Hey Dash, God made you without clothing as well, however there's been a general consenus down through the years that clothing is mandatory in most business environments, depending on the business of course. I'm not saying that dreads are unacceptable, all I'm saying is that companies have a right to establish reasonable standards of grooming. The problem with your argument is that ANYONE can apply it to ANY circumstance, including the folks who really do think that they should be able to go to work at a bank completely naked....and those people do exist, trust me. In your research, have you run into many court cases covering this issue? If so, how were those cases decided? The answers to those questions will give you a good indication as to how successful you would be in court. I'm guessing that the track record isn't so successful with cases like this, but maybe I'm wrong.
Natural -- as I am using it, only refers to chemically untreated hair, so that the kinky texture is unchanged. I still style and "dress" my hair -- and my body, too. There is room in this discussion to consider and correct the very valid grooming concerns some have pointed out. It is an organization's specific ban on locks and braids that would cause me extreme concern.
I do agree that when people are passionate about something or some cause that that is when change is most likely to occur. Regarding dreadlocks; I'd be willing to bet that as dreadlocks become more mainstream and the hotel in question (way back up in post #1!!) when their customer base changes and is more tolerant of dreadlocks that their dress code policy will change again. To me, it is no different than belly button rings. They used to be trendy but now are more common and all the parents who are stuggling to allow or not allow their children to get pierced in the belly button - the association that may parents and people make with behavior, values etc and "trendy" belly button rings. Banks seem to still be notorious for not allowing their ee's to have visible tattoos!
Having said all of that: I still disagree with one point you continue to make. (BTW I could probably be persuaded otherwise) Dreadlocks are not natural. Natural conjurs up unwhashed uncombed hair that is ratty - ratty enough to be forming knots that are euphamistically called locks. It is the unwashed, uncombed, knotty, tangly mess that most of the forumites posted as an association they make with being unprofessional and unacceptable for work. It would be the same as an ee coming in to work with wrinkled unwashed clothes, and unwashed body in it "natural" state. That is unacceptable business attire.
The dreadlocks that you describe- yes are clean and you can shampoo them regulary - but - you still have to wax them, twist them, and back comb them to achieve the results. Heck, I think it might take you longer to "do" your hair than it does me to blow dry and curl mine - and I don't consider my hair is in its "natural state". I consider it to be necessary to present a business appearance at work.
Can dreadlocks become business mainstream? They probably can.
>Can dreadlocks become business mainstream? They >probably can.
The slippery slope here is that by the time that happens, the trend will move on to something else, and so we are right back to square one. The only point of view that makes any practical sense is that the "right" of businesses to establish reasonable grooming codes trumps the "right" of individuals to wear a particular hair style.
I don't think that anybody has struggled to make this a racial issue. When a policy or practice (however intended) has a disparate impact on a certain race of employee, it becomes a race issue. I don't think many companies intentionally make decisions that will have such an impact, but it happens nonetheless.
I did a quick search and found a couple of court cases involving dreadlocks that were decided in favor of the employer. However, they were law enforcement-type employees and I could easily see a court (especially here in sunny Cali) deciding for an employee.
It's not a clear-cut situation, which is obvious by the amount of discussion it has generated.
Carey: Good post, and yes I am somebody's dad (another thread). But, I find one flaw in your argument/statement. Disparate impact cannot and will not be concluded based on one employee who is told to conform to a dress code. And again, you will see woven (braided) throughout this entire thread the fact that it is not race specific. The point being that Dasher may have concluded that all blacks have nappy hair. If that is true fine. But, it is not true that all nappy haired folks are black. There's enough nappy hair to go around. You will even find a post up there somewhere that names several regions of the world where there is a predominance of whatever we're calling this hair style, and it ain't limited to Africa. I spoke earlier of three white guys with what I called dreadlocks. If I had mandated they change their style, where would the disparity theory go with that? It would go down the toilet, that's where it would go.
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." Martin Luther King Jr.
Dasher and Don,
Let me thank you both for your views. Both of you have taken direct hits and remained focused. I would hope that this post has made all us Forunites stop and think about our roles with in our organizations. Healthy debate is the foundation of the country we live in.
It's apparent to me that there are two issues. One is an employers right to set grooming standards, the other is the impact on a group of people adversely affected by this policy. Both sides have been eloquently articulated here.
While I don't believe the answer is a slam dunk either way, I do believe that Companies have a right to set acceptable standards and an obligation to ensure that policies and procedures do not have a disparate impact on a group of people. If CEO's cant see it, that is where HR has to be the vocal partner.
All of us need to quit hitting the snooze button and acknowledge unique differences, not just the status quo.
With that said I'm buttoning my bullet proof vest and waiting for the incoming...
A vest is completely unnecessary....I only go for head shots. This might be a good time to propose what I call the Top Bellrose standard, taught to me by a Marine Corps Master Gunny Sergeant about 30 years ago. Top would put his hand on top of your head, and if he could see ANY hair at all sticking out between his fingers he would look at you and growl, "tam fer a har-cut." The treatment wasn't disparate in the least since he treated us all like dogs.
" the other is the impact on a group of >people adversely affected by this policy."
I liked your entry and your presentation.
In reply to the quote, there is no group of people adversely affected by the policy. If you think so, what group? And yes, if CEO's can't see when a policy may infringe on an employee's or applicant's right, HR acts as the employee advocate. Advocacy does not mean that we march against the establishment like a union stewart.
Its becoming apparent to me that there are two distinct sides that will never meet in the middle. Dasher has made an argument and I completely agree with her. It is also my opinion that locked hair is predominately a trait of individuals of African descent- done because of the nature of their hair. This is not a trend or a statement, it is done because it is one of the easier natural states to maintain said hair. By the way this can look professional.
I acknowledge that there is a trend with young white teenagers rebelling with locks, but this is rare and done to make a statement. (All you former hippies should be able to relate- this is the replacement to long hair.) It can also be a statement about their lifestyle, unconventional non-conforming etc. Locked hair is not a natural state for anglo's. This typically looks like what Don described as dirty socks hanging from the head.
I didn't ask for a march, but sometimes it takes a march to get companies and individuals to recognize that they may be treating African Americans differently based on whether or not they adopt to the accepted "white" norm of straight short hair.
This is another example where we as visionary HR professionals should be leading the discussion. It only takes one voice to make a difference-
Regardless of racial equality, good grooming, trendy fashions, etc., the bottom line on this issue is the fact that the company has in place a dress code and has had that dress code for a period of time. The "offenders" were aware of the requirement when they were hired and one was even told he would have to change his hair style. He apparently agreed because he is currently employed by that company. Only recently has it become an issue that requires enforcement.
NM Tom: Welcome. In your zeal to affect social change and stone perceived institutional barriers, I feel that you are terribly oversimplifying this as an African American birthright. And the point of all these posts was never that we might 'meet in the middle'. Either an employer has a right to set this policy or he does not. There is no middle.
I'm not sure if you benefitted from one of our colleague's research, posted above, but I've taken the liberty of pasting a piece of it here, as follows, "I did a lot of reasearch - found out that dreadlocks are common to Celtics, (Ceasar describes the Celts and having "hair like snakes")Asians, Egyptions, King Tut, and Indians as well as Jamaicans and African Americans. So, I have concluded (based on research!) that dreadlocks are not a unique to blacks or AA. I don't understand why AA claim dreadlocks as their own and therefore if an employer wants to ban dreadlocks they must be prejudiced?" end of quote.
If we are to accept that as accurate research, which I do, and based on my several mentionings about whites I have worked with who insist on the 'dirty sock hair tube' style, then I do not accept your premise that this is something a white employer needs to learn to live with and become sensitive to. By the way, these white guys with the sock heads (snake hair as Dasher called it, I think) were not kids and not trendy. They were at least 30 years old and the owner of the company was a Chinaman and the Vice President over Engineering and Production was from India. both of them despised the hair 'styles'. So it had nothing, nothing to do with persecution of an African American birthright. Nor do I buy the thought that this is an easier hairstyle to have because of the way one was born. From what we are told and observe, it is extremely difficult and time intensive. So, that theory as well, goes by the wayside.
As I asked almost a hundred posts back, "Let's assume the writer of this policy is a black woman or a Jamaican man".
I have been in Human Resources for 35 years, and with the exception of the first several, when I was an employment counselor, I never perceived my role to include enacting social change or remolding the legally held thought processes of the executives I worked for. But I do certainly appreciate your opinion and your input. x:-)
It makes absolutely no difference if the owner banning locks or braids is a Black woman or a Jamaican man -- no one racial group has the exclusive trait of being narrowminded. All of us (speaking of Western society in particular) are programmed to prefer straight or loosely curled hair and to consider nappy hair unattractive.
There are several websites about the natural (absence of straightening chemicals) hair experience, and when I first decided to no longer straighten my hair, I would often go to them for knowledge, encouragement and yes, comfort. Reverting back to unprocessed hair is a real journey and not easy to relate to others who may quite honestly not understand the hidden issues involved. Confronting them is difficult, but when you come to the other side --it is worth it.
Researching the wearing of locks by others is fine, but to be forthright about it, the company in the original post banned them because Black employees were wearing a style they found to be unacceptable. (Also note that the ban appears to apply only to the Bellmen and Valet staff). Failing to control the style, the company then changed the rules to mandate certain other qualifications (close to the scalp, not beneath the collar, no beads). And while some have indicated that the employees were at "fault" because they knew the policy, please note that the original poster stated that two workers changed to the style after employment and only one gave tacit indication prior to taking the job that he would change the hairstyle.
You may not like locks or braids and I may not like stringy or greasy looking hair -- but to ban either is not addressing the real issues and/or enforcing an appearance standard.
All of >us (speaking of Western society in particular) >are programmed to prefer straight or loosely >curled hair and to consider nappy hair >unattractive.
Wrong. Locked hair is NOT INHERENT to blacks and AA. It came to prominence because Marcus Garvey chose it as a symbol for the Jamaican empowerment movement. There is nothing inherent about it. It would be like saying Catholics are discriminated against because they don't eat meat on Friday's. The Catholics chose not eating meet on Fridays as a symbol to fight hunger and poverty. Both are just symbols nothing more.
I disagree. I think Dasher got way too emotional over the issue. (Dasher later on kept sticking to the "It's a natural way to wear your hair" and narrowly defining natural as no chemicals) The issue was whether the employer had the right to set dress standards. Most everybody responded with that in mind. It was only two or so individuals who opened it up to other things only for us all to come back around (saying basically the same thing just in different ways) and conclude that the employer has the right to set dress code policies.
Only for the sake of clarification will I respond. Employers have the right to set dress code policies.
My position remains that banning braids and locks targets Blacks with natural (as in not chemically straightened) hair, and does not properly address a grooming issue which may be present.
I seldom see discrimination where it does not exist because I work hard at it. However, to fail to see it where it does exist is detrimental to my emotional health.
> >"My position remains that banning braids and >locks targets Blacks with natural (as in not >chemically straightened) hair, and does not >properly address a grooming issue which may be >present." > > Try to look at it this way. What if Blacks didn't do anything with their hair? What would it look like? Probably not groomed. So they would have to groom it somehow. So why groom it in locks? That's a choice.
What if white blondes didn't do anything with their hair. What would it look like? Probably not groomed. So they would have to groom it somehow. So why groom it in locks?
The employer doesn't like it. The employer DOESN'T LIKE IT.
Certainly in this very organized society we must have a better reason for our dress code policies than "THE EMPLOYER DOESN'T LIKE IT".
Why doesn't the employer like locks or braids? What is wrong with them?
Try to separate out what some may consider a valid grooming issue -- address that. Now, if it is something else -- it may be discrimination and we have laws that address that.
You may think I am hardheaded and not listening to you, but I am. Why not answer your own question -- why not groom it in locks?
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-20-04 AT 12:21PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Dasher, my friend and colleague, the employer does not owe me an explanation as to why he does not like it. He can choose to like or not like it for any reason or none at all, as long as the reason is not proven to be an illegal one; and simply stating that one feels 'oh it must be because of this or that', doesn't reach the bar of proving it illegal. There seems to be no hesitancy here to judge the employer's motive and to make assumptions and reach conclusions with no evidence other than a statement regarding a policy.
And I too would like to clarify something you hinted at and that is that straight and stringy and greasy hair is not the sole birthright of any sex, race or skin hue. I suppose any of us might have it if we don't do something about it. Stringy and greasy hair, in my opinion, is by no means the natural opposite of nappy hair.
Because it's not business mainstream yet and to not allow it does not discriminate solely against AA. It discriminates against ANYONE who wants to wear locks and that is still permissable because it is NOT TARGETING AA.
BTW I am very glad that when I do alter my hairstyle and have had some plastic surgery that I don't have the burden of agonizing over whether or not I am changing my etnicity! I think the AA population puts way too much burden on those that do, simply want to look what they think is their best. Does any other race face such self imposed pressure? What's wrong with straightening kinky hair? Again, AAs aren't the only ones with kinky hair.
Dasher: Let's meet somewhere in public and hug! We agree! We managed to do it through a hundred and something posts to the dismay of several lurkers who were twitching in their chairs hoping one or both of us would bust a gut and explode in a tirade of racial insensitivity. x:-) I won't suggest the thread should end. There is much to learn from each other, for all of the posters and bystanders.
Thank you, Don. Here is a hug for you! Anyone waiting for a tirade would have waited in vain, for I have to much respect for your HR knowledge and significant contributions to this forum to have participated in that. Yes, this thread is long but I kept on plugging because ALL of the posters seemed genuinely sincere in the positions they were taking and refused to give in to closed minds. It is not necessary to change your mind -- just be willing to allow others to share their mind. Yes, these things can be an emotional roller coaster -- but this thread has been one of the best exchanges ever. Thank you one and all.
Comments
Having said all of that: I still disagree with one point you continue to make. (BTW I could probably be persuaded otherwise) Dreadlocks are not natural. Natural conjurs up unwhashed uncombed hair that is ratty - ratty enough to be forming knots that are euphamistically called locks. It is the unwashed, uncombed, knotty, tangly mess that most of the forumites posted as an association they make with being unprofessional and unacceptable for work. It would be the same as an ee coming in to work with wrinkled unwashed clothes, and unwashed body in it "natural" state. That is unacceptable business attire.
The dreadlocks that you describe- yes are clean and you can shampoo them regulary - but - you still have to wax them, twist them, and back comb them to achieve the results. Heck, I think it might take you longer to "do" your hair than it does me to blow dry and curl mine - and I don't consider my hair is in its "natural state". I consider it to be necessary to present a business appearance at work.
Can dreadlocks become business mainstream? They probably can.
>probably can.
The slippery slope here is that by the time that happens, the trend will move on to something else, and so we are right back to square one. The only point of view that makes any practical sense is that the "right" of businesses to establish reasonable grooming codes trumps the "right" of individuals to wear a particular hair style.
I did a quick search and found a couple of court cases involving dreadlocks that were decided in favor of the employer. However, they were law enforcement-type employees and I could easily see a court (especially here in sunny Cali) deciding for an employee.
It's not a clear-cut situation, which is obvious by the amount of discussion it has generated.
Dasher and Don,
Let me thank you both for your views. Both of you have taken direct hits and remained focused. I would hope that this post has made all us Forunites stop and think about our roles with in our organizations. Healthy debate is the foundation of the country we live in.
It's apparent to me that there are two issues. One is an employers right to set grooming standards, the other is the impact on a group of people adversely affected by this policy. Both sides have been eloquently articulated here.
While I don't believe the answer is a slam dunk either way, I do believe that Companies have a right to set acceptable standards and an obligation to ensure that policies and procedures do not have a disparate impact on a group of people. If CEO's cant see it, that is where HR has to be the vocal partner.
All of us need to quit hitting the snooze button and acknowledge unique differences, not just the status quo.
With that said I'm buttoning my bullet proof vest and waiting for the incoming...
>people adversely affected by this policy."
I liked your entry and your presentation.
In reply to the quote, there is no group of people adversely affected by the policy. If you think so, what group? And yes, if CEO's can't see when a policy may infringe on an employee's or applicant's right, HR acts as the employee advocate. Advocacy does not mean that we march against the establishment like a union stewart.
I acknowledge that there is a trend with young white teenagers rebelling with locks, but this is rare and done to make a statement. (All you former hippies should be able to relate- this is the replacement to long hair.) It can also be a statement about their lifestyle, unconventional non-conforming etc. Locked hair is not a natural state for anglo's. This typically looks like what Don described as dirty socks hanging from the head.
I didn't ask for a march, but sometimes it takes a march to get companies and individuals to recognize that they may be treating African Americans differently based on whether or not they adopt to the accepted "white" norm of straight short hair.
This is another example where we as visionary HR professionals should be leading the discussion. It only takes one voice to make a difference-
Enforce it or change it.
Annie
I'm not sure if you benefitted from one of our colleague's research, posted above, but I've taken the liberty of pasting a piece of it here, as follows, "I did a lot of reasearch - found out that dreadlocks are common to Celtics, (Ceasar describes the Celts and having "hair like snakes")Asians, Egyptions, King Tut, and Indians as well as Jamaicans and African Americans. So, I have concluded (based on research!) that dreadlocks are not a unique to blacks or AA. I don't understand why AA claim dreadlocks as their own and therefore if an employer wants to ban dreadlocks they must be prejudiced?" end of quote.
If we are to accept that as accurate research, which I do, and based on my several mentionings about whites I have worked with who insist on the 'dirty sock hair tube' style, then I do not accept your premise that this is something a white employer needs to learn to live with and become sensitive to. By the way, these white guys with the sock heads (snake hair as Dasher called it, I think) were not kids and not trendy. They were at least 30 years old and the owner of the company was a Chinaman and the Vice President over Engineering and Production was from India. both of them despised the hair 'styles'. So it had nothing, nothing to do with persecution of an African American birthright. Nor do I buy the thought that this is an easier hairstyle to have because of the way one was born. From what we are told and observe, it is extremely difficult and time intensive. So, that theory as well, goes by the wayside.
As I asked almost a hundred posts back, "Let's assume the writer of this policy is a black woman or a Jamaican man".
I have been in Human Resources for 35 years, and with the exception of the first several, when I was an employment counselor, I never perceived my role to include enacting social change or remolding the legally held thought processes of the executives I worked for. But I do certainly appreciate your opinion and your input. x:-)
There are several websites about the natural (absence of straightening chemicals) hair experience, and when I first decided to no longer straighten my hair, I would often go to them for knowledge, encouragement and yes, comfort. Reverting back to unprocessed hair is a real journey and not easy to relate to others who may quite honestly not understand the hidden issues involved. Confronting them is difficult, but when you come to the other side --it is worth it.
Researching the wearing of locks by others is fine, but to be forthright about it, the company in the original post banned them because Black employees were wearing a style they found to be unacceptable. (Also note that the ban appears to apply only to the Bellmen and Valet staff). Failing to control the style, the company then changed the rules to mandate certain other qualifications (close to the scalp, not beneath the collar, no beads). And while some have indicated that the employees were at "fault" because they knew the policy, please note that the original poster stated that two workers changed to the style after employment and only one gave tacit indication prior to taking the job that he would change the hairstyle.
You may not like locks or braids and I may not like stringy or greasy looking hair -- but to ban either is not addressing the real issues and/or enforcing an appearance standard.
>us (speaking of Western society in particular)
>are programmed to prefer straight or loosely
>curled hair and to consider nappy hair
>unattractive.
Talk about stereotyping. :oo
My position remains that banning braids and locks targets Blacks with natural (as in not chemically straightened) hair, and does not properly address a grooming issue which may be present.
I seldom see discrimination where it does not exist because I work hard at it. However, to fail to see it where it does exist is detrimental to my emotional health.
>"My position remains that banning braids and
>locks targets Blacks with natural (as in not
>chemically straightened) hair, and does not
>properly address a grooming issue which may be
>present."
>
>
Try to look at it this way. What if Blacks didn't do anything with their hair? What would it look like? Probably not groomed. So they would have to groom it somehow. So why groom it in locks? That's a choice.
What if white blondes didn't do anything with their hair. What would it look like? Probably not groomed. So they would have to groom it somehow. So why groom it in locks?
The employer doesn't like it. The employer DOESN'T LIKE IT.
Why doesn't the employer like locks or braids? What is wrong with them?
Try to separate out what some may consider a valid grooming issue -- address that. Now, if it is something else -- it may be discrimination and we have laws that address that.
You may think I am hardheaded and not listening to you, but I am. Why not answer your own question -- why not groom it in locks?
And I too would like to clarify something you hinted at and that is that straight and stringy and greasy hair is not the sole birthright of any sex, race or skin hue. I suppose any of us might have it if we don't do something about it. Stringy and greasy hair, in my opinion, is by no means the natural opposite of nappy hair.
cheers and x:-)
Don, we agree!!! And that is EXACTLY my point.
BTW I am very glad that when I do alter my hairstyle and have had some plastic surgery that I don't have the burden of agonizing over whether or not I am changing my etnicity! I think the AA population puts way too much burden on those that do, simply want to look what they think is their best. Does any other race face such self imposed pressure? What's wrong with straightening kinky hair? Again, AAs aren't the only ones with kinky hair.
Anyone waiting for a tirade would have waited in vain, for I have to much respect for your HR knowledge and significant contributions to this forum to have participated in that. Yes, this thread is long but I kept on plugging because ALL of the posters seemed genuinely sincere in the positions they were taking and refused to give in to closed minds. It is not necessary to change your mind -- just be willing to allow others to share their mind. Yes, these things can be an emotional roller coaster -- but this thread has been one of the best exchanges ever. Thank you one and all.