There’s been a bit of a movement over the summer to boycott Six Flags Amusement Park in Maryland because they “refused” to hire a woman due to her hair style choice.  The hair style choice in question was Dreadlocks.  This decision set off waves of protest throughout the African-American natural hair community who saw it as a civil rights infringement and an act of racial discrimination.  I have been on the fence concerning this primarily because from a personal point of view, Six Flags would not be a place I’d personally apply for employment whether I was natural or relaxed.  But being that I can’t assess a national movement based on my personal perspective, I held off on my opinion, and/or support, because I know it’s bigger than me and my hair per se.  However as the months rolled on and more naturals began to join the campaign I felt drawn to speak on it via comments on certain forums and posts.  I could not understand how this could be tagged as a racial issue, which I expressed at some length on this entry on Change.org’s Race in America Blog:

I am wondering, considering dreadlocks can be worn via more than just African-American hair types, is the rule strictly related to African-American women with locks or locks period?  While I understand there are a lot more African-Americans who wear the style than whites or other races, since other races are capable of wearing the style isn’t it somewhat pretentious to make this strictly about race?  It would only be considered racist if a person of another race was hired for the position while wearing locks and the African-American woman was not due to wearing them.  Honestly, locks are a style choice, not how African-American hair grows naturally.  Had the woman been denied employment for wearing an Afro that would be another argument altogether because that is how African-American hair grows and it’s not a style that can be authentically duplicated by other races. 

Quite honestly, we need to look at this for what it really is.  Six Flag and other corporate entities have a standard for the employees they wish to hire, and according to that standard they have a specific "grooming" preference for representatives of their enterprise.  This is not discriminatory, this is business, and while it may leave a select subset of society out of consideration when it comes to hiring, it is that companies right (especially if they are a private corporation) to hire who they feel looks the part.  This is no different than a physical dress code issue from my perspective.  I don’t understand how we can look at this as an infringement on the civil rights of an individual without also seeing it as an infringement on the right of the company to hire (or not hire) whoever they choose based on their standards.  Just as we have a choice to wear our hair however we want, companies have a choice to not hire us if our choice is outside of what they deem acceptable. *shrug*  This is not to say I side with the company but if I were in there position I know I definitely have a certain ideal of how I want my employees to represent me.

I say all this as a proud natural hair wearer who sports a blossoming TWA to my workplace ever single day and have never heard a peep from supervisors.  As a matter of fact, I interviewed with the exact style I wear every day and made sure more emphasis was place on the skill sets displayed on my resume than the follicles that sprouted from my head.  Quite personally, if I were faced with the same exact situation I’d take the denial as proof that I didn’t need to be employed by such a closed minded corporation in the first place because if the are petty enough not to hire me simply because of how I wear my hair then there is sure to be more drama than a little bit on the other side of the employment divide.

Call me a “race traitor”, revoke the Black card I already gave away many years ago and stop following me on all my social media mediums but, all I’m saying is, Mohawks are also forbidden at Six Flags… I don’t see anyone boycotting that as racist agenda.  Or maybe it’s just me. 

I don’t mean to belittle anyone’s feeling for this plight or to say fighting for it is a lost cause, but in my opinion the premise is a bit skewed.  I think we use the R-card a little bit too loosely.  Quite realistically the Six Flags policy is a bit antiquated but to call it racially discriminative is a bit unfair.

What say you?

Healthy Hair Wishes!