Officer Clark Fischer complied when he was ordered by his supervisor to remove the stud he was wearing in his left ear while on duty, but he did grieve the issue since there were no stated policies prohibiting the wearing of jewelry. Fisher countered the safety argument by pointing out that the safety risks were equal or less than items that were permitted. Fisher further proposed that the earring gave him an advantage when dealing with disenfranchised youth. The city countered that the earring had specific safety issues, and would provoke mostly negative reactions from the public.

Both Fisher and the city were guilty of stereotyping and making arguments on the basis of accepting those stereotypes. These stereotypes included Fisher’s portrayal of disenfranchised youth as well as the city’s determination that the public would find the earring to be negatively provocative. In this case, the arbitrator’s decision against the officer’s right to wear an earring was not based on stereotypes, but rather the problem was that the decision represented discrimination on the basis of gender.

While many might feel there a need for police to have a different image from the para-military image, this is a location specific issue. The underlying issue is whether a police force should manifest fear and obedience in the population, or whether they should be seen as helpful and friendly. It is a false dichotomy because it is dependent on the needs of the situation at any given time.

The issue was jewelry, and whether it was permissible to wear any jewelry given that none was specified in the listing of items in the uniform. Given the determination in this case, I immediately wondered whether the rules would apply equally to both genders. Were women therefore not permitted to wear earrings? This was not stated, and further it seemed unlikely that any women officers were being asked to remove their earrings while on duty.