Stereotyping based upon physical characteristics or appearance is the basis for prejudice. Why do you think the arbitrator in this instance decided against the officers right to wear an earring?

Facts: Officer Clark Fischer was ordered by his police sergeant to remove an earring (ear stud) from his left ear while on duty. The police chief upheld the sergeant's order. Officer Fischer complied with the order but grieved the issue. Officer Fischer alleged there was no written prohibition to the wearing of earrings by police officers in either the contract or the rules by which the force operates. He pointed out, in fact, that the chief himself wore an earring in his off-duty hours. Anticipating a safety" argument, Fischer pointed out that officers wear clips, glasses, pins, nametags, and any number of items that present the same kind of risks or more severe risks. The officer also argued that wearing an earring on duty gave him an advantage in his job when dealing with disenfranchised youth naturally hostile to a traditional police officer. The City, in defending the no earring" rule, argued that it was a safety issue because in a struggle, the earring could pierce the officer's skull, and the city believed an earring would generate more negative than positive reactions from most of the people the officer encountered. Decision: The arbitrator likened police to the military and in doing so pointed out that a uniform appearance was concomitant with a professional police force." Because an earring was not explicitly included in the description of an officer's uniform, it was excluded. Therefore, Officer Fischer's grievance was denied