Saturday, March 26, 2011

Facial Freedom for All

The United States Army’s long-standing requirement of a clean-shaven face is a hairy criterion that conflicts with the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Recently, Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Menachem Stern, fell victim to the ostracizing policy. As an Orthodox Jew, Stern believes that shaving his facial hair to join the army would be a violation of his religious rights.

“The 29-year-old is suing the US Army for refusing him the right to keep his beard, on the grounds of his religious beliefs.”

The government is responsible for regulating the physical appearance of army participants, which includes the enforcement of the no facial hair rule. Requiring army members to have a shaved face is discriminatory because it excludes potential volunteers of particular religious faiths. “Joining the army can sometimes be difficult for Muslims, Sikhs and Jews who feel obliged by their faith to grow a full beard.” As the agency of government responsible for 
defending Americans’ constitutional way of life, the U.S. Army should realize 
that forcing all male participants to shave is not only passé, but it also is an assault on the first amendment because this rule violates certain religious convictions.

Perhaps the army should spend less time shaving and more time brushing up on the logistics of human rights. If a man signs up for duty, survives his training, and is approved for deployment, why should the rigid shaving requirement interfere with his right to serve the country, given that he has already proven himself to be qualified? The length of facial hair is not an indicator of an individual’s capabilities.

Rabbi Stern has since filed for a shaving waiver, which stipulates that he will be exempt from shaving. However, the possibility that his request will be approved looks rather grim. "I would like to be able to say that government agencies are becoming more accepting of various aspects of appearance but frankly Rabbi Stern's experience with the US Army leads me to conclude that there are still very strong restrictions that the people who have control over these institutions are imposing."

The need for revision is apparent, but given that the army is a volunteer-based organization, it can be argued that the government is not responsible for protecting the rights of minorities from this partisan rule. This argument is undermined by the weak foundation on which this tradition stands. There is no reason to continue to enforce this regulation because the reasons for keeping the rule as is are rather transparent.

“A US Army spokesman said it was to do with ‘long-standing traditions of uniformity, hygiene, and good order and discipline’, adding that it was in keeping with strict dress codes which required a sense of professionalism and group identity.”

This argument is refutable because the aforementioned ideals, such as uniformity and discipline, are subjective and have been defined by cultural convictions. None of these principles is a legitimate reason to enforce the rule because there is no way to prove that any of these qualities are linked to a man’s facial hair. There is no clear evidence to justify that a clean-shaven face has any impact on a soldier’s performance.

The policy perpetuates stereotypes about facial hair that marginalize men of various religions by expelling entire groups of people from useful participation in the Army based on their physical appearance. In order to generate respect between individuals of different cultures and religions, it is vital that an effort is made on an institutional level to even the playing field. Specifically, putting an end to unjustified practices like the no beard policy is an essential step in ending the cultural imperialism that is inherent in Army policy because this systemic change would expand the definition of what it means to be an American soldier by revaluing the significance of the physical characteristics of a male in the service.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

The Internet's Role in the Future of Democracy

Congress is finally making an effort to control the economic deficit by cutting federal spending. However, the Republican dominated House of Representatives is endorsing a spending plan that disregards the needs of constituents. It is vital that Americans use the internet to retaliate and stand up for their needs and rights. Specifically, the House has endorsed the Pence amendment that will eliminate financing for Planned Parenthood. Through the use of new media websites, including Twitter, Facebook and Youtube, Americans are accumulating the support necessary to let the Senate know, before the bill reaches the Senate, that taking away Planned Parenthood funds would be undermining Americans’ rights to the health care opportunities that Planned Parenthood offers.

Today’s government has become too inundated with internal federal affairs to acknowledge the needs of constituents. Therefore, the internet and new media are necessary elements to successfully develop a campaign by and for citizens against legislative assault, like the movement against the Planned Parenthood bill has generated.

New media websites such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, that link together like-minded individuals are essential democratizing forces because they offer a completely open platform for the American public to unite and to make their voices heard. This is essential in strengthening the connection between the distant representatives of congress and their abstract relationships with their constituencies.

Activist groups, such as Advocates for Youth’s Youth Activist Network, have demonstrated the power of the internet as a resource to be a reactionary force. The group has established Amplifyyourvoice.org, which has set up blogs, blog-a-thons, and other easy-to-access methods to spread their message to overturn the Pence amendment via new media. These options include, “amplify on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube”. All major outlets have been targeted in order to reach those who will be impacted the most by this particular budget cut.

The movement has gained a vast following through new media websites such as Facebook. New media is a fundamental aspect of this campaign, especially given the disreputable nature of the topic. Individuals can join the 261,835 members who have already joined the “I stand with Planned Parenthood” Facebook group. Individuals also have the option to sign an anonymous petition via amplifyyourvoice.org. The message is quickly and efficiently being mobilized as the internet attempts to counter balance the imbalanced state of American government.

Planned Parenthood online has linked its “Call Congress” campaign to numerous Twitter accounts to draw more attention to the page. The page explains the repercussions of the Pence amendment, “The consequences of this bill are clear and they would be devastating. More women would have unintended pregnancies. Cancer would develop, undiagnosed, in countless women. There is no doubt: cutting off millions of women from care, that they have no other way to afford, places them at risk of sickness and death.” The site also offers talking points and phone numbers to call in order to protest the passage of the Pence amendment in the U.S. Senate.

Planned Parenthood also has its own channel available on Youtube.com. The channel offers a collection of homemade videos of supporters who stand with Planned Parenthood in their fight against the Pence act. The channel has had over 92,407 views since its start, and continues to communicate the importance of overturning the amendment.

The government will continue to ignore citizens’ needs if action is not taken. The most efficient means of action have clearly been demonstrated in the reaction towards the Pence amendment. Campaigns such as this one have the potential to permeate the system through the internet. The internet is universal and adds needed pressure to the federal government to acknowledge needs outside their own. If we are living in a country that is “for the people and by the people”, the internet is the most suitable entity to carry out this ideology. It is imperative that Americans get involved with the government to keep the government in check at this time.