Thursday, March 29, 2007

Marines ban tattoos below elbows, knees to preserve their image

If you read today's Indiana Daily student there was an article in there talking about how the Marines are banning any new extra large tattoos below the elbow or the knee. The Marines say that is harmful to the Corps’ spit-and-polish image. So what do you think? If you are putting your life on the line for the marines and the United States should you be able to get a tattoo where ever you want? How do you think a certain suit against this appearance code would stand up in court? Let me know what you think. Here is the original article.


Blogger Justin B said...

I would have to agree with Commandant Gen. Conway that excessive, sleeve-type tattoos could be counter to the Corp's traditional values. The Marines have historically been a group that focuses heavily on tradition and standards which set them apart from other military branches (not to take anything away from our service men and women in other areas), and I think that this ban will eventually be accepted.

I was wondering however, about individuals who currently have large tattoos on their lower arms and were thinking about joining the Marines. The article doesn't seem to address that issue. Would you have to prove that you got the ink before this ban was in place? Would you still be able to join?

4:43 PM  
Blogger Nick Hursh said...

I think that the Marines should not have to follow a dress code outside of being active in the military. Most of the time there arms are covered anyways because all of their uniforms are long-sleeved. I have a good friend currently in the Marines, and he recently got a tattoo of USMC on his forearm. I have no problem with cases like this where Marines want to show patriotism and let people know about them. Many of his fellow Marines in their unit got a similar tattoo to show a sort of brotherhood camaraderie. I think the Marines is taking things a little too far with implementing this and are probably ticking a lot of Marines off in the process.

8:10 PM  
Blogger Mike Grady said...

I do not think that the Marines should pass this ban on tattoos. Like Justin said, what if they already have the tattoos? If they are not allowed to join because of that, then they will be discriminated against. I liked the comment by Cpl. David Nadrchal that said the authority of the Marines was slowly "chipping away" at the soldiers' freedoms. If Marines are sacrificing their lives for America, we should allow them to put whatever they choose on their bodies. Particularly in today's society where there is so much discrepancy in people's feelings about the war in Iraq (politically), we need to show the soldiers as much support as we possibly can as a nation, and continuing to take away their freedoms is not the way to show support. As far as this "rite of passage" is concerned, the soldiers should be allowed to do whatever necessary to keep themselves motivated about giving up their lives to participate in a war, and if they get a tattoo here or there to assist them in keeping that motivation high, then there should not be anyone trying to stop them.

10:28 PM  
Blogger Fatima said...

I believe that an employer should have the right to monitor their employees physical appearance.
After the incident of 9/11, there were many employees that were told to take their head gear ( such as scarves and turbans) off when they came to work. This was done because there was fear present in the general public and the employees dress code was a big factor in how comfortable the consumer felt.
Even though I believe this is unfair to the employee, at the end of the day I do believe that a business is about being successful. If the customers are not feeling comfortable with the employees than for a certain time period (in this case till the fear of 9/11 lessened) they should accomodate with the employer.

9:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home