AmericanPride, I'm sorry you see fit to create a race issue out of the comment made posted from another discussion group. I would really like to stay on the issues arising from Lind's article in relation to the US Officer Corps.

A reasonable person would conclude that the comment by one 'Rick Johnson' is neither 100% accurate nor 100% false - as you maintain but somewhere in-between. If you really want to take this matter further please start a new thread and discuss it there.


Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
Carl, if you would like to defend a subtly racist position, be my guest.



Slap, I generally admire your passion but your out of proportion outrage on what you call a "Marxist social experiment" to "worry about black females and.. not allowing such nonsense" is both (1) hilarious and (2) borders on racist. This is why the hairstyle policy is objectionable:

From the New York Times:

My emphasis.

As with any array of policies such as voter identification or facial hair, if it disproportionately affects a minority group it is discriminatory towards that group. In the case of hairstyles, since it disproportionately affects black women, it is racist. Failure to comply with the policy can lead to adverse administrative action. This is why Sikhs can receive exemptions for their facial hair and why black women should receive exemptions to the hairstyle policy. You don't have to say "I hate black people" to be racist in conduct. So the other option is to pay for all black women in service to chemically straigthen their hair for the sake of uniformity. Or, we could go back to the old days of no black women in the military...

And in a note to carl, this is why EO policies are necessary in the military.