Should Freedom of Expression Be a Right?

I was browsing through BME and trying to find some good articles to post here. Just when I was reaching the bottom of the editorials, I found a neat short article done by Shannon.

The article is the very last one, and here is the link:

Should Freedom of Expression Be a Right?

Statistics

It has been difficult to gather statistics from the internet and is actually a tedious exercise. Above all of that; the stats are usually out of date. I attempted to get some information and failed miserably. From the 25 people that responded to my survey (through FaceBook piercing/tattoo groups, to myspace friends and peers in my english class), these general assumptions can be gathered:

1. Those that have visible tattoos will hide them from bosses if they know that it would affect their employement.

2. Extreme forms of piercing, anything but the ear lobes, are still generally frowned upon if they are on the face.

3. More employers are working be more accepting of body art and are frequently communicating about the affects that body art will have with clients/customers.

4. Most people with tattoos are under the age of 30. Above the age of 30, tattoos are still taboo, but they are gaining interest.

5. Many tattoo artists will give a lecture before agreeing to tattoo the face or neck simply because that is one of the most frowned upon body modifications next to several, largely gauged (stretching the hole to fit a piece of jewelry with a larger than average circumference) piercings within the face.

My conclusion? I would have liked to arrange a long term, more randomization study. However, I do not have time for that and it is apparent that not many people do.

Here are some charts and stats from the internet:

This is a study done by Dr. Laumann

"Random digit dialing technology was used to obtain a national probability sample of 253 women and 247 men who were 18 to 50 years of age.

Results:
Of our respondents, 24% had tattoos and 14% had body piercings. Tattooing was equally common in both sexes, but body piercing was more common among women. Other associations were a lack of religious affiliation, extended jail time, previous drinking, and recreational drug use. Local medical complications, including broken teeth, were present in one third of those with body piercings. The prevalence of jewelry allergy increased with the number of piercings. Of those with tattoos, 17% were considering removal but none had had a tattoo removed.

Limitations:
This was a self-reported data set with a 33% response rate.

Conclusion:
Tattooing and body piercing are associated with risk-taking activities. Body piercing has a high incidence of medical complications."

This site has a few Harris 2003 Stats

This site has another study by Dr. Laumann.. 2004 I believe but I cannot find a solid year

Vanishing Tattoos has another summary of the Harris 2003 stats

I do think that we need to do a newer study, but then again, by the time the study is underway, the college aged students will already have kids and good jobs (hopefully)

Definition of "tattoo"

I've already kinda walked through piercings and moderation, now tattoos are a bit different. With piercings, they are able to be taken out. Tattoos are permanent and not easy to cover if they are in a visible area. There is a wide range of what is accepted and what is not. Here are
some examples:
























Okay, now I am going to show you some creative people:

The Good and Bad of the Piercing World

So, how does one decide just how much is too much? To fill every pinchable place with metal or just keep your lobes pierced? Maybe a couple in moderation would be the best choice. An eyebrow piercing, maybe even a nostril would be fine. As soon as you add more than three, employers start to wonder and press judgement. Here are some piercings that are in moderation but still aren't widely accepted into the workplace:

Now, where is the line drawn? Well... this person won't be teaching your children any time soon!

View of an employer in a medical facility

Robert Tilley, who works in a medical firm, was presented with the question, "what would you do if a staff member came to work with a tattoo or tongue ring?" from that question, he wrote out an article sharing his viewpoint and opinion.

Apparently Tilley was actually presented with this case and as a result, the firm made more policies and enforced them. It was apparent that there was too much leeway and it wasn't appropriate for the work environment. Tilley also states that by creating a policy, they aren't just singling one person out and the problem would never actually occur becuause the policy is in effect.

I do agree with this and actually am glad that this perspective was given. I always thought that rules were just continuously changing because employers wanted an excuse not to hire or to fire people. Having rules for EVERYONE to follow works well in my mind. Sometimes though, some employees are pig-headed and abuse this ability.

Tilley ends the article with a reach out to employers. He talks about how to deal with a person who has visible tattoos and piercings when a company doesn't have a policy in place. Tilley also mentions that a good way to avoid problems is to evaluate the interviewee before hire and make sure they know the policy ahead of time.

Overall, it is a good read and it is available here.

Opinion of a fellow tattoo and piercing recipient

I'm just going to post his whole opinion below because it is rather short. However, if you want his blog post, you can click here.

This guy hits on what I say quite a bit. I didn't bother to mention methods of covering up tattoos and piercings, but a lot of employers that hire, if they allow, will make you cover them up with something even more distracting.

"With the growing desire to modify your appearance with younger adults, tattoos and piercings have become more popular but, are not viewed as being professional. Over the summer, my co-worker had to cover up a rather large tattoo of his family crest on his arm with an ACE bandage. Something not offensive ended up causing more distractions because everyone wanted to know what was under the bandage.

Being a tattoo and piercing recipient, I have to be careful. If I had not gotten my eyebrow ring ripped out, I would have had to remove it. Getting my new ear piercing was a hard decision because I didn’t want it to affect my chances at a job…but I wanted it.

With tattoos and piercings becoming more recognized and acceptable, what makes them so unprofessional? If not an offensive piece of art, the bearers of tattoos and piercings should be able to display their art work no matter what the setting."

Employee Activism

I found this article and laughed a little. It is sad that the discrimination has had to come down to this at all, but apparently it has. Employees that have been fired or could not find jobs because of their freedom of expression have taken the discriminators to court. Employers are a little more willing in some places because the cost of rejecting someone that meets qualifications is just too much.

“There is a lot of employee activism,” said Laurel A. Van Buskirk, a New Hampshire lawyer who has written extensively about body modification and the law. “And because the cost of defending these cases is quite big, it makes employers a little uncomfortable when they start delving into that sphere.”

"One result of “employee pushback,” Ms. Van Buskirk said, is that the shape of that sphere has begun to shift. Defining what the courts in the Cloutier case called a “neat, clean and professional” workplace image becomes more challenging when you consider that in 2006, a Pew Research Center survey found that 36 percent of people age 18 to 25, and 40 percent of those age 26 to 40, have at least one tattoo."


This model has the word "float" on her neck. While it is a very special and symbolic tattoo for her, it is not sitting to well with a few potential employers. Is it really that bad? Didn't think so.