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.