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.”
A case in California involving a native American man with long hair was murdered by a Mr. Barrasso. Barrasso cut off part of Nikko’s hair, a fight occurred and Nikko was stabbed by Barrasso. He was also charged with robbery (hair). It was decided not to be personal property. Nikko’s hair was a part of his body.
Seriously…
what about Black women who straighten their hair? Aren’t they guilty of the same crime?
There is a way to deal with “activists,” ignore them.
A model of Diversity (i.e. class-disordered ideologies), Exclusion and Inanitiies (DEI).
Ka-Ching! I wonder how much tanning cream it would take for me to get fired in such a way?
Oh goody, another thing they want to get angry over. Hair style choice. Age of Rage indeed.
It went right past rage for me, into delightful giggles at this absurbity.
She should have described her hairstyle as a sculpture and put a little info plaque on it so they would be instead attacking an artist’s vision, which is not allowed.
Thank goodness she wasn’t fired from a REAL job!
This is so stupid, it’s laughable. Should we fire/condem all black women who straighten their hair? The term cultural appropriation is pure woke nonsense. We are a multicultural nation and delight in sharing foods from all nations and cultures, don’t we? Next they’ll try to tell us only black people can eat at Sylvia’s in Harlem!
And don’t forget black women with blond hair…
They must really despise Beyonce. Talk about cultural appropriation!!!
#. Because it’s not the best of times it’s best to walk 2 miles and not 1.
Turley’s claim of being an advocate for free speech is a farce. My comments are frequently rejected, even though they contain no profanity or ad hominem attacks against other people who post on this blog. I do report on information about Trump and his corruption and misuse of the DOJ to get revenge on his perceived enemies.
I posted a comment earlier today that cited a piece that detailed how Trump gave tariff waivers to companies that gave him and Republicans large donations. When I tried to post it I got a message that my comment would be reviewed before it could post. It never posted. All of the pro-MAGA comments seem to get posted.
All of the major tech bros and AI companies got the waivers, and they get invited to state dinners, too. Trump and his family are heavily invested in tech companies and AI, which is why Trump opposes regulation. Does anyone really believe that the AI and tech industries can effectively self-regulate?
and rightly so !
Trump is invested in AI because it is likely to improve our lives more than the industrial revolution.
But like all other things that improve peoples lives it will not do so evenly.
Those who bet most heavily on it early will see by far the greatest improvement.
Nothing is stopping you from doing the same right now.
Receivinbg political contrabutions from people who oppose regulation is your idea of corruption ?
Every single person who makes any political donation either favors something or opposes something.
Donating to candidates that oppose the stupidity of the left is not corruption, it is self preservation.
It’s called “pay to play”, a Trump specialty. It’s just like Trump giving tariff exemptions to the people and companies that donate money to him and Republicans— all of the tech bros and AI insiders. Give him money and you get access, self- regulation, no anti trust enforcement.
Even the AI insiders warned us that AI could be dangerous, even to the extent of potentially killing all of us, but the Trumps are making money and that’s all that matters. Who knows how bad things might get until we get rid of Trump and his Republican syncophants. We don’t know what we don’t know, but we can’t say we weren’t warned.
Pay to Play was “the Biden way”. Was it not ?
Try posting with your real name to see if that makes a difference. Anonymous people are not revelant.
And this relates to the content of this article how????
It doesn’t. He’s the same troll that posts under several fake names, just, anonymous, and others. Ignore him.
The Woke Fatigue is real. When can we just put them through the chipper, plough them into the earth, and plant corn and alfalfa?
Oh and off-topic, I’m getting sick of the climate change lawsuits. Isn’t it the end users who actually burn the fuels who release the <plant-friendly> CO2 into the atmosphere?
Will the stupid never stop?
If America denaturalized and compassionately repatriated them, there would be no problem.
“The statement on that specific form was a non-factual statement.”
– Gemini
Lisa Cook’s falsification of the loan document was a deliberate act. Much like a bank robber who cannot legitimately claim their crime was an accident, the execution of the act itself demonstrates clear intent.
Where’s the proof that Lisa Cook “falsified” anything? Because Trump is going after her? She only became an issue when Trump couldn’t fire her, so he sicced the DOJ on her. He only wanted to fire her because of her race. You can’t believe anything that Trump or the DOJ say about anything. AND, for the record, Trump has falsified loan documents. Why do you MAGAS defend him misrepresenting the size of his Trump Tower apartment by tripling the actual square footage, but vilify Lisa Cook?
Djt thinks Lisa Cook is fundamentally corrupt, dishonest. An example is the falsified documents.
Square footage v cubic footage is carpet to HVAC.
Ms. Cook can refute the false doc.
Imo
DJT is using OUR Department of Justice as a tool to attack anyone he perceives as an enemy. The Department of Justice exists to represent the interests of the American people, not Trump.
Trump decided to try to fire Lisa Cook solely because of her race. It was only after he got stopped from doing this that he commanded the DOJ to gin up charges against her as a pretext for removing her from the Fed for being a criminal. It is an ethical violation for a prosecuting attorney to try to indict someone for political reasons. After the American people clean out the filth of Trump and his sycophants, it will take years to restore the credibility of the DOJ and the rest of the government.
So suddenly you’re interested in Lisa Cook as if you had any personal experience with women. Hysterical
Yes, Trump wants to fire her. No SCOTUS did not say Trump can not fire her. They merely said you can not fire a Fed Governor without cause.
In cooks case there is plenty of cause. She plagiarized her academic work. She is not qualified, and she engaged in sworn falsification on a loan application.
No Trump does not want to fire her because of her Race – god you left wing nuts are stupid. Condeleza Rice is black and recently came out for Trump. While blacks still primarily support democrats – support for Trump and republicans among blacks is growing rapidly.
Trump wants to fire her because she is an unqualified idiot, not because she is black.
Trump ALLEGEDLY misrepresented facts about some of his properties on documents the Trump organization drafted and provided to Deutche Bank that EXPLICITLY stated that none of this information was to be relied on. That DB was responsible to do their own due diligence. Trump was receiving a Commerical loan – not a residential mortgage. Cook lied about her primary residence on a Government form that specifies that false statements are a crime – the Form is a SWORN STATEMENT, claiming a property is your primary residence entitles you to an additional discount on your interest rate, because people almost never default on their primary residence. Cook is in Banking and finance – either she KNOWS THIS or she is not qualified to be a loan officer at a small branch bank much less a fed governor. Further the form Cook lied on is used by the federal govenrment to provide Guarantees to the bank for certain loans. No government had any involvement in the loans Trump was getting from Deutche Bank. No one was defrauded by Trump. The bank and the federal government were defrauded by Cook.
It would help if when you try to make analogies you knew what you were talking about. Commercial loans are radically different from home loans. This is one of the reasons that even the NY Courts ultimately chocked on James/enmoron’s nonsense. The duty of lenders to do due diligence on the collateral of a private loan is thousands of years old. The requirement to provide truthful information on Federal forms is a century old.
I’ll say it again: I don’t read the lengthy screeds you write because it is pure MAGA spin. Rarely, if ever, is there any citation to any source for what you assert as facts, and on the rare occasions when there is, it’s an unreliable MAGA source.
Trump is trying to control the Federal Reserve and force it to drastically reduce interest rates, which would put inflation into overdrive and seriously weaken our economy. Trump tried to fire Fed Chairman Jerome Powell because he wouldn’t be bullied into lowering interest rates—and, incidentally, neither has Kevin Warsh, Powell’s replacement, because he is taking the job of controlling inflation seriously.
To try to force Powell into resigning, Trump tried to gin up criminal charges against Powell, too, claiming there were massive cost overruns for renovations to the building that houses the Federal Reserve and that Powell was going to be investigated. In a televised confrontation with Powell, Trump presented figures which included work on another building —-and came out looking like an idiot.
If you don’t paint your nails, that’s white supremacy and you’re “attacking communities of colour” because those communities do. But if you do put corn rows in your hair, you guilty of cultural appropriation. I really feel like we’re dealing with mentally ill people 24/7 these days.
I don’t care much for Black legal theory. It’s what we have oth. Send a letter of apology and see what’s next.
“[Racial separation] [is necessary], and [though difficult] must be effected by colonization… The enterprise is a difficult one, but ‘where there is a will there is a way’; and what colonization needs most is a hearty will… Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time [not against] our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857 (Adapted)