"Sideburns or hair worn in front of the ears will be neatly
trimmed; not extend below the lowest part of the ear; not be flared; be
of even width; and end with a horizontal line."
Last week the Chicago Police Department revised its personal appearance and uniform policy to include a ban on visible tattoos for on-duty officers.
This prompted expressions of indignation and exasperation from some of our inked men and women in blue. The local chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Labor Relations Board alleging that the revisions violated their bargaining agreement, and the union followed up Thursday with a request for an injunction to block the new rules, already in effect.
But a close reading of the entire policy — it's available online and I'm quoting from it throughout this column — prompts me to wonder what took the brass so long.
"Fingernail colors are limited to natural, clear or conservative artificial tones. Multicolored or ornamentally decorated fingernails are prohibited."
The rules go on for some 9,000 words and leave little room for improvisation:
"The end of the belt (tail), after the buckle, will not extend less than 1 inch or more than 5 inches past the buckle."
They promote rigorous conformity:
"The edge of the uniform shirt's placket (on the wearer's right side) will align vertically with the right edge of the belt buckle and the right edge of the zipper placket."
Vintage sensibilities:
"A male (officer's) hair will not extend below the top edge of the uniform shirt collar nor cover any part of the ear . . . A mustache will not extend below the upper lip or beyond the outer points of the mouth."
And cultural caution:
"Head hair will not be adorned with any type of ornamentation nor be styled, sculpted or carved in radical fashions such as mohawk, dreadlocks, punk, new wave, etc. Hair color will be limited to colors that are natural to the human species."
The regulations leave little to chance:
"The trooper cap will only be worn so that the ... bottom edge of the cap is the same height above both ears. ... (Officers) will not ... wear iridescent, brightly colored or nonconservative personal items (e.g., eyeglass/sunglass frames, pens, watches, etc.) while in uniform."
And they studiously stamp out individuality:
"Uniformed members will not wear ... any visible facial or ear ornamentation/jewelry, pierced or otherwise, any visible neck chains, medals, medallions or necklace ... (or) more than three finger rings."
It's astounding, given the department's pitiless exactitude in matters of appearance, that visible body art survived as long as it did into the tattoo renaissance that began in the 1970s.
For more than 40 years, cultural observers have noted that tattoos are no longer reserved for carnies, bikers, rebels, cons and sentimental members of the armed forces. More than a third of people under 30 now have them, according to a 2014 survey; 1 in 5 have at least three.
Yet, when visible, they're at least as distinctive — or irregular, if you will — as earrings, mutton-chop sideburns or off-center belt buckles.
Many other cities have already ordered on-duty officers to use clothing, makeup or flesh-tone bandages to conceal their tattoos. No law enforcement organization seems to be tracking this trend, but archived news stories list Phoenix, Los Angeles, New York, New Orleans, Indianapolis and Honolulu among major municipalities that have policies similar to Chicago's.
"In the old days, when it was just the occasional anchor on the forearm, like Popeye, most departments didn't care," said Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations in Alexandria, Va. "But now it's common to see large, intricate tattoos carrying a lot of different messages, and departments don't want to get in a swamp of disputes judging which images and writing are appropriate. It's simpler to have a blanket ban."
It's also better. Though some of the CPD's rules seem preposterously nitpicky — "Tie tacks will be centered; tie bars will be centered and at a right angle to the tie" — there's value in a crisp, utterly unremarkable appearance for members of a quasi-military force that symbolically functions as a unit.
"Similarity in appearance of police officers is desirable," wrote the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelley v. Johnson, a 1976 case that upheld the right of law enforcement agencies to limit the length of officers' hair.
The 7-2 majority opinion held that the "desire for the esprit de corps which such similarity is felt to inculcate within the police force itself" was among the rational justifications for overruling officers who want to outwardly express their individuality while on duty.
Generally I'm critical of anything that looks like a police cover-up. Not this time.
v ia Chicago Tribune
Last week the Chicago Police Department revised its personal appearance and uniform policy to include a ban on visible tattoos for on-duty officers.
This prompted expressions of indignation and exasperation from some of our inked men and women in blue. The local chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Labor Relations Board alleging that the revisions violated their bargaining agreement, and the union followed up Thursday with a request for an injunction to block the new rules, already in effect.
But a close reading of the entire policy — it's available online and I'm quoting from it throughout this column — prompts me to wonder what took the brass so long.
"Fingernail colors are limited to natural, clear or conservative artificial tones. Multicolored or ornamentally decorated fingernails are prohibited."
The rules go on for some 9,000 words and leave little room for improvisation:
"The end of the belt (tail), after the buckle, will not extend less than 1 inch or more than 5 inches past the buckle."
They promote rigorous conformity:
"The edge of the uniform shirt's placket (on the wearer's right side) will align vertically with the right edge of the belt buckle and the right edge of the zipper placket."
Vintage sensibilities:
"A male (officer's) hair will not extend below the top edge of the uniform shirt collar nor cover any part of the ear . . . A mustache will not extend below the upper lip or beyond the outer points of the mouth."
And cultural caution:
"Head hair will not be adorned with any type of ornamentation nor be styled, sculpted or carved in radical fashions such as mohawk, dreadlocks, punk, new wave, etc. Hair color will be limited to colors that are natural to the human species."
The regulations leave little to chance:
"The trooper cap will only be worn so that the ... bottom edge of the cap is the same height above both ears. ... (Officers) will not ... wear iridescent, brightly colored or nonconservative personal items (e.g., eyeglass/sunglass frames, pens, watches, etc.) while in uniform."
And they studiously stamp out individuality:
"Uniformed members will not wear ... any visible facial or ear ornamentation/jewelry, pierced or otherwise, any visible neck chains, medals, medallions or necklace ... (or) more than three finger rings."
It's astounding, given the department's pitiless exactitude in matters of appearance, that visible body art survived as long as it did into the tattoo renaissance that began in the 1970s.
For more than 40 years, cultural observers have noted that tattoos are no longer reserved for carnies, bikers, rebels, cons and sentimental members of the armed forces. More than a third of people under 30 now have them, according to a 2014 survey; 1 in 5 have at least three.
Yet, when visible, they're at least as distinctive — or irregular, if you will — as earrings, mutton-chop sideburns or off-center belt buckles.
Many other cities have already ordered on-duty officers to use clothing, makeup or flesh-tone bandages to conceal their tattoos. No law enforcement organization seems to be tracking this trend, but archived news stories list Phoenix, Los Angeles, New York, New Orleans, Indianapolis and Honolulu among major municipalities that have policies similar to Chicago's.
"In the old days, when it was just the occasional anchor on the forearm, like Popeye, most departments didn't care," said Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations in Alexandria, Va. "But now it's common to see large, intricate tattoos carrying a lot of different messages, and departments don't want to get in a swamp of disputes judging which images and writing are appropriate. It's simpler to have a blanket ban."
It's also better. Though some of the CPD's rules seem preposterously nitpicky — "Tie tacks will be centered; tie bars will be centered and at a right angle to the tie" — there's value in a crisp, utterly unremarkable appearance for members of a quasi-military force that symbolically functions as a unit.
"Similarity in appearance of police officers is desirable," wrote the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelley v. Johnson, a 1976 case that upheld the right of law enforcement agencies to limit the length of officers' hair.
The 7-2 majority opinion held that the "desire for the esprit de corps which such similarity is felt to inculcate within the police force itself" was among the rational justifications for overruling officers who want to outwardly express their individuality while on duty.
Generally I'm critical of anything that looks like a police cover-up. Not this time.
v ia Chicago Tribune
No comments:
Post a Comment