

Are Dreadlocks Unprofessional? - mjh8136
http://www.inc.com/news/article/2010/10/virginia-company-sued-for-refusing-to-hire-man-with-dreadlocks.html

======
tptacek
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
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
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
>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
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
yeah it went so well the last time it happened; keep ridiculing.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1641042>

------
MrFlibble
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
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.

------
VladRussian
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
"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
>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
"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).

~~~
VladRussian
yes, the law prevents anybody from interfering into your personal religious
beliefs or from making various economic, social, political, etc... decisions
based on your religion. Ie. you're guaranteed to have the same rights as
anybody else. Nothing in the law guarantees you preferential treatment or more
rights just because of your religious beliefs or practice.

~~~
joshuacc
That's not the case. As a matter of law, actions undertaken for religious
reasons are more protected than actions undertaken for mere personal
preference. You may disagree with this approach, but that's a different
question.

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

~~~
VladRussian
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
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).

------
haasted
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
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.

------
chegra
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>

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.

------
dbrannan
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>

------
cullenking
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
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
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.

