Shave and a haircut, two bits

From today's Washington Post :

In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security adopted a "one face at the border" policy that consolidated the jobs of customs, immigration and agriculture inspectors. A year later, the department decided that the Customs and Border Protection officers needed a clean shave.

But the union that represents CBP officers objected to the department's decision to go ahead with a ban on beards before contract negotiations could be finished, and an arbitrator this month sustained the union's grievance.

M. David Vaughn , the arbitrator who handled the labor-management dispute, said the department fell short in making its case and has an obligation to bargain over such issues as beards, mustaches and hair color. "There was no evidence of myriad complaints that lack of uniformity in attire and appearance standards was interfering with the accomplishment of the agency's mission or that the public was not responding properly to the agency's officers because of differing appearance standards," Vaughn wrote.

Glad to see that DHS is taking the time to work on the problems that really matter in customs and immigration. It does get better though when you get to the permitted exception:

CBP replaced those with rules that ban beards except for medical reasons and require that mustaches not extend beyond the corners of the mouth and "must be conservative in style."

I'll grant you that a biker mustache might not have professional gravitas, but unless the beard somehow obscures one's view of the outside world, it's hard to see the problem. I am also mystified about what might be a "medical reason" for having a beard.

Incidentally, the rationale for the ban was this:

CBP officials testified that they inherited different standards for beards and imposed the ban on beards because it was important for employees to project a "neutral and uniform appearance" and because beards interfere with the use of respirators, which are worn when inspectors work inside cargo containers and other confined spaces.

I think that regardless of union negotiations, DHS would have been on shaky grounds on this one in the context of the Goldman v Weinberger Supreme Court case regarding the wearing of a yarmulke on duty and subsequent legislation. While the main opinion went against Goldman, the rather less servile dissent of Blackmun (for instance) seems to have informed the so-called Religious Apparel Amendment, 10 U.S.C. § 774 -- all of which to say, neither of these reasons seem compelling and DHS shouldn't expect the deference that the military gets, should this become a court case.

It may prove to be a moot point depending on the outcome of union negotiations, but if I were a DHS lawyer I might be checking out the law in this area, just in case.