Although tattoos represent a variety of things in a person's life, they do not necessarily determine how well a person is able to do their job. In recent months, there has been an ongoing debate about Army soldiers having tattoos, and as a result, their careers have been put at risk. With this upcoming change, it was specifically said that troops cannot have tattoos that extend below the knees and above the elbows and those that reach above the neckline. Sergeant Major Raymond Chandler says tattoos cannot be racist, extremist or sexist. If the tattoo violates it, they will have to remove it (Freedberg). While this is assumed to be limited to new recruits, it will also apply to older troops. Although tattoos have been around for a long time, they gained great popularity during World War II. It was then that many soldiers deployed in distant places got tattoos as souvenirs. As time passed, the army increased their warfare activity, leading them to need more troops. The result of this was that they neglected many of their strict policies in place (Dallet). Some of the policies they overlooked were criminal records, weight, and not having a high school diploma. I disagree with Chandler's revisions to the Army's solicitation policy because it violates the First Amendment. By focusing on what the First Amendment guarantees, namely free speech, I believe the military will violate that right. Simply because it doesn't justify a specific way your speech needs to be expressed. Why the Army Thinks Change is Important With the War on Terror and other war activities the United States was engaged in there was a troop shortage.... ... middle of paper ...... the soldiers and their tattoos because the first amendment gives them freedom to express themselves too. I also talked about how Sgt. Brinson had to have the tattoo that had her daughter's name on it removed, she could have fought it and still been able to keep her tattoo. First he could have justified that it was just a name with no meaning behind it other than representing his daughter. Secondly, it was small and even if it was in the wrong place, he could still hold it because it was small and could be easily covered. I am firmly against changes in policy, but at the same time I still understand what Chandler is trying to do. Once again I am examining how this will affect dozens of families and what their possible outcome will be. I feel that tattoos will not prevent a person from doing their job and that they should be able to remain enlisted.