U.S. Court Rules Dreadlock Ban During Hiring Process Is Legal

[belfpala]

I'm pretty sure it's legal to have a dress and grooming policy at a private business, so long as it's applied evenly.

White folks can have dreds too.

Of course, HR person should have mentioned the policy and asked if the candidate could comply.

[Garnier Fructis]

You have no evidence suggesting otherwise. All you've stated is that at some point they've made a choice. Regardless of it is choosing what to believe in, choosing to question what they believe in, or choosing to choose to question their choices. "Not much of a choice" is still a choice regardless of how minor or difficult that choice may be. One can never choose to alter their genetics and people are not born with specific beliefs already in mind.

Nobody is born with specific beliefs, but they do not get a choice in what beliefs are instilled in them as they grow. And the earlier the concept and the more important they think it to be, the harder it is to challenge.

This is confirmation bias, and it's a psychological effect that lots of people can't simply choose to override, which implies that they can't simply choose to challenge their ideas.

When people are presented with information that challenges their skepticism on climate change, many will actually become more skeptical. It's not that they want to be contrarian and are choosing to ignore counter-evidence; they don't even acknowledge it is valid evidence in the first place. It's psychological, not intentional.

This is why religion isn't a simple choice, and why it forms such a core part of people's identities. And if the goal is to reduce the negative effects of religion on society, then this is also why taking away the protected status of religion is about the dumbest possible thing we could do.

[Sunseeker]

Nobody is born with specific beliefs, but they do not get a choice in what beliefs are instilled in them as they grow. And the earlier the concept and the more important they think it to be, the harder it is to challenge.

A wonderful argument against allowing parents to brainwash their children by forcing people who are unable, or simply don't know how to make important decisions to make life-altering decisions.

This is confirmation bias, and it's a psychological effect that lots of people can't simply choose to override, which implies that they can't simply choose to challenge their ideas.

No, confirmation bias is believing things you agree with to be true, or more likely to be true. Confirmation bias isn't an inability to challenge the beliefs you hold, it's an unwillingness to consider ideas that run counter to what you already believe. There is a conscious choice here. Confirmation bias is at best about a lack of desire, not a lack of capacity. Many very competent, very intelligent, very educated people have very strong confirmation biases. These people clearly do not lack decision making capability, they simply choose not to apply it to certain subjects.

See the running theme? Choice.

When people are presented with information that challenges their skepticism on climate change, many will actually become more skeptical. It's not that they want to be contrarian and are choosing to ignore counter-evidence; they don't even acknowledge it is valid evidence in the first place. It's psychological, not intentional.

But not biological. It's simply a matter of trained response. No different than Pavlov's famous dogs. If you are suggesting that the religious are no more intelligent than dogs, you're not helping their case.

This is why religion isn't a simple choice, and why it forms such a core part of people's identities. And if the goal is to reduce the negative effects of religion on society, then this is also why taking away the protected status of religion is about the dumbest possible thing we could do.

Simple or complex it remains a choice. Taking away protected status of beliefs is one of many steps needed to reduce the excessive religiosity of the USA.

[Garnier Fructis]

A wonderful argument against allowing parents to brainwash their children by forcing people who are unable, or simply don't know how to make important decisions to make life-altering decisions.

I don't disagree.

No, confirmation bias is believing things you agree with to be true, or more likely to be true. Confirmation bias isn't an inability to challenge the beliefs you hold, it's an unwillingness to consider ideas that run counter to what you already believe. There is a conscious choice here. Confirmation bias is at best about a lack of desire, not a lack of capacity. Many very competent, very intelligent, very educated people have very strong confirmation biases. These people clearly do not lack decision making capability, they simply choose not to apply it to certain subjects.

No, confirmation bias is not something people choose to do. It's unconscious. Nobody wants to think illogically or commit logical errors, otherwise we've converted everyone whose poor at logical deduction into malicious people. Decision making capability is not a binary thing, if otherwise intelligent people recognized that they were thinking illogically by 'choosing' to confirm their biases, they wouldn't do it.

But not biological. It's simply a matter of trained response. No different than Pavlov's famous dogs. If you are suggesting that the religious are no more intelligent than dogs, you're not helping their case.

Simple or complex it remains a choice. Taking away protected status of beliefs is one of many steps needed to reduce the excessive religiosity of the USA.

It doesn't matter that it's not biological. Psychological effects and barriers are just as real. And you're ignoring another psychological effect by suggesting we remove protected status, which is that perceived attacks on core beliefs tend to reinforce those beliefs. This is the underlying theme of science denial and the increasing partisanship of politics, and it's exactly why I labeled such a suggestion dumb.

Because when you're trying reduce the religiosity of the US, the last thing you want to do is an action that causes more religiosity. Which is what removing protected status will do. I'd rather not revive the Christian political right a second time.

[Fasc]

Simple or complex it remains a choice. Taking away protected status of beliefs is one of many steps needed to reduce the excessive religiosity of the USA.

You have fun with that effort, totally won't have the exact opposite effect at all. And never mind actual philosophical arguments for and against various religions in their entirety and more fundamentally basic questions like "Does God exist" and so forth... you'd be as successful at ruining religiosity in America with zero protections as you would trying to convince Texans their state isn't all that special.

Religion is a constitutionally protected concept. End of.
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/review...igious-freedom

Belief structures extend well beyond brick and mortar churches, various deities, rituals and rites, etc etc. You're operating heavily under the assumption that your belief structure is inherently superior to others, the exact thing the protections are there for in the first place, and as such religions/beliefs/rites that aren't yours should be done away with.

[Spunt]

People arguing religion isn't' a choice. Just wow. The lulz are real.

[Kalis]

HR departments are generally staffed by people deemed too anally retentive to work elsewhere in a company, even ranking below the pedants in accounts who won't sign off on expenses, but it comes to a new nadir for HR to discover some of them can't even formulate a generic response to being asked why an applicant didn't get a vacancy.


Dear HR,

Stop being morons.


Yours faithfully,

Everybody.

[DJ117]

At the company I work for, they have a ton of diversity, and I think it's refreshing seeing people being able to express themselves from their culture - and to bat I live in TEXASS' - so to explain this more: I don't see any issues wearing dreads at all, and I think it would make people feel more comfortable if the people they meet ALSO like dreadlocks.. Again, I work for 'that fruit company' - so it's a large company that cares about everyone, not just the bottom line

I feel sorry for you. You should move to San Francisco and live with your other crazy hipsters.

[Themius]

Glad that got overturned. Next they would be saying that having your pants hang below your ass is protected by civil rights. If you choose to present yourself in an unprofessional way, jobs should absolutely have every right to deny your application or reprimand you if you already work there.
Just like guys with facial hair/long hair, if you choose to keep your facial hair/long hair while applying for a job, the interviewer has every right to tell you that shaving and/or getting a haircut would be a requirement of the position. Same standard should be held for every applicant regardless of race/sex/religion.

What makes dreadlocks inheriently unprofessional?

- - - Updated - - -



Look at that woman, totally unprofessional, god that hair is terrible how can she wear drads and be professional it's impossible, no one can or will ever take a person seriously like that...

No, bitch needs to perm her hair, and straighten that'll be more acceptable.

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't hire someone with dreadlocks either.

Well then you're bieng foolish.

I think the reason people don't want to hire people with dreadlocks has plainly to do with not hiring people who has hair styles that are more common among black hair since essentially every other race has entirely different hair though you may find your odd white people with afro textured hair (but they're rare).

Braids, no, dreads, no, afros, typically no. What is acceptable on a black person's head seems to either be a short haircut for men, or a straightened look on women, everything else falls in the realm of "ooh we don't know about that now blackie maybe change your hair to look more... like mine!"

There is a clear issue with determing what's acceptable by straighter hair standards. Dreads aren't mohawks, they can (as above) be very reserved.

[Fasc]

What makes dreadlocks inheriently unprofessional?

They're inherently unprofessional in the same way men with too long of hair is considered inherently unprofessional, as well as long/scraggly beard styles, clothing that overly drapes, excessive jewelry, among a host of other things.

Dreads can be well groomed and maintained like any other style, but denying someone based upon "no dreads" is literally no different than denying someone for "no beards" and the excuse of "professionalism" is entirely up to the employer. It isn't an absurd fear of "blackie" but simple uniformity which is the prerogative of the employer. Hair isn't race.

EDIT: Beard styles, not bears. Bears kill people.

[Themius]

They're inherently unprofessional in the same way men with too long of hair is considered inherently unprofessional, as well as long/scraggly beard styles, clothing that overly drapes, excessive jewelry, among a host of other things.

Dreads can be well groomed and maintained like any other style, but denying someone based upon "no dreads" is literally no different than denying someone for "no beards" and the excuse of "professionalism" is entirely up to the employer. It isn't an absurd fear of "blackie" but simple uniformity which is the prerogative of the employer. Hair isn't race.

EDIT: Beard styles, not bears. Bears kill people.

I would say she looks professional.

Uniformity based on what.... the majority of this world has straighter hair, so it's uniformity based on a hair type most blacks do not have.

Hence why black women usually have hair like this:



instead of:





And the two above are only if their hair isn't as tightly coiled

[Kalis]

EDIT: Beard styles, not bears. Bears kill people.

And how many people has Winnie killed? Or Paddington? Or Rupert? Or Fozzie? Or Yogi? None, that is how many.

You're just an arkoudaphobe. #NotAllBears

[Fasc]

I would say she looks professional.

Then you, as the employer, can hire them. Otherwise you don't really have a say whatsoever as there is no legal standard of "professionalism" that must be adhered to should an employer use it as a criterion for hiring. That's the point... it really has zero bearing on YOUR opinion of professionalism regardless of how clean or unkempt X hairstyle is.

- - - Updated - - -

And how many people has Winnie killed? Or Paddington? Or Rupert? Or Fozzie? Or Yogi? None, that is how many.

You're just an arkoudaphobe. #NotAllBears

Hey now... I played a Bear for 8 years... I know how many I've killed... we're bloodthirsty monsters and don't you let anyone tell you otherwise!

[Fasc]

I've seen more white people with dreads than black people, so don't try to make it a race thing.

And the majority of dreads look nasty as can be or by design ARE nasty. There are hosts of jobs that exist where the appearance of decent hygiene is absolutely a must, whether it is some sort of food prep or sales prep or what have you. Unless the job naturally adds a bit of grunge/dirtiness to the daily appearance of its employees, a hairstyle or beard or set of clothing or jewelry or whatever that creates an unkempt/dirty/gross appearance is going to be frowned upon. This is ESPECIALLY true when the rest of the employees are more or less identical and then there's that one person that stands out due to some choice in clothing, hairstyle, hair color, etc. I've seen issues with legal partners who wore especially modern or antiquated cuts of suits that were out of sync with the rest of the firm... this isn't a race issue at all.

[Alydael]

Nothing wrong with companies setting dress/appearance policies. They are private businesses.

Yeah, i have to agree with this. My job has a dress code. It is not draconian or anything, but I can not show up in jeans and sneakers though. Your capital= your investment= your business= if the business fails, you will take the loss= I am fine with you having a dress code as long as it isn't outrageous (like women must show up in lingerie or something... (ok so I admit I am not really against that, per se, but I can see how some might have a problem with it).

[Themius]

And the majority of dreads look nasty as can be or by design ARE nasty. There are hosts of jobs that exist where the appearance of decent hygiene is absolutely a must, whether it is some sort of food prep or sales prep or what have you. Unless the job naturally adds a bit of grunge/dirtiness to the daily appearance of its employees, a hairstyle or beard or set of clothing or jewelry or whatever that creates an unkempt/dirty/gross appearance is going to be frowned upon. This is ESPECIALLY true when the rest of the employees are more or less identical and then there's that one person that stands out due to some choice in clothing, hairstyle, hair color, etc. I've seen issues with legal partners who wore especially modern or antiquated cuts of suits that were out of sync with the rest of the firm... this isn't a race issue at all.

I just like how most of the posts on dreads instantly devolve them to being nasty or mostly nasty.

[Nynax]

It doesn't make her any less shitty at her job. It's not her job to advise applicants on what to do better at next time.

It's a nice gesture, but it's not their job.

To be fair, I think rejecting an applicant because of a hairstyle is pretty dumb as that's easy to change. Qualifications first, then attitude, then ask if they are willing to make changes for dress codes, then reject them if they say no.

[Spectral]

It doesn't make her any less shitty at her job. It's not her job to advise applicants on what to do better at next time.

It's a nice gesture, but it's not their job.

This is true, but really unfortunate. This is one of the unpleasant consequences of empowering lawyers to sue over just about anything. I'd much rather live in a world where HR could tell me what I could do better, but we've crafted one where a good HR person is one that fastidiously offers candidates no information at all.

[Zenotetsuken]

What makes dreadlocks inheriently unprofessional?

Look at that woman, totally unprofessional, god that hair is terrible how can she wear drads and be professional it's impossible, no one can or will ever take a person seriously like that...

No, bitch needs to perm her hair, and straighten that'll be more acceptable.

It looks unprofessional, because it looks like she has a dirty mop on her head. I know it is hard to hear this in our age of special snowflakes and safe spaces, but sometimes you need to change the way you look, so that you will be accepted.
Looking professional doesn't stop at putting on a suit/dress and makeup, that's just the first step.

[melodramocracy]

Personal appearance typically doesn't fall under employment discrimination laws.

- - - Updated - - -

It looks unprofessional, because it looks like she has a dirty mop on her head. I know it is hard to hear this in our age of special snowflakes and safe spaces, but sometimes you need to change the way you look, so that you will be accepted.
Looking professional doesn't stop at putting on a suit/dress and makeup, that's just the first step.

The idea of 'looking professional' is nothing more than applied social engineering.