I thought it was interesting.
The Chief prefaced his answer with a statement that "If you're getting so much morale from a t-shirt that you're getting upset over the color of your shirt, then there's probably bigger problems at hand." I would agree with that.
To be honest I felt like they didn't quite know how to answer the question so they sidestepped it and tried to trivialize the matter. They said the color of your t-shirt didn't matter so it was a non-issue, but that begs the question of why, if such a thing was trivial, we wasted brainmatter on writing a reg to get rid of it. I felt like they dodged the issue entirely. It might seem stupid for folks to see guys arguing about their shirt colors, but the fact that so many people are upset about it demonstrates that there is an issue here that needs to be addressed, and rather than looking at that issue, the response I got felt like it was a "you-guys-are-crying-about-not-having-colored-shirts-suck-it-up" deal.
One of the Chiefs mentioned that it was important for us to be standardized and following the regs because, if we didn't, Airman Snuffy would see us breaking the rules with our colored shirts and think that if rules didn't apply to officers, they would emulate that in their own place. Which I found weird, because the colored shirts were never against the rules until they made them against the rules, so it didn't quite answer the question of why it was necessary to write them out of the regs.
Someone brought it up as a heritage issue and they mentioned that heritage wasn't about the shirt color but it was an attitude and about history. When someone mentioned that morale shirts dated back to Vietnam (dunno how accurate his statements were since I don't know much about it yet) it was dismissed as not really heritage because heritage was something intangible we got from patriotism and work ethic. While I'm not knocking the idea that there are intangible character traits as part of Air Force heritage, I think there are definitely physical ones too that are being crushed.
tl;dr version: I don't think they could answer that question honestly since they didn't know, so they defaulted to what the standard reason was, which is sort of feeding back into the strange rationalization for it and somehow making it seem acceptable, since it's almost a confirmation that getting rid of all this stuff is a good thing.
I think they ended by suggesting that if we wanted the tangible stuff to be heritage we should donate to a base museum so it can be preserved for future generations. Which made me sad.