behind your stance, and change the image based on a legitimate justification that is based in reality. Without that all you have is an acknowledgement that you’re discriminating against those who can now exist in their natural state and you’re showing your bias that you don’t like what you see, which is quickly and enormously eroding your credibility.

-Eugene Young (pen name)

Eugene Young is an active duty Air Force Senior Non-Commissioned Officer.