Sure, the army can have rules about tattoos. I might not agree with them–in fact, they’re as dumb as some of the army’s other recruitment restrictions–but the fact remains that the rules exist.
But the armed forces, and defenders like Mr. Moto, claim that a key aspect of the military is its cohesiveness, its unity, its ability to follow a hierarchy and a chain of command.
Well, those recruiters are part of that chain of command, and they should be held accountable for what they tell potential recruits, especially when the person in question makes so many life plans based on what he’s told by military personnel. The guy in the article had every reason to believe that he could trust those recruiters, and the military should have the guts to live up to the bargains made by its representatives.
Bill … i still see it as: “you look different (choice or circumstance), therefore you are inferior”. it is a judgement based on something that does not affect his ability to perform his job. although i do see the need for conformity in many aspects of the military, ink on someone’s skin should have no more effect than someone having a different pigment by nature. the problem exists only in the perception, the stigmas associated with the choices some people make about their own bodies. some people think less of those born with skin of one color, some think less of those who would change their body. isn’t there a verse in the bible saying that defacing the body is a sin? it seems plain to me that the closed-mindedness of america is due in large part to christianity.
i make an exception for swatikas, gang signs and such based simply on my own prejudicial emotions. people with hate and ignorance tattooed on their bodies are just plain stupid in my book. stupid people should be shat on at any opportunity. and yes, i fully understand the hypocrisy of my feelings on that.
along the same lines … why are women required to not shave their heads? with conformity of appearance being so important and all…
and Bear, yes that was some exaggeration. america is not as ignorant as say saudi arabia. BUT, i would say we suffer a lesser degree of the very same flavor of ignorance: “my thousand year old book says it wrong, so it must be wrong!”
I don’t think that the recruiters are to blame. The last thing a recruiter wants to do is waste their time with a potential recriut who isn’t qualified. If his tattoos were really out of regs he should have been weeded out at his local MEPS long before ever getting on a bus to Fort Benning, Ga. Since the article does not mention what his tattoos are depictions of and how far down the arm they extend, its impossible for us to judge whether or not they are in regs.
Agent Cooper, you may see it as an example of “you look different , therefore you are inferior” but I don’t think that’s so. Someone who doesn’t want to cut off their ponytail isn’t inferior, just out of regs and not what the military is looking for.
As a current active duty airman I’ll comment on this.
It’s the rules. Too bad, So sad. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Being in the US Military we live by a different set of rules called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We are expected to abide by all civilian laws PLUS our own. The Constitution of the United States does NOT protect us like it does you. Nor does it give us the same rights that you have. We signed away many of our civil rights when we decided to defend this country.
We DO have protections under the UCMJ, but we lose the ability to make some personal decisions that civilians can make.
Who cares? It’s the fucking military for christsake. Thats how it has always been and thats how it always should be and I’ll bet that you will be hard pressed to find a person who has been a member of our all volunteer military who will tell you differently.
FTR, I would have denied him too. Or made him get rid of the tats before he came in; which people do all the time to enlist in the USAF.
What is so hard to understand, fuck-knuckle, is that the guy asked the military recruiters on multiple occasions whether or not his tattoos would be a problem, and was told “on” on each and every occasion.
Then, having gone to school, quit his job, and given up his apartment on the understanding that he would be accepted, was told that he could not join. As i said before, in case you were too busy dribbling to actually read the argument, i accept that the military has rules about tattos. But if it does, then why are its own representatives lying to potential recruits and causing them all sorts of heartache?
You military types say that you are all for following the rules and maintaining order. It’s interesting that neither you nor Mr. Moto have shown the guts to condemn the lying and misrepresentation of the military recruiters. I guess the rules don’t apply when you’re holding the thin green line.
Again mhendo, I don’t think its reasonable to say that the recruiters lied. The regs are a little vague and its reasonable to believe that his recruiters thought that the tattoos were acceptable.
This doesn’t make Gruman a racist, but I can see the Army deciding that a tattoo that can be taken as a symbol of racist ideology is a bad thing. Detrimental to unit cohesion, if nothing else.
And just for mhendo’s benefit: The recruiter should have told Gruman this. I can see a local recruiter not being aware of this interpretation, while the intake office is. Not all offices and recruiting posts are aware of all the reg’s and the minutiae of their application.
Though the recruitors in questions should be reprimanded, or counseled on the issue, I don’t think it’s the Army’s responsibility to take a person just because the recruitor said it wouldn’t be an issue.
When a recruitor tells someone, “Sign here! That old knee problem wont be an issue”, the Army should not be bound by that.
Yes, the recruitor (in my scenario) is wrong, but that shouldn’t mean the Army needs to accept an unqualified applicant. However, the recruitor should be dealt with accordingly.
It’s not like when you’re in a store and a clerk gives you a really low price by mistake and you demand that the store honor it. There are higher stakes at hand.
However, I am not saying that the recruitor made a mistake here, or that the Army is out of line. I don’t have enough facts about it to make that decision. But based on what’s visible in that photo, I can’t understand why he was rejected.
As I said, I know a lot of individuals with that much ink or even more, but they keep it within regulations. I’m betting they most likely had it done after enlisting though.
I’ll also add that during the processing at Ft Benning, they examine everyone for tatoos at least three times. Those who have questionable tatoos are looked at even more. I had none, so I’m not sure what exactly goes on in those subsequent evaluations. But I’ve heard recruits are grilled about the tatoo’s “meaning”. And the recruit is offered FREE laser removal of tattoos. Sometimes this is mandatory. As in, “We will remove your tattoo for free. If you refuse, you will be sent home.” I saw people who declined and went home. And I saw people who were offered but not required to have them removed.
Also… mhendo, please please be careful how you quote people. To me there is a difference between “Recruitors” and “Many recruitors”. I don’t like to paint with too big a brush. I know a lot of very helpful recruitors.
Calling that design a ‘spiderweb’ is somwhat of a stretch that I don’t agree with, but oh well. It certainly looks nothing like the racist ones paperbackwriter says it looks like.
Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt about whether or not they lied, it is still the military’s responsibilty to ensure that all its recruiters are on the same page when it comes to making decisions like this. It’s not good enough to be so inconsistent.
This guy made major life changes in order to enter the military, and was told all the way down the line that his tattoos would not be a problem. Then, having made those changes and essentially burned many of his bridges (turning down job offers; letting his lease expire), he was rejected for the very thing he had asked the recruiters about on numerous occasions.
And you say that the “regs are a little vague,” but that’s not what the army said. From the article:
There’s obviously a failure by the army here. Maybe i shouldn’t chalk up to malice what can be explained by mere incompetence, but which one it was doesn’t change the fact that the guy in the OP has been pretty well fucked over.
Also, having seen Fahrenheit 9/11 recently, i’m somewhat less than inclined to give recruiters the benefit of the doubt. Moore’s film followed a couple of marine recruiters in Michigan, and showed them engaging in some less-than-honest tactics.
One guy told them that he wasn’t interested. They said fine, and asked him to give them his name, address, and phone number so that he could be “taken off the list” of potential recruits. Then, when they had his details, one of the recruiters turned to the other and said something like (i don’t remember the exact quote) “There’s another one to call later on,” making it very clear that the guy’s details would be used for another mariine sales pitch in the futre, even though he had provided those details in the belief that it would prevent him being bothered again.
Thank you paperbackwriter, I was not aware of the spider web’s meaning. As usualy, the news article is a little lacking. That’s specifically why I wait for “all the facts” before making rash judgements about things!
If that’s what meaning the spiderweb holds, then I completely understand the Army’s decision. And they will take him once it’s removed, BTW. It doesn’t matter what the meaning holds to him, it matters how others perceive it. Whether you like it, or not, “Perception is Reality” in the military. A swashtika will always mean “NAZI” to the Army, despite it’s Native American and other origins.
And I will have to give the recruitor amnesty on this one as well. All he saw was a spiderweb tatoo that was not “extending below the wrist”. He most likely did not know it’s other criminal meanings. And as stated before, I DO NOT believe the Army needs to honor a verbal agreement that was made by mistake in good faith by an Army recruitor.
As far as recruitors lying and weasling to meet quotas? Again, I don’t think that’s the issue in this thread. But, mhendo, if you start a seperate thread about evil bastard recruitors, I’ll be happy to add some kindling to that fire!!
Even the article - which appears to be at his defense - calls it a “Spider-Man-type web”.
A grid? I doubt he’s a big fan of cartesian coordinates! But who knows, maybe he was Math League president.
As i said before, their ignorance of the regs is no consolation to the guy who changed his whole life on their say-so. Their whole job is recruiting people for the forces; surely they should know the entry requirements?
I tend to agree that the Army shouldn’t take unqualified candidates. What is annoying, however, is that some of the military folks in this thread have been saying, in effect, “Tough shit,” without even having the cojones to acknowledge that the military fucked up in this whole scenario.
Well, surely it has to be one or the other–the recruiters erred, or the Army erred. They can’t both have been right. As i said before, the army spokesperson quoted in the article says that the rules about tattoos are “strict.” And this guys tattoos either fall within accepted guidelines, or they don’t.
Careful about how i quote? Show me where i said “many recruiters” and i’ll be happy to retract the statement. I have been speaking, in every post, about specific recruiters who told this guy that his tattoos wouldn’t be a problem.