A White Baltimore arts executive was recently fired in September from the Baltimore Rock Opera Society. The reason was not that Kelly Carnes was chronically absent or failed to perform her duties as the new executive director. Rather, it was the hairstyle that she briefly adopted on vacation. You see, Carnes is white, and co-workers were apparently triggered by her getting cornrows while attending the Burning Man festival. It was not deemed a fun hairstyle choice adopted on a vacation but rather a despicable case of cultural appropriation that warranted her termination.
Carnes was hired on Sept. 8 and was heralded for her more than 21 years of experience in arts leadership, nonprofit strategy, communications, fundraising, and operations.
She said that she adopted cornrows as a ‘protective style’ while attending Burning Man.
We have previously discussed cultural appropriation controversies where people were triggered by cornrows, dreadlocks (and here), food (and here), costumes, big hoop earrings, yoga (and here), songs, opera, or dance styles. Businesses and universities have yielded to these attacks, curtailing a wide array of different forms of free expression in the name of cultural tolerance.
Activists have even targeted artist Bo Derek for wearing cornrows in her Movie “10.” These critics ignore that many hairstyles, like music and dance styles, began with particular cultural groups before becoming popular with general populations.
The Baltimore Rock Opera publicly stated that it knew its new executive director was spotted with cornrows and that it would immediately conduct a full investigation.
The Opera has now triggered a possible hair-raising case in which Carnes could allege racial discrimination. It would also make a novel and potentially important free speech case.
At issue may be Maryland’s CROWN Act, which protects minority employees from discrimination based on traits associated with race, such as hair texture, afro hairstyles, and protective hairstyles. The law must apply equally to all races, including hairstyles adopted by Caucasian employees.
Under the state’s discrimination laws, cornrows are clearly not a matter that would “reasonably preclude the performance of the employment.” It is an objection to the appearance of employees based on racial bias or intolerance.
In my view, this is clearly racial discrimination as well as an abridgment of free expression. This is even clearer after Maryland enacted the CROWN Act, which defines race for anti-discrimination protections to include “traits associated with race,” such as hair texture, Afro hairstyles, and protective hairstyles.
The fact that this was passed with reference to protect African American employees is not determinative. Carnes was fired because of her race and the adoption of a rule barring hairstyles on a racial basis.
Maryland said that it wanted to protect hairstyles. This may not be the litigant that they had in mind, but it is the same form of racial discrimination.
For the left, the Carnes case could be a discomforting moment of having to face racial discrimination done in the name of racial harmony or equity. At one point, the left relished hairstyle freedom as a form of free expression. That was captured in the popular musical Hair, which became a virtual national anthem for the left in the 1970s.
“Hair (hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair)
Grow it, show it
Long as I can grow it
My hairI want it long, straight, curly, fuzzy
Snaggy, shaggy, ratsy, matsy
Oily, greasy, fleecy
Shining, gleaming
Flaxen, waxenKnotted, polka-dotted
Twisted, beaded, braided
Powdered, flowered, and confettied
Bangled, tangled, spangled (and spaghettied!).”
While the Supreme Court has only addressed hair regulations a few times (often in the context of allowable hair regulations for military or prison settings), hairstyles are (in my view) a form of free expression.
A few lower courts have supported that view. In Breen v. Kahl, the Seventh Circuit found in 1969 that “The right to wear one’s hair at any length or in any desired manner is an ingredient of a personal freedom protected by the United States Constitution.” While the appellate court was equivocal on where this right rested between the First and Ninth Amendments, it concluded that “it clearly exists and applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
There can also be religious-clause protections for hairstyles, though that is not the case here. However, there remains good-faith debate over the extent to which hairstyles are protected in comparison to free speech.
That is why this case is more likely to be resolved on the grounds of racial discrimination. Baltimore Rock Opera’s firing of Carnes because of her race appears incontrovertible. If she were an African American, she would still be the executive director wearing cornrows. The Opera is telling employees that their hairstyles will be monitored on the basis of their race.
As Chief Justice John Roberts famously wrote, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” While he may have been thinking more about college admissions than hairstyles, it is still true that “The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Carnes could make a lasting contribution to constitutional law by standing firm against this discriminatory action. Of course, it is not easy to suddenly find yourself the target of a woke mob. She no doubt feels, as observed in Richard III, that “My hair doth stand on end to hear [these] curses.” However, we are all cursed if the mob is allowed to control how we appear in public.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
I guess this means that I should stop wearing my baggy pants pulled down over my ass with my boxers poking out the top. And no more fried chicken for me!
I am not as much “triggered” by the sight of beyonce in straight, long, blonde hair as much as I pity her for thinking that she must ape the attributes of the very white supremacists that her audience condemns in order to sell herself. The braided hair, on the other hand, has always been adopted by all races in styles that where, either out of convenience or culture, prominent in their hair care regimens. This is nothing but provocated hate pushed by decades of indoctrination into believing that a particular hair style (or anything else for that matter) was the sole property of a certain group and that it was improper for others to copy it. That is just another tool for keeping the pot of racial tension stirred.
Well said. No we have to find the originator of the cornrows, or their decedents, so someone can sue black Americans for expropriation. Come to think of it. I have an uncle Marven who’s a failed ambulance chaser, see if he’s interested.
What and why exactly is a “protective style” while at Burning Man? Isn’t Burning Man like the gathering of the last hippies? Maybe the hair is just an excuse for something else?
Frigidity?
I had the same question. Here’s the best I could come up with.
Protection from the desert heat, wind, dust. Apparently, there’s a Burning Man tip sheet for “protective styles:”
Braids, e.g., cornrow, are the top choice “because they keep hair secure, minimize tangles from dust, and last for days.”
I gather the Burning Man attendees have a bit more foresight than did the Woodstock hippies.
Oh Man this is a job for Notorious BEN CRUMP, the altruistic civil rights lawyer trying to make the world a better place one multi-million dollar settlement at a time! OH WAIT – this is a White Girl – so looks like she needs to find a fresh grad or a Dime Store lawyer to handle her case and then have it dismissed as trivial in a Woke Maryland State Court!
Really?
Dreadlocks were probably a high fashion statement for cavemen and women, who, having neither combs or mirrors, or even shampoo, had no other recourse. Therefore, ALL humans likely have a cultural claim thereto?
Big hoops?
Didn’t Twiggy, a skinny, white girl from London make these s high fashion must have item during the 1960’s?
Also, the men in many African tribes have been the proud bearers of huge ear hoops for centuries!
According to “Shogun”, the Japanese learned the menu item, Sushi, from the Chinese …
I’m sure that all these culturally mis-claimed ‘things’ can be traced back hundreds, if not thousands, of years to other cultures.
As a wise man, Solomon, once said, “There is nothing new under the sun.”
“The Baltimore Rock Opera [. . .] immediately conduct a full investigation.”
That’s obviously absurd. But I have no sympathy for Carnes. She should have know the type of Eternally Aggrieved creatures she was working with.
Jemele Hill has blond straight hair????
https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/10/chancellor-i-ashea-l-myles-144131268.jpg
Colleges and universities in the US are descended from European institutions. Therefore it is “cultural appropriation” for anyone of African descent to attend or be a faculty member of a US college or university. Let’s start the Purge!
Mr. Turley needs to take most of his columns and create a book that chronicles the absolute silliness that has fallen upon our society.
You really have to work hard at being constitutionally illiterate to not see the legal consequences of a law like the Crown Act. The inalienable rights of the citizens in Maryland must be in jeopardy like here behind the Iron Curtain of Washington State.
This is all petty silliness by infantile people. Would we have Italian tomato sauce without cultural appropriation? Or noodles which originated in China? We wouldn’t have chicken, pork or beef, watermelons or cucumbers, potatoes or corn?
Remember, “sincerest form of flattery”.
From cornrows to grocery store products. Quite the leap. How unflattering.
I wonder how many times Kelly Carnes has been on the giving end of the “woke discrimination” she is now receiving. Maybe she will learn something also.
Learn? yeah, like all woman, where the money is and how to get it.
Calling Ben Crump and Al Sharpton…
Seriously! Would that not be the biggest cultural misappropriation back in their faces? Race hustlers of America hustling their own race hustlers in City government over a crystal clear civil rights discrimination issue. They would assuredly jump as long as Mr. Franklin Green is of proper standing. How sweet would the hypocrisy taste to evidence this spoiled fruit of the one sided tree from the Obama orchard?
Informative. Thank you!
Doesn’t appropriation mean that one group or entity had taken something from another group or entity depriving them of it? It Durant seem that the good lady can now forbid black people from wearing corn rows because she has adopted the hairstyle. The hecklers veto needs to die a horrible death in this country and every other country.
Depriving? I always thought it was just plain and simple fashion sense. I must be old.
Corn originated in North America, some of the Native American planted it in rows. The blacks culturally appropriate the names corn and rows, and this has to stop. Blacks should not be culturally appropriating from Native Americans. Blacks could go with “Yam Mounds”, those are indigenous to Africa. No cultural appropriation there. I like Yam Mound for the hairdo, it’s more descriptive.
This case raises serious questions, but I’d like to know what actually happened before declaring racial discrimination an established fact.
Here’s what we know. BROS hired Kelly Carnes. Its board publicly acknowledged complaints about her wearing cornrows, announced a policy revision on “cultural representation and dress” and anti-racism leadership training, and shortly afterward fired her.
The organization never publicly explained why. Carnes says she was told she wasn’t a good fit.
That’s a remarkable sequence, especially for an arts organization devoted to individual expression.
But evidence that raises a question isn’t evidence that answers it.
Was she fired because she’s White and wore cornrows? Was there another employment issue? Did the board bend to pressure from volunteers? We don’t know.
What we do know is that the board made race part of its public response, then dismissed her without saying why.
So the first question belongs to BROS: What exactly did she do that justified firing her?
Until we have that answer, let’s not confuse reasonable suspicion with proven fact.
Let’s get this straight, you’re not a lawyer – right? It’s obvious; rewriting Turley’s text. Please refrain form making an as_s of yourself. Thanks, Managemnt
F off, it’s a discussion forum and he is free to comment whatever he wants. Unlike you Mr. Turley believes in free speech.
I am guessing a lawsuit will settle the question of a justifiable firing or not.
Hey anon, F off, it’s a discussion forum and anon is free to comment whatever he wants.
Free speech? But not for anon? Anon doesn’t have that right? How fing stupid can you be.
Appreciate it Anonymous, but no need. He’s harmless. Like a gnat. Annoying for a second, then you forget he was there.
And you’re right. If she sues, discovery may finally reveal what the board hasn’t explained.
“Annoying for a second, then you forget he was there.” But yet here you are crying and whining about a comment. Listen you manchild, you put yourself out there and you expect to be praised every-time? Grow-up finally. And then this crying on everyone’s shoulders in the hope that you can build a mob to attack anons? How old are you, 70? Seriously, grow-up. Quit crying like a little girl with hurt feelings. Take it like a man.
Them is fighting words Olly.
I want to be this brawl.
OLLY,
Well said.
Never claimed to be a lawyer, Troll. Didn’t need to be one to read what Turley wrote and ask a plain question: What actual evidence shows why she was fired? BROS hasn’t said.
That’s not rewriting Turley. That’s asking what evidence supports his conclusion.
Got facts I missed? Let’s hear them. If not, all you’ve proven is you don’t like the question.
Last I checked, asking for the facts is kind of the whole point of being a citizen, not something you need a bar card for.
Oh oh Olly is pissed. Poor thing. But why? You get called out for being a pompous clown and you get all huffy. You’re a low brow whiny poseur and liar just like George/X.
Oliver
An at will employee doesn’t require cause for termination. Perhaps she just wouldn’t perform for an upper level BROS… there is no need for an explanation without discovery. If her position was through the City, then HR would perhaps have more defined employment rights regarding termination. Perhaps she stole the margarine at St. Alfonso’s pancake breakfast house?
Stupid comemnt. Folks, this is what passes for intellectual intercourse here.
I agree. At-will means they don’t have to give a reason. Doesn’t mean they can fire someone for an illegal one.
And that’s been my question all along. Turley says racial discrimination is incontrovertible. Okay, what facts prove it? The timing certainly raises questions, but it doesn’t answer them.
Maybe there’s more to the story. Maybe there isn’t. We don’t know, and that’s my point.
Now, if she stole the margarine, that changes everything. Especially if it was real butter.
From cornrows to margarine, now that changes everything. That’s really deep man.
Frank Zappa lives!😝
NO, Olly.
Turley said that racial discrimination APPEARED to be the case.
That is exactly why you are not a lawyer.
“That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought-out objection.” It will be overruled here with a quickness. What we have here is Turley telling us the exact reason she was fired. In a wat designed to trigger those here. I’ve never heard him stand up for Black kids being forced to cut their hair or getting expelled because of their hair. The Crown Act exists for a reason.
Why should Turley standup for blacks forced haircut? A haircut? Is that really cause to fight for, an afro or cornrows?
The point would be, after decades of discrimination against Black people in schools and the workplace over hairstyles, the one case he’s willing to stand up for is a white woman.
Decades? Really? Is hair style the essence of black identity for you? But of course you intentionally fail to understand the matter – its white liberalism vs. white liberalism. What better a story? Sorry that your black sensibilities are offended.
Its just a better read than a 6 year old black kindergartner shoots white female teacher. Where to begin with that eh?
How many times have you, or Sharpton, or Jackson, or Coates, or Kendi, or Joy Reid of any other BLACK race hustler written about white people being discriminated against for their hair style?
You issue is with Turley not standing up for hair discrimination cases? How absurd.
But I wonder why you have no issue with the black perpetrated lynchings in MS. MI, NY?
Enigma, we actually agree on the main point. Turley says he knows why she was fired. I’ve been asking what evidence establishes that.
Then you shifted to what Turley has or hasn’t said about Black kids and their hair. The CROWN Act exists for a reason, no argument there. But what does any of that tell us about why BROS fired this woman?
You also say Turley’s goal is to trigger people. How do you know his motive? Isn’t that the same leap you’re objecting to?
I’m still asking the question I started with. What are the facts? Can we stick with that for five minutes?
Fact: she was fired. Why, she has enemies in the company. All done is 10 seconds. Next subject.
“Turley says he knows why she was fired. I’ve been asking what evidence establishes that.” Wait until it gets to court. Its not like Turley has unequivocally determined the reason. Its called supposition. And makes for good reading.
Anonymous, Turley runs a blog. Of course he wants people reading and discussing what he writes. Nothing wrong with that.
But he didn’t just “suppose” something. He called it clearly racial discrimination and said firing her because of her race appears incontrovertible.
That’s a lot stronger than supposition. And sure, a lawsuit might eventually sort it out. But until then, why shouldn’t we question the evidence behind those conclusions?
Good reading is one thing. Getting the facts right is another. I don’t see why we can’t expect both.
” clearly racial discrimination ” You might think that Turley has a lot more experience and brainpower than you, a non-lawyer (saw the comments above) to guess what lies behind the firing based on his sources.
Getting the facts straight? Seriously? Based on an opinion with limited information simply written to entertain rather than dissect? Its not intended to be
Law 101. Get over yourself.
We do agree on what could be considered the main thing. What I see as a secondary thing involves the Crown Act which was part of the story. I can’t unsee the part where Turley leaps to the defense of the white woman, but I could find no record of him ever defending Black people being discriminated against.
As to what Turley’s “goal” is. This is strictly my opinion, not based on an individual story but an overall pattern over years. The goal is probably secondary in that triggering the people in the same audience that watch him on Fox News (where the goal is shared, in my opinion) and the truth isn’t nearly as important as perception.
We did agree about one thing in the story; I don’t feel confined to only address one part of the story and not the rest. I won’t be offended in the least if you don’t share my other concerns or opinions.
“I can’t unsee the part where Turley leaps to the defense of the white woman,” Because your hate for Whites got in the way?
Observation doesn’t equal hate. There is far more evidence of white people hating Black people than the reverse. You think you’re proving something in all of your comments, but it’s the opposite of what you believe it is.
Evidence? And you are that evidence? Proving? Not my comments. Buy hey, you’re the enigma.
I’ve got pictures on my side. White crowds including children smiling and laughing at lynchings that ended with castrations and the sale of body parts. What do you have?
OLLY,
“You also say Turley’s goal is to trigger people. How do you know his motive? Isn’t that the same leap you’re objecting to?”
That seems to be a common assertion people make.
“Turley makes these comments to trigger people!”
Or,
“Red meat for Turley’s MAGA base!”
No. We are not triggered. We find what some people say or do absurd. It is not the good professor’s or our fault people say or do absurd things. If they would stop it, there would be no discussion.
Most of the time, we are wondering, “What were they thinking?”
Or,
“Have they studied history?”
“Who thought that was a good idea?”
“He said what?”
That is far from being triggered.
“Then you shifted to what Turley has or hasn’t said about Black kids and their hair. “
Olly, Enigma doesn’t understand that Turley’s emphasises free speech, the Constitution, and due process.
False dichotomy.
Has there been a recent case where black kids have been forced to cut their hair or get expelled for their hair?
https://www.tampabay28.com/judge-rules-texas-school-legally-punished-black-student-for-his-hair#:~:text=A%20judge%20ruled%20Thursday%20that%20a%20Black%20student,the%20rules%20about%20student%20appearance%20and%20dress%20code.
https://www.comicsands.com/suspension-braided-hair-texas-school
While both of these cases are in Texas, they involve different students. There are lots of articles about discrimination against Black children related to their hair.
Upstate, I don’t think the law specifically mentioned cutting the length of hair. For that reason, I think Enigma is barking up the wrong tree.
OLLY,
Seeing what their justification was, in discovery would be interesting.
That would be the kind of thing I would sue for $1 + attorney fees just to prove the point.
But you’re not a liberal. or are you?
She should sue them for millions!
Oh she will. But how does suing a her liberal employer jibe with her liberal ideology. Sorta like stealing from the People.
This is what the Communist Republic of Maryland wants!!! Division by Race, Class and Thought!
“Division by Race, Class and Thought!” has been the defacto divisional cultural norm since… why back. Every generation has its norms. This one is just doing what it does according to current norms. If you’re white, you have to look and act white. If you’re black, then you have to look and act black. But what strikes me as ironic that people are so determined to be unique in their looks that they now all look the same.
It seems not. Maryland divides by follicles it seems. ( And how in the world does any of this, or many other things relate to SPEECH. Speech is vocalizing. This and so many other things got lassoed into Speech by Lawyer Speak. Hair follicles aren’t speech. Just hair.)
Seriously? A white female gets punished for the “cultural appropriation” of a cornrow hairstyle? So what about the millions of black females who chemically straighten their hair? The hypocrisy is palpable.
Or wear wigs with blond and/or long hair?
If those blacks were employees of the Baltimore Rock Opera Society, they would have to be fired of course. BTW, what hypocrisy?
Or bleach it blond or dye it red. In the fifties and sixties blacks appropriated the beehive hairdo from Caucasian people. Black singers adopted the beehive hairstyle in the 1960s, with notable examples including The Ronettes and Aretha Franklin. It was developed in 1960 by Margaret Vinci Heldt of Elmhurst, Illinois, owner of the Margaret Vinci Coiffures in downtown Chicago, a white woman. How terrible.
“When Chicago-based hairstylist Margaret Vinci Heldt, who has died at age 98, invented the beehive in 1960 it’s unlikely she thought we’d still be discussing it almost 60 years later – but here we are.”
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/shortcuts/2016/jun/14/history-beehive-hairdo-creator-died-1960s