The city of Bountiful, Utah has just passed a law banning new city employees from sporting any sort of visible tattoo. This means if your tattoo peeks out of your collar, you’ll have to consider working for someone other than Bountiful city.
Tattoos that are seen on the head, face, neck, or hand are now banned, and prospective employees with as much will not be hired. The only ones exempt from this rule are current staffers who already have visible tattoos.
The ban further includes any males who have piercings that are visible as well. The officials in Davis County say that these actions are ‘anticipatory and preventative’….whatever that means. They want their employees to look professional so that people will feel comfortable interacting with them.
This ban in Davis County and in Bountiful is modeling a similar ban with the Los Angeles Police Department where employees of the LAPD are banned from visible tattoos. Unlike LAPD, forearm tattoos in Bountiful WILL be allowed, but only if they are able to be covered with city uniform or required dress code.
The ban is based on the theory that citizens don’t want police officers showing up at their door to assist them with tattoos of the Nazi variety. So as opposed to simply banning any questionable or politically incorrect tattoos, all have been banned. And some of the residents of Bountiful aren’t happy.
The term ‘a joke’ has been used to describe the ban, as well as discriminatory. And could the fact that the heavily weighted Mormon population of Bountiful have something to do with it?
What do you think?
This news story is kinda old but i remembered it the other day and thought it would be perfect for this blog deal. Anyway I thought it was pretty good because i am torn on this subject myself. I see valid points on both sides and have a hard time taking one side or the other. I can see how the city wants to have a professional look and create a more clean cut image of the city. However on the other hand i do not think that they should go that far. Just because someone has some ink on there skin doens't mean that they are crude standoffish people, don't judge a book by its cover it what comes to mind. Anyway what do you guys think?
7 comments:
Thats a hard subject to choose sides on. I could go either way with it, too. But I think I'm leaning more towards being against that law. I mean, sure it's nice to not have to worry about thinking whether or not some one is really a good person, but to do this we shouldn't have to force people to be seen on equal terms.
Tattoos may seem like that person isn't very...um...I can't think of a good word for it, but it usually doesn't mean very positive things. Tattoos are a person's choice of how they want to share their personality and opinion. Just because their opinion isn't something many people in Utah want to see or hear doesn't mean that we have to make a law against them sharing it. So I don't approve of that law being enforced in Bountiful. It restricts other's rights to freedom of choice.
Oh, and "Fred" is Cassandra Hill. Sorry about that.
This is a good topic, Tyson (and Cassandra). I have a student in one of my sections who is from Bountiful, and who has tattoos, and he was not allowed to do community service in Bountiful because he has a tattoo. My personal feeling on this subject is that the law is ludicrous and discriminatory, and that it is shocking that in 2008 we still have cities that discriminate based on appearances. In my mind, it isn't a very large leap to make from "We don't like what's on your skin" to "We don't like the color of your skin." I feel like I'm in a time warp and that I am living in pre-civil rights era America. DO we REALLY judge people by their appearances so blatantly? I guess the answer is obvious. This is a timely post because we are reading a piece next week called "On Teenagers and Tattoos" (it's in Chapter 6), and we can talk about these issues further. For now, though, I welcome further comments about this topic. Let me pose this question: If you found out I had a back piece, a tattoo that covers my whole back, would you think less of me as a person? Would it affect the way you listened in class or responded to my questions? Be honest about this. Would you let someone babysit your child if she or he had tattoos? What about a lawyer with visible tattoos? A doctor?
Now that you said that, it makes sense how I felt. The law is discriminative and puts people in boxes according to what they show. If you did tell us that you had a back piece, then I might feel a little awkward around you. I would have to get over it because I’ve already seen that you are a trustworthy person and that I shouldn’t think any differently of you. With strangers it might be harder though. I’d feel uneasy about them babysitting my kids, but I think that’s mainly because I’m afraid of it. You always hear the phrase “People are always afraid of what they don’t understand”. I don’t really understand why people would do that, so I don’t know how to act around them. The main reaction that does come out is fear. Fear of not knowing how a person can act after going through that kind of pain. With strangers I would be far more hesitant around them. But that’s an unfair reaction towards those people. It doesn’t change who they are just because they got a tattoo, so we shouldn’t treat them any differently.
Cassandra
I believe that tattoos have something to say about the people that have them. They are sometimes just for fun, but most of the time they mean something to the person. And maybe people with Nazi and gang sign tattoos should not be characters wanted in certain work environments because of their attitudes they have of discrimination, but not because of their actual tattoo. How could a place that cares about appearance so much be taken seriously? Do they carry around rulers to check girls length of skirts also? Are there no adults in Bountiful, Utah? Can the people not remember being picked on for being different someway in their lives? Why would they want to act like children and pick on certain individuals because of tattoos?
Tattoos are sometimes placed on the body in visible spots because it has to do with the army, a loved one and even lost loved ones. My grandfather served as a navy seal and has a tattoo on his arm representing his troop and the names of his men that died coming from his neck down. I would be offended that my grandfather if he had the work experience and desire to work in bountiful he would be turned away because he cares so much about his past and his friends. My grandfather of course sits on his lake house porch all day in upstate New York and doesn't care about this because he is a respectable man that has worked hard in his life. However, if he knew that he would be turned away from working in Bountiful, Utah while he is a member of an expensive country club he would be shocked. Good and bad people have tattoos and I agree with Daniel that labeling someone as bad because they have a tattoo is the same as discriminating against certain colors of skin.
Interesting subject. It is strange to me that the issue of tattoos and the ability to express yourself is causing Bountiful City to put a stop to hiring people with visible tattoos. I thought we were living in a generation where you were able to express yourself. It is no longer about fitting in with a group, but being an individual.
I don't think that I would treat anyone differently knowing they had a tattoo, but I am not sure. Knowing someone has a tattoo at first vs. finding out later after meeting them that they have a tattoo can be very different things.
My mom for example, has a very large tattoo on her back. She got it when she was eighteen, and then ten years later she and my dad joined the LDS Church. Every summer my ward has a summer party at the local pool. My family went for the first time three summers ago, and of coarse my mom was wearing her bathing suit. You should have seen the look on our neighbor's faces. My mom wondering what everyone was staring at asked our next door neighbor if there was something wrong. She pointed to her back and said you have a tattoo. After this my mom put a shirt over her bathing suit and she has never been to the summer party since.
I know that was kind of a long story, but I think it shows that something as small or as large as a tattoo can dramatically effect the view we have on people. Our neighbors would have never guessed that my mom had a tattoo, and when they saw it they were in shock. So, I understand why Bountiful city has put a ban on visible tattoos on their workers people could get the wrong impression.
As much as I agree with what they are doing I believe in freedom of self expression more. People have the right to express themselves in whatever way they choose. It is what are forefathers fought for. Whether it is piercings, tattoos, the way you dress, hair color. You should be free to do what you want, without any repercussions.
I am in between i can't really choose a side. I can see both ways. I think the law judges those with tattoos and automatically puts them in a catagory with people who are below those with out tattoos. I work for the city of orem and i can't think of a reason why having a tattoo would make you less qualified for the job. It almost makes me wonder since we live in Utah if that has anything to do with the law. Since the majority of people here are of the LDS religion which is against tattoos if that has anything to do with why the law was passed.
I also see the other side. I am against tattoos mostly because my brother got one when he was 18 and now is really regretting it. He has 2 young sons who think the tattoo is really cool and want one. He now has a hard time explainging to them why they should never get one. So in that sense i am against tattoos so i think its a good law even tho i can see the other side too.
Post a Comment