Military grooming and gender-neutral policies raise concerns for Black service members

As a proud evergreen-military-brat and the former spouse of a professional soldier, who has lived on military installations from Alaska to Florida, California to North Carolina and a couple within NATO in Europe, on top of being a former Department of Defense Civilian and a former Data and Telecommunications Engineer responsible for designing information communications system for the military while employed by a couple of major international communications firms, I have proudly worked with and lived among soldiers, sailors, air men and women and marines of all stripes. As a result, I have a unique perspective on the recent initiatives proposed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Also, the fact that my father, who received a battlefield commission during the Korean Conflict and was part of the Army's integration under President Eisenhower in the 1950s, suffered from the condition of ingrown facial hairs at a time before there were any shaving waivers, making these issues particularly resonant for me.

Black soldiers and ingrown facial hairs

Hegseth's speech at Quantico on Sept. 30 addressed the issue of grooming standards, particularly the requirement for all service members to meet "male-level" physical standards and grooming requirements, which includes the elimination of beards and long hair. This directive has significant implications for Black service members who suffer from pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) (Pronounced soo-doh-fuh-LIK-yoo-LYE-tis BAR-bee). (See, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6585396/). The etymology comes from "pseudo" (false) "follicle" (hair) "itis" (inflammation) "barbae" (of the beard). It is also known colloquially by terms such as "razor bumps."

PFB is a real medical condition that predominantly affects Black men, and some Black women, due to the curly nature of our hair and the fact that for most of us it grows in a corkscrew pattern. The condition can cause painful ingrown hairs and scarring, and the military has protocols for its management. Hegseth's new policy could lead to administrative separation for those who cannot comply with his grooming standards due to PFB, reversing previous policies that protected service members from separation solely based on this condition over which they have no more control than the color of their skin.

This policy shift raises concerns about potential discrimination, as Black service members disproportionately hold shaving waivers due to PFB. The Marine Corps, where my dad started his military career when it was still segregated, has implemented new guidance that allows for administrative separation if a service member cannot meet the new grooming standards after a year, which could disproportionately affect Black service members. Hegseth's announcement means the policy will be migrated to all branches of the service. This change could lead to slower promotions and earlier exits from the military for those affected, exacerbating existing disparities. But then again, maybe that's the point.

Female soldiers and gender-neutral standards

Hegseth's speech also emphasized the implementation of gender-neutral standards for all combat roles, stating that physical standards must be high and gender-neutral. While the stated intent is to ensure that all service members are equally capable in combat roles, this policy could inadvertently (or intentionally) limit opportunities for female soldiers if they are unable to meet the standards for men. The directive reflects a broader trend under the current administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs, which has included the dismissal of several high-ranking female officers since Jan. 20, 2025.

The move to gender-neutral standards has sparked debate about whether it unfairly targets women in the military. Critics argue that it perpetuates a narrative that women are less capable, despite evidence that women have successfully met existing standards and contributed significantly to military operations. The policy could potentially reduce the number of women in combat roles, impacting the diversity and inclusivity of the armed forces and more importantly negatively impact military readiness to defend against our real adversaries.  This reflects a focus on superficial, social-media-driven narratives favored by those nostalgic for the 1950s, when white "men were men," women were confined to domestic roles, and Black Americans were told to sit at the back of the bus, rather than fostering a military environment that cultivates the most essential qualities of great warriors: personnel of high moral character, intellect and a deep commitment to the country, guided by the enduring principles of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, as amended to embrace diversity and uphold the rule of law.

Limited access to redress via the Inspector General

Hegseth's speech also announced an overhaul of the Department of Defense's Inspector General's Office, which he claims has been "weaponized" by complainers and ideologues. The new policy aims to reduce what Hegseth describes as frivolous complaints and to empower commanders to enforce his cultural standards without fear of retribution. This change could limit the avenues available for service members to seek redress for grievances, potentially leaving those harmed by discrimination and/or sexual harassment without adequate recourse. So much so that they leave the service. But then again, this is Hegseth's stated intent.

The implications of these initiatives are profound, and affect the careers and lives of many service members and their dependents. As someone deeply connected to the military community, I am concerned about the potential of these policies to exacerbate existing inequalities and limit opportunities for those who have historically been marginalized within and outside our armed forces. It is crucial that we continue to advocate for policies that support all service members and ensure that the military remains a diverse and inclusive institution, ever ready to defend our way of life against all enemies, foreign and domestic, because we, men and women of all races and ethnicities, have an interest and stake in our nation's proper governance and defense.