Yorkregion.com - Columns - Girl's brown dreadlocks remain grey area
Girl's brown dreadlocks remain grey area
Columns
May 03, 2008 12:13 AM
By: David Stell, Staff Writer
In basic terms, Jessica Devnani is a brunette, yet, her dreadlocks hairstyle is a grey area in terms of employment at Canada’s Wonderland.
The amusement park has strict appearance rules in its employment contracts.
And among the many and varied restrictions listed in it is a reference of no ‘extreme hairstyles’ allowed.
It refers to ‘unnatural colour and beads’, but that’s it.
Nothing outlines dreadlocks, a Mohawk or even whether a shaved head would offend the patrons of the amusement park.
Mind you, I’m sure no one would have questioned a decision to ban someone for wearing a mullet.
That would just be good judgement.
So, maybe it’s no surprise the initial park employment staffer who interviewed Ms Devnani didn’t see her hair as extreme, but in the eyes of another, in the human resources department a little more than a week later, it was a non-starter.
Even within Wonderland, the dreadlocks were a grey area open to interpretation, depending on who was looking at Ms Devnani’s hair at the time.
Of note, the amusement park did give her the opportunity to change her hairstyle in order to work there this summer, but the Richmond Hill teenager chose style over employment.
Having a look at Ms Devnani’s hair and having spoken to her, it’s hard to believe they turned her down.
She looks just fine.
We’re not talking about dirty unkept hair.
If indeed she did wear her hair in a mullet, that would have been acceptable, but a lot less attractive.
Fortunately for her, she’s a bright girl and she shouldn’t have much trouble finding an alternative summer job.
She’s employable.
Even if her window of opportunity is reduced.
Talking to her about her decision, it was easy to tell she was bothered, even a little hurt to have to start all over again on the job hunt.
But she didn’t seem to be out to get publicity to force them to allow her to keep her hairstyle and her job.
I think she did want publicity to embarrass Wonderland for treating her poorly.
But did Wonderland do anything wrong?
The company didn’t say as much, but the age-old argument in situations of this kind goes something like this: If they relax their strict appearance rules, they have to start considering relaxing other rules of appearance to which they hold firm.
And that’s a slippery slope, isn’t it? Today, it’s dreadlocks.
Tomorrow, someone with dreadlocks and several earrings asks for an exception.
Then, it’s someone with dreadlocks and covered with tatoos. After a time, you’re appearance policy means nothing.
But Ms Devnani’s situation isn’t alone among available case studies of discrimination due to appearances.
Many will remember last summer when the Ontario government’s cabinet office received a black eye. A mistakenly sent e-mail sent to a University of Toronto student that had applied for a position found out his appearance may have had a role in him not being considered.
A cabinet office staffer coined the phrase ‘Ghetto Dude’ in describing the young man’s appearance, a black man with dreadlocks, to another member of her department. Many were outraged to read about his story.
Race, age and religion have created a lot of debate over the years in discrimination in the work force. But Ms Devnani’s hairstyle doesn’t fit into any of those categories.
That’s what the Human Rights Commission of Ontario and the Ministry of Labour told us.
But did the park make a good business decision? Well, maybe, maybe not.
I guess her brunette hair must remain a grey area in the court of public opinion.