The Marines' Ink Policy, Again

[Content Note: Body/choice policing.]

Sgt. Daniel Knapp, a US Marines infantryman with multiple meritorious promotions and a combat valor award, has been denied re-enlistment by Marine Corps headquarters because he has a tattoo the placement of which violates the service's tattoo policy.

Knapp's predicament highlights a generational disconnect on attitudes towards ink and what Marines say is the need for lax regulations that reflect changing societal perceptions of tattoos. When paired with a widespread lack of understanding among the rank-and-file of lengthy tattoo regulations, the service is losing many otherwise-good Marines. Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford said during a recent trip to Japan that the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps would lead a review if policy, but if the effort would lead to changes remains unclear, for now.

...Ironically, the tattoo that cratered Knapp's career is Marine Corps-themed. However, its size and placement amount to policy violations.

Society sees it differently, Knapp argues. "The top people grew up in a different time when they were not acceptable," he said. "So that is shaping their decision making. Decisions should be made based on what is good for Marines, to fight wars and be ready."

The Army appears to agree. Its top general, Chief of Staff Ray Odierno, made similar remarks in April upon ordering the service to relax its tattoo standards. Offensive tattoos are still banned, but restrictions on number, size and location have been lifted so long as they aren't on the face, neck or hands, with the exception of one ring-finger tattoo.

"Society is changing its view of tattoos," Odierno said, "and we have to change along with that. It makes sense. Soldiers have grown up in an era when tattoos are much more acceptable and we have to change along with that."

I absolutely support restrictions on content, especially when white supremacists are using the US military as a training ground. Tattoos indicating racial hatred, or any other kind of hatred, absolutely should be banned.

And I can understand restrictions regarding placement on the face, neck, and hands, although I have mixed feelings about that.

But the Marines' policy, instituted in 2007—to which I objected way back then, long before I had any ink myself—bans large tattoos below the elbow or the knee, and justifies it with the contention that "such body art is harmful to the Corps' spit-and-polish image."

That is, for sure, partly a generational thing: I don't find body art/modification incompatible with a polished image, and I expect more people my age (40) and younger share that opinion than older generations.

There's a long tradition of servicemembers documenting their service with tattoos, which is part of an even longer human tradition of documenting one's place in one's culture or some other aspect(s) of one's life with tattoos. And it's become much more common among the general population in the US, to turn one's body into a canvas to tell one's stories.

So, yeah, part of this is just the need to get with the times.

But even if tattooing weren't increasingly popular, marking one's body as an expression of self is a freedom. A pretty terrific one. And I am just constitutionally resistant to the idea that someone who is willing to give their very lives to (ostensibly) defend this nation's freedoms isn't allowed to enjoy them.