Arkansas prison system inmates can now grow a beard -- without length limitations -- if their religion dictates it.
The new administrative directive, signed Thursday by Arkansas Department of Correction Director Wendy Kelley after a review by the Arkansas Board of Corrections, comes on the heels of a Jan. 20 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the state prison system cannot prohibit an inmate from wearing a half-inch beard grown for religious reasons.
Arkansas Department of Correction inmate Gregory Houston Holt, who goes by the name Abdul Maalik Muhammad, filed the case against then-prison Director Ray Hobbs, claiming that his religious rights as a Muslim were violated when prison officials denied his request to grow a half-inch beard.
The Supreme Court rejected the state's argument that an inmate could hide dangerous contraband in a beard or could shave the beard as a disguise.
The department's past grooming policy, adopted in 1998, had no religious exemption and prohibited facial hair besides a "neatly trimmed mustache that does not extend beyond the corner of the mouth or over the lip." The only exception was for inmates with certain medical conditions, who were allowed a beard up to a quarter-inch long.
Male inmates were required to have their hair cut above the ears and above the middle of the nape of the neck. Female inmates could wear their hair no longer than shoulder length.
The department's new policy allows inmates to request a religious exemption for beard and hair length, and it does not limit the length of either.
Holt's attorney, University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, called Thursday's policy change a "very constructive response."
"It sounds like they're trying to fix the problem before it becomes a problem," Laycock said.
The Supreme Court decision hasn't immediately sparked widespread change in county jail procedures, however.
Carl Minden, a spokesman for the Pulaski County sheriff's office, said security risks from beards or hair are addressed on a case-by-case basis, not by a uniform policy.
"We are not planning any changes. Since we are a pretrial facility, the majority of our book-ins are not on a long-term status," Minden said.
The state prison system's new administrative directive -- which does not require board approval under department policies -- induced a lively debate among Corrections Board members at a specially called meeting Thursday.
"Why should we wait until something does happen before we say we should have done something?" board Chairman Benny Magness asked.
The prison environment is different from what it was 20 years ago, and the rules should reflect that fact, board member Buddy Chadick said.
"Twenty years ago, people weren't putting cellphones up their rectum. Twenty years ago, we didn't have the drug problems we have today. Twenty years ago, it was much easier to protect our people," Chadick said.
"It's a totally different scenario now. This has been the most shocking thing to me for being on the board for two years. What are they bringing this stuff in for? How are they bringing it in? We've got to protect ourselves, and we've got to protect our prisoners."
Board member Bobby Glover argued that there should be a limitation in the policy of the maximum beard length allowed. Holt's Supreme Court victory specified that he would be allowed only a half-inch beard.
"I don't understand why we would want to go beyond that," Glover said.
The majority of the nation's prison systems allow for beards and do not restrict the length, Arkansas Deputy Attorney General David Curran said.
Kelley added that the length limit in Holt's case was specific to Holt's request. Setting a length limit could spur continual requests and possible lawsuits from prisoners requesting a longer beard because their religion dictates a certain length, she added.
"We did discuss putting a limit on the length, as well as taking the grooming policy completely away," Kelley said of the five-member policy committee members who drafted the new guidelines.
Magness questioned if the system could limit the hair and beard allowance of inmates who work outside of the prison or on the farms, or if officials could disqualify bearded or long-haired inmates from serving on outside work crews.
"The court said if we do not grant an accommodation, we have to have a compelling reason. Is that a more compelling reason?" Magness asked.
Setting such limitations would constitute religious discrimination, Kelley said. However, a "bona fide" job exemption may be allowed, she added, giving the example of a prisoner's beard potentially getting caught in a grinder.
The new policy also established intake guidelines that require prisoners requesting a religious exemption for a beard or longer hair to submit to two different pictures for an identification card. One picture will be taken of the prisoner in full beard and another cleanshaven.
Inmates requesting exemptions for long hair will not be required to cut their hair during intake. They will instead be allowed to pull their hair completely away from their face for one of the pictures.
"This way, correctional officers will be able to readily identify inmates moving through the barracks, the farm fields or communal areas within the units," department spokesman Cathy Frye said.
"For example, say an inmate has always had a beard but one day decides to start shaving again. An officer who is accustomed to the beard may not immediately recognize the inmate. For us, the issue is security. We need to know at all times which inmates belong -- or don't belong -- where. This is especially true for officers overseeing inmate work crews outside the fence."
If a new prisoner refuses to shave his beard for the initial identification portrait session, officials will do it for him.
"We are permitted to use a restraint chair, if necessary. Again, the inmate can then request an accommodation and, per the chaplain's approval, be permitted to regrow his beard. Since long hair can be pulled back from the face, we would not need to cut it," Frye said.
Chadick cautioned that the new policy could elicit an "epiphany" of new religious beliefs among the Department of Correction inmates.
Kelley said there most likely will be an initial increase of religious-accommodation requests, but she does not foresee a large number of inmates asking for the exemption.
Board member Dubs Byers said the new policy will bring opportunities for abuse, but it is a necessary trade-off for protecting religious freedom.
"The needs of the state should be balanced with the lives of the individuals. The only two places we don't have this discussion is an anarchy or a dictatorship, so I'm glad we can have this discussion," Byers said.
"I personally think we would fight a losing battle if we tried to put limitations in there. I don't know if I'd want to be part of an entity that restricts a sincerely held religious belief."
State Desk on 02/06/2015