6 ms·

Are Dreadlocks Unprofessional?

12 points by mjh8136 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago
This company is stupid x2 for wading into this: first, because it's easy to claim that refusing a dark-skinned candidate a job over dreads is a proxy for racial discrimination, and second because hair length is a genuine issue for major world religions, like Sikhs. Both are called out specifically by the Civil Rights Act. We work in some of the most button-down corporate environments imaginable with people who wear dreads. It will not be hard for Woodson's lawyers to find examples of other companies dealing with this issue. It's hard to even see a controversy here. Sorry, you don't get to not hire someone because they wear dreads.
- gaius 16y ago
  It's not as simple as that. For example, religious freedom laws don't allow Rastas to smoke ganja, nor Sikhs to carry their swords onto planes.
  - cryptoz 16y ago
    Smoking plants and carrying weapons represent health and safety concerns for the people surrounding them. Dreadlocks do not. There's a huge difference. Don't even pretend that carrying a weapon is similar to having a certain hair style.
    - VladRussian 16y ago
      >Smoking plants and carrying weapons represent health and safety concerns for the people surrounding them. you do believe that the government's caring about your health is the reason why ganja is outlawed?
      - tptacek 16y ago
        I hope I speak for all of us when I say that this is not a discussion we can productively have on HN. The "dreads" issue is at least marginally interesting to HN, if only to send loud-and-clear the message of "DON'T MENTION SOMEONE'S HAIR AS A HIRING CRITERIA".
        riffic 16y ago
        yeah it went so well the last time it happened; keep ridiculing. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1641042 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1641042
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - cryptoz 16y ago
        That's totally off-topic. It's illegal to smoke tobacco in most workplaces in North America. I don't care if the plant itself is illegal. That's totally irrelevant. The point is, if you go to work and smoke tobacco at work you'll be fired instantly. The reason for this is that your second-hand smoke causes cancer in other people. That's a safety concern. Even if ganja were legal, smoking it at work would still not be legal. This whole comparison is absurd.
    - gaius 16y ago
      The article says it's for reasons of hygiene, coming into close contact with people.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        In other words, "people who practice Rastafarianism are usually not hygienic; just look at their hair". You can see how this isn't going to play well for them in court.
        gaius 16y ago
        I've many friends with dreads and with the best will in the world, something you wash every few months if that, doesn't meet normally accepted standards of hygiene. That's true of whites with dreads as well, so it's not racist.
        tptacek 16y ago
        Having a standard that says "employee hair must be clean, neatly arranged, and safe for physical work" would probably have been fine. That's not what happened here. This candidate offered to conceal his hair and was told he had to cut it. I have friends and professional colleagues with dreads and will tell you that none of them are unhygienic. Is it harder for them to keep their hair clean than it is for me? I don't know, because that's none of my business.
        gaius 16y ago
        If you were managing, say, a catering business, then it would be your job to know.
        tptacek 16y ago
        If you were managing, say, a high-end restaurant kitchen, you might end up on ICA and judging Top Chef despite your dreads: http://www.worldhum.com/travel-blog/item/interview-govind-armstrong-39090429/ http://www.worldhum.com/travel-blog/item/interview-govind-ar... You're just not going to get anywhere with this argument. There's nothing inherently wrong with dreadlocks.
  - run4yourlives 16y ago
    Actually, Sikhs can carry the Kirpan in most public places in both Canada and the US. You are correct though that an aircraft is not one of these places.
  - spot 16y ago
    But they do allow you to do DMT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._O_Centro_Espirita_Beneficente_Uniao_do_Vegetal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._O_Centro_Espirita_B...
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I think you are probably right, but I believe there is an exception for safety issues. For example, a machine shop can require you to get a crew cut and wear tight clothing regardless of your religion. Religious tolerance doesn't mean you have the right to wrap your dreads around a lathe. That said, I don't think moving furniture falls into that category.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Machine shops everywhere already have safety practices for long hair: you tie your hair, wear it up, and cover it with a helmet.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      You may be right about that particular safety procedure. I work behind a desk so I won't comment on how to stay safe around machinery. But I stand by my statement that safety does overrule religion - I thought of that particular example because it is analogous to a case I read about a while back where a Muslim woman was not permitted to work in a machine shop due to her loose clothing. I'll see if I can dig it up. Similarly, I don't think a Sikh MRI operator could carry a Kirpan. [edit: My bad, it was a print shop, not a machine shop. http://www.judicialview.com/Court-Cases/Employment/Judgment-for-Kelly-Services-on-Muslim-Discrimination-Claim/22/10444 http://www.judicialview.com/Court-Cases/Employment/Judgment-... ]
- kaptainlange 16y ago
  Am I the only one who thinks this situation is a good example where discrimination laws are not serving their intended purpose? A company should be able to set a policy regarding grooming and/or dress. The part that I find shittiest about this situation is that the company would have been better just rejecting him outright. Instead they said they would hire him if he agreed to cut his hair to their wishes. Now there's a lawsuit. How is that beneficial for anyone? Why can't two individuals have an honest negotiation about what it is they want from each other? > Sorry, you don't get to not hire someone because they wear dreads. Why not? Why is that something you shouldn't be able to do with your own business.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Because having long hair in no way affects a candidate's ability to do this (or virtually any) job, and just the notion that dreadlocks project an unprofessional image is itself a form of discrimination: it's companies using job openings to subtly but overtly make it that much harder to practice a particular religion. Unlike you, I see this as a great example of Civil Rights law having its intended effect. If you believe that businesses should simply be allowed to set their own standards, then maybe they should be allowed to require men to be clean-shaven; maybe they should be allowed to require women to wear skirts; maybe they should be allowed to prefer men for certain positions (security guards? shift supervisors?). You can construct a business justification for nearly any form of discrimination, and, of course, you can construct a personal freedom justification for all discrimination. Fortunately or not, this has been a settled issue in the US since 1964. If you have a policy that would prevent a Sikh from working for you (which this policy would), you're going to lose in court.
    - kaptainlange 16y ago
      The best course of action for this company would have been to just say no we're not going to hire you. How is that beneficial for the employer or the potential employee? > Because having long hair in no way affects a candidate's ability to do this (or virtually any) job But it does affect how the company is perceived, and that's not a result of the company but the people who use it. I don't have a problem with dreadlocks, but I honestly understand why someone might be a little weary of hiring someone to come into their home and move all their stuff if they look radically different to them. > then maybe they should be allowed to require men to be clean-shaven; Yes. > maybe they should be allowed to require women to wear skirts; Yes. You should be able to define the uniform you wish your employees to wear. > maybe they should be allowed to prefer men for certain positions Yes. You should also be allowed to prefer women for certain positions. Here's what I don't get. One, you don't have to be hired. You're not entitled to every job you apply for. You're also not entitled to the job you have. Two, certain requirements, such as shaving or your hair style are things that you can change. Perhaps that conflicts with your religion, but that's something you have to deal with. That's your decision. You can still be a Rastafarian and not have dreadlocks, be Muslim and not wear a hijab, and be a Christian and work on Sunday. At what point do you stop accommodating irrationally held religious beliefs and start treating people as if they are adults responsible for their own decisions? Three, employers are responsible for who they hire. If they don't feel comfortable having that person represent their company, they should be able to not hire them. These laws remove some of that responsibility, but still place all the blame for the actions of that individual with the company.
MrFlibble 16y ago
Totally situational. The guy is a mover, not a heart surgeon. I certainly think that as the "stuffy old guy" generation of management is slowly replaced with the "hip younger guy/girl" generation, more interesting/unusual styles will likely become more frequently acceptable. Still, it is situation and industry dependent. When I worked in radio I had an orange mohawk for a while. Nobody cared. When I was an on-set medic however that would not have been ok. It is sometimes a rather thin line between an individual's beliefs, style or values being impinged upon vs. a common professional expectation of conduct/appearance.
- tptacek 16y ago
  It is probably not situational when the candidate offers to conceal his hair on the job, and you in effect respond by saying "cut your hair or no deal". Even police departments have had to back down and allow Sikhs to wear turbans.
tomafro 16y ago
The two ads I had to click to hide and the sharing toolbar on inc.com are all more objectionable than dreadlocks. As tptacek has written, is there even a controversy here?
nlanier 16y ago
In all honestly I would think they might be an occupational hazard for someone working as a mover, no?
- VladRussian 16y ago
  there are couple of situation where long hair would be funny, not for long though - in a machine shop or inside moving tank with main caliber gun auto-stabilizing targeting system on - even untied headphone wires would on several occassions pull the head in
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Tons of people with long hair work in machine shops. In fact, it's possible that more people with long hair work in machine shops than other professions, statistically, because of the socioeconomic signifiers of long hair on caucasian men (there are far more long-haired white men than there are rastas and sikhs).
- robotron 16y ago
  I have fairly long dreadlocks. My job is at a desk but I have done my share of moving, carpentry, welding etc outside of my job. He just needs to keep his dreadlocks tied back, covered or whatever to keep them out of the way and from getting snagged. They are no more or less dangerous than anyone else with long hair - except they get caught on velcro a little easier.
VladRussian 16y ago
what is bothering me in all such cases is the emphasis of the religious grounds for the things like long hair. It sounds like a guy insisting on long hair because of religion would have more "right" for it than one who'd just happen to prefer his hair long. Why such preferential treatment of religion?
- joshuacc 16y ago
  "It sounds like a guy insisting on long hair because of religion would have more "right" for it than one who'd just happen to prefer his hair long." That is correct. For instance, during Prohibition in the United States, use of wine in communion services was permitted, despite its illegality elsewhere. Basically, society has judged that deeply held religious beliefs are more worthy of protection than mere personal preferences.
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    >Basically, society has judged that deeply held religious beliefs are more worthy of protection than mere personal preferences. Sounds like a deep religious belief which have no written support in the current laws or the Constitution of USA. Of course there are successful cases of lobbying for a privilege like the one you mentioned - an especially funny one considering that the churches were the main driving force behind the Prohibition, yet carved out an exception for themselves.
    - joshuacc 16y ago
      "Sounds like a deep religious belief which have no written support in the current laws or the Constitution of USA." Actually, the US Constitution prevents the government from establishing an official religion or from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Federal law extends this protection of religion into the commercial sphere by preventing employers from discriminating on the basis of religion (unless it is a religious organization, or the employee's religion would somehow interfere with the job). "an especially funny one considering that the churches were the main driving force behind the Prohibition, yet carved out an exception for themselves." Prohibition is an interesting case, as it was actually one religious group (low-church Protestants) lobbying for it over the objections of another (Catholics and some high-church Protestants).
cullenking 16y ago
It depends on how smelly they are. Hopefully this is not considered a trolling comment, but, in all seriousness some dreadlocks reek and some don't. It depends on how long they have been in, how they were formed and the persons individual preference on how they maintain them. It also depends on the job - a company hiring in house legal representation who may end up in court eventually shouldn't be criticized for wanting a "cleaner image" in the court room. Someone hiring a programmer? Who cares...
- tptacek 16y ago
  You see how "wanting a cleaner image in the court room" here has a societal impact on Sikhs and Muslims, right? A well cared-for beard or hairstyle is not "unclean" simply because it doesn't match how Europeans wear their hair. This is almost case-in-point for why you don't want employers having the right to dictate hairstyles.
  - cullenking 16y ago
    I agree with your point, and don't personally accept the given definition of a "clean image", which is why I quoted it. I am just addressing the fact that decisions can easily ride on the appearance of an individual. To extend the lawyer analogy, imagine you are in court defending yourself from some criminal accusation. If you had to pick your lawyer between two identically skilled individuals, and one had dreads to his waste and the other was a "clean cut" individual, which would you choose? I have no desire for a corporation able to define anything about my style or individuality, however, it happens regularly. It's one of the many reasons I work for myself.
haasted 16y ago
Is this really an issue? The applicant seems to be "in violation" of an established, company policy of stating "that hair, facial hair, beards and general grooming must be neat, clean and trimmed". He was obviously not rejected due to his religion, but due to not adhering (or wanting to adhere to) a policy that was in place prior to his application. Note: I have absolutely no objection people having dreads, and would have no trouble with colleagues having it. I merely believe that a company should have a freedom to say "no thanks" to applicants not wanting to fit in the existing rule framework. Also, it ticks me off slightly that he uses religion as a way to gain sympathy for his complaint.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Require his dreads to be neat and clean, then move on. You can no more dictate hairstyle than you can dictate that men be clean-shaven; whether or not it's your established "rule framework", it's going to get you sued by the first litigious Muslim candidate you reject, and rightly so: modulo hygiene, employee hairstyles are none of your business.
dbrannan 16y ago
I would say going through the process of building up your dreadlocks is what makes them appear unprofessional. http://www.dreadlocks.us/dreadlocks-faq.html http://www.dreadlocks.us/dreadlocks-faq.html
chegra 16y ago
Ok, Did their lawyers tell them to write that. First of all a Rasta can't cut his hear, Nazarite vow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite This is something that some Rastafarian take very seriously. If you did cut your hair depending on where you live and what the Rastafarian believe there, it could result in a leg or hand being forcefully amputated. So seeing that statement by the employer makes it seem they are ignorant of the religion. And, somehow they think a little hair off the head wouldn't hurt. At this point if I was the lawyer, I would look to settle.

12 points by mjh8136 16y ago

This company is stupid x2 for wading into this: first, because it's easy to claim that refusing a dark-skinned candidate a job over dreads is a proxy for racial discrimination, and second because hair length is a genuine issue for major world religions, like Sikhs. Both are called out specifically by the Civil Rights Act. We work in some of the most button-down corporate environments imaginable with people who wear dreads. It will not be hard for Woodson's lawyers to find examples of other companies dealing with this issue. It's hard to even see a controversy here. Sorry, you don't get to not hire someone because they wear dreads.

gaius 16y ago
It's not as simple as that. For example, religious freedom laws don't allow Rastas to smoke ganja, nor Sikhs to carry their swords onto planes.
- cryptoz 16y ago
  Smoking plants and carrying weapons represent health and safety concerns for the people surrounding them. Dreadlocks do not. There's a huge difference. Don't even pretend that carrying a weapon is similar to having a certain hair style.
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    >Smoking plants and carrying weapons represent health and safety concerns for the people surrounding them. you do believe that the government's caring about your health is the reason why ganja is outlawed?
    - tptacek 16y ago
      I hope I speak for all of us when I say that this is not a discussion we can productively have on HN. The "dreads" issue is at least marginally interesting to HN, if only to send loud-and-clear the message of "DON'T MENTION SOMEONE'S HAIR AS A HIRING CRITERIA".
      - riffic 16y ago
        yeah it went so well the last time it happened; keep ridiculing. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1641042 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1641042
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - cryptoz 16y ago
      That's totally off-topic. It's illegal to smoke tobacco in most workplaces in North America. I don't care if the plant itself is illegal. That's totally irrelevant. The point is, if you go to work and smoke tobacco at work you'll be fired instantly. The reason for this is that your second-hand smoke causes cancer in other people. That's a safety concern. Even if ganja were legal, smoking it at work would still not be legal. This whole comparison is absurd.
  - gaius 16y ago
    The article says it's for reasons of hygiene, coming into close contact with people.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      In other words, "people who practice Rastafarianism are usually not hygienic; just look at their hair". You can see how this isn't going to play well for them in court.
      - gaius 16y ago
        I've many friends with dreads and with the best will in the world, something you wash every few months if that, doesn't meet normally accepted standards of hygiene. That's true of whites with dreads as well, so it's not racist.
        tptacek 16y ago
        Having a standard that says "employee hair must be clean, neatly arranged, and safe for physical work" would probably have been fine. That's not what happened here. This candidate offered to conceal his hair and was told he had to cut it. I have friends and professional colleagues with dreads and will tell you that none of them are unhygienic. Is it harder for them to keep their hair clean than it is for me? I don't know, because that's none of my business.
        gaius 16y ago
        If you were managing, say, a catering business, then it would be your job to know.
        tptacek 16y ago
        If you were managing, say, a high-end restaurant kitchen, you might end up on ICA and judging Top Chef despite your dreads: http://www.worldhum.com/travel-blog/item/interview-govind-armstrong-39090429/ http://www.worldhum.com/travel-blog/item/interview-govind-ar... You're just not going to get anywhere with this argument. There's nothing inherently wrong with dreadlocks.
- run4yourlives 16y ago
  Actually, Sikhs can carry the Kirpan in most public places in both Canada and the US. You are correct though that an aircraft is not one of these places.
- spot 16y ago
  But they do allow you to do DMT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._O_Centro_Espirita_Beneficente_Uniao_do_Vegetal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._O_Centro_Espirita_B...
yummyfajitas 16y ago
I think you are probably right, but I believe there is an exception for safety issues. For example, a machine shop can require you to get a crew cut and wear tight clothing regardless of your religion. Religious tolerance doesn't mean you have the right to wrap your dreads around a lathe. That said, I don't think moving furniture falls into that category.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Machine shops everywhere already have safety practices for long hair: you tie your hair, wear it up, and cover it with a helmet.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    You may be right about that particular safety procedure. I work behind a desk so I won't comment on how to stay safe around machinery. But I stand by my statement that safety does overrule religion - I thought of that particular example because it is analogous to a case I read about a while back where a Muslim woman was not permitted to work in a machine shop due to her loose clothing. I'll see if I can dig it up. Similarly, I don't think a Sikh MRI operator could carry a Kirpan. [edit: My bad, it was a print shop, not a machine shop. http://www.judicialview.com/Court-Cases/Employment/Judgment-for-Kelly-Services-on-Muslim-Discrimination-Claim/22/10444 http://www.judicialview.com/Court-Cases/Employment/Judgment-... ]
kaptainlange 16y ago
Am I the only one who thinks this situation is a good example where discrimination laws are not serving their intended purpose? A company should be able to set a policy regarding grooming and/or dress. The part that I find shittiest about this situation is that the company would have been better just rejecting him outright. Instead they said they would hire him if he agreed to cut his hair to their wishes. Now there's a lawsuit. How is that beneficial for anyone? Why can't two individuals have an honest negotiation about what it is they want from each other? > Sorry, you don't get to not hire someone because they wear dreads. Why not? Why is that something you shouldn't be able to do with your own business.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Because having long hair in no way affects a candidate's ability to do this (or virtually any) job, and just the notion that dreadlocks project an unprofessional image is itself a form of discrimination: it's companies using job openings to subtly but overtly make it that much harder to practice a particular religion. Unlike you, I see this as a great example of Civil Rights law having its intended effect. If you believe that businesses should simply be allowed to set their own standards, then maybe they should be allowed to require men to be clean-shaven; maybe they should be allowed to require women to wear skirts; maybe they should be allowed to prefer men for certain positions (security guards? shift supervisors?). You can construct a business justification for nearly any form of discrimination, and, of course, you can construct a personal freedom justification for all discrimination. Fortunately or not, this has been a settled issue in the US since 1964. If you have a policy that would prevent a Sikh from working for you (which this policy would), you're going to lose in court.
  - kaptainlange 16y ago
    The best course of action for this company would have been to just say no we're not going to hire you. How is that beneficial for the employer or the potential employee? > Because having long hair in no way affects a candidate's ability to do this (or virtually any) job But it does affect how the company is perceived, and that's not a result of the company but the people who use it. I don't have a problem with dreadlocks, but I honestly understand why someone might be a little weary of hiring someone to come into their home and move all their stuff if they look radically different to them. > then maybe they should be allowed to require men to be clean-shaven; Yes. > maybe they should be allowed to require women to wear skirts; Yes. You should be able to define the uniform you wish your employees to wear. > maybe they should be allowed to prefer men for certain positions Yes. You should also be allowed to prefer women for certain positions. Here's what I don't get. One, you don't have to be hired. You're not entitled to every job you apply for. You're also not entitled to the job you have. Two, certain requirements, such as shaving or your hair style are things that you can change. Perhaps that conflicts with your religion, but that's something you have to deal with. That's your decision. You can still be a Rastafarian and not have dreadlocks, be Muslim and not wear a hijab, and be a Christian and work on Sunday. At what point do you stop accommodating irrationally held religious beliefs and start treating people as if they are adults responsible for their own decisions? Three, employers are responsible for who they hire. If they don't feel comfortable having that person represent their company, they should be able to not hire them. These laws remove some of that responsibility, but still place all the blame for the actions of that individual with the company.

MrFlibble 16y ago

Totally situational. The guy is a mover, not a heart surgeon. I certainly think that as the "stuffy old guy" generation of management is slowly replaced with the "hip younger guy/girl" generation, more interesting/unusual styles will likely become more frequently acceptable. Still, it is situation and industry dependent. When I worked in radio I had an orange mohawk for a while. Nobody cared. When I was an on-set medic however that would not have been ok. It is sometimes a rather thin line between an individual's beliefs, style or values being impinged upon vs. a common professional expectation of conduct/appearance.

tptacek 16y ago
It is probably not situational when the candidate offers to conceal his hair on the job, and you in effect respond by saying "cut your hair or no deal". Even police departments have had to back down and allow Sikhs to wear turbans.

tomafro 16y ago

The two ads I had to click to hide and the sharing toolbar on inc.com are all more objectionable than dreadlocks. As tptacek has written, is there even a controversy here?

nlanier 16y ago

In all honestly I would think they might be an occupational hazard for someone working as a mover, no?

VladRussian 16y ago
there are couple of situation where long hair would be funny, not for long though - in a machine shop or inside moving tank with main caliber gun auto-stabilizing targeting system on - even untied headphone wires would on several occassions pull the head in
- tptacek 16y ago
  Tons of people with long hair work in machine shops. In fact, it's possible that more people with long hair work in machine shops than other professions, statistically, because of the socioeconomic signifiers of long hair on caucasian men (there are far more long-haired white men than there are rastas and sikhs).
robotron 16y ago
I have fairly long dreadlocks. My job is at a desk but I have done my share of moving, carpentry, welding etc outside of my job. He just needs to keep his dreadlocks tied back, covered or whatever to keep them out of the way and from getting snagged. They are no more or less dangerous than anyone else with long hair - except they get caught on velcro a little easier.

VladRussian 16y ago

what is bothering me in all such cases is the emphasis of the religious grounds for the things like long hair. It sounds like a guy insisting on long hair because of religion would have more "right" for it than one who'd just happen to prefer his hair long. Why such preferential treatment of religion?

joshuacc 16y ago
"It sounds like a guy insisting on long hair because of religion would have more "right" for it than one who'd just happen to prefer his hair long." That is correct. For instance, during Prohibition in the United States, use of wine in communion services was permitted, despite its illegality elsewhere. Basically, society has judged that deeply held religious beliefs are more worthy of protection than mere personal preferences.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >Basically, society has judged that deeply held religious beliefs are more worthy of protection than mere personal preferences. Sounds like a deep religious belief which have no written support in the current laws or the Constitution of USA. Of course there are successful cases of lobbying for a privilege like the one you mentioned - an especially funny one considering that the churches were the main driving force behind the Prohibition, yet carved out an exception for themselves.
  - joshuacc 16y ago
    "Sounds like a deep religious belief which have no written support in the current laws or the Constitution of USA." Actually, the US Constitution prevents the government from establishing an official religion or from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Federal law extends this protection of religion into the commercial sphere by preventing employers from discriminating on the basis of religion (unless it is a religious organization, or the employee's religion would somehow interfere with the job). "an especially funny one considering that the churches were the main driving force behind the Prohibition, yet carved out an exception for themselves." Prohibition is an interesting case, as it was actually one religious group (low-church Protestants) lobbying for it over the objections of another (Catholics and some high-church Protestants).

cullenking 16y ago

It depends on how smelly they are. Hopefully this is not considered a trolling comment, but, in all seriousness some dreadlocks reek and some don't. It depends on how long they have been in, how they were formed and the persons individual preference on how they maintain them. It also depends on the job - a company hiring in house legal representation who may end up in court eventually shouldn't be criticized for wanting a "cleaner image" in the court room. Someone hiring a programmer? Who cares...

tptacek 16y ago
You see how "wanting a cleaner image in the court room" here has a societal impact on Sikhs and Muslims, right? A well cared-for beard or hairstyle is not "unclean" simply because it doesn't match how Europeans wear their hair. This is almost case-in-point for why you don't want employers having the right to dictate hairstyles.
- cullenking 16y ago
  I agree with your point, and don't personally accept the given definition of a "clean image", which is why I quoted it. I am just addressing the fact that decisions can easily ride on the appearance of an individual. To extend the lawyer analogy, imagine you are in court defending yourself from some criminal accusation. If you had to pick your lawyer between two identically skilled individuals, and one had dreads to his waste and the other was a "clean cut" individual, which would you choose? I have no desire for a corporation able to define anything about my style or individuality, however, it happens regularly. It's one of the many reasons I work for myself.

haasted 16y ago

Is this really an issue? The applicant seems to be "in violation" of an established, company policy of stating "that hair, facial hair, beards and general grooming must be neat, clean and trimmed". He was obviously not rejected due to his religion, but due to not adhering (or wanting to adhere to) a policy that was in place prior to his application. Note: I have absolutely no objection people having dreads, and would have no trouble with colleagues having it. I merely believe that a company should have a freedom to say "no thanks" to applicants not wanting to fit in the existing rule framework. Also, it ticks me off slightly that he uses religion as a way to gain sympathy for his complaint.

tptacek 16y ago
Require his dreads to be neat and clean, then move on. You can no more dictate hairstyle than you can dictate that men be clean-shaven; whether or not it's your established "rule framework", it's going to get you sued by the first litigious Muslim candidate you reject, and rightly so: modulo hygiene, employee hairstyles are none of your business.

dbrannan 16y ago

I would say going through the process of building up your dreadlocks is what makes them appear unprofessional. http://www.dreadlocks.us/dreadlocks-faq.html http://www.dreadlocks.us/dreadlocks-faq.html

chegra 16y ago

Ok, Did their lawyers tell them to write that. First of all a Rasta can't cut his hear, Nazarite vow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite This is something that some Rastafarian take very seriously. If you did cut your hair depending on where you live and what the Rastafarian believe there, it could result in a leg or hand being forcefully amputated. So seeing that statement by the employer makes it seem they are ignorant of the religion. And, somehow they think a little hair off the head wouldn't hurt. At this point if I was the lawyer, I would look to settle.