• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

Tucker Case said:
Actually they have, when one looks at things the other way. Women are allowed to go to work using the male standards and preventing that has been deemed sexist, but men are not allowed to use the female standards.




Or a presumption that the writer of the article made an "apples to apples" comparison.
Click to expand...


The courts have consistently declared your argument baseless. Differing standards for grooming for men and women can be based on social or community norms. Expecting a woman to conform to standard male norms exacts a cost for the woman that the man does not pay. You don't have a legal leg to stand on here, you're just howling victim, with no legal basis.
 
Tucker Case said:
No, expecting a woman to conform to FEMALE norms is sexist. Such as the 1950's female norm of not being a cop.
Click to expand...


Quite the contrary, holding a woman to male social norms can be held to be hostile to women in the workplace.

And, again, contrary to what you are saying in this post, you don't have a legal argument to stand on. Women have been held in court to be legally able to be required to wear both skirts and makeup in the workplace, regardless of whether they personally wanted to or not. Safety regulations must be gender-neutral, grooming regulations can be based on community/social norms.
 
And how are Cornrows NOT a community norm in this officer's jurisdiction ?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Just plain stupid I'm afraid, and probably racist if he has been singled out if his male black colleagues are allowed cornrows. The report doesn't ever say male black policemen are allowed cornrow hairstyles - just black female officers - so there is a small doubt.

Reverse Racism or is there more to this story that hasn't been reported yet?
Click to expand...

According to the "source", and I have extreme skepticism of any news organization today, other black officers can keep their cornrows; if this is indeed the case, then the discipline of this officer was wrong.

That stated, no one in the police force should be wearing piercing, cornrows, long hair, or wild exposed tattoos. The police have to be "respected" and looking like thugs just doesn't cut it.

There's my two cents on the issue.
 
Voidwar said:
And how are Cornrows NOT a community norm in this officer's jurisdiction ?
Click to expand...

His superior said it was not professional, according to the police spokesman.


"The problem, police spokesman Lt. Frank Vanore said, is that Strain's superior didn't feel his cornrows were "professional."

Ordering Strain to chop them off had nothing to do with discrimination, added Vanore, who spoke with Inspector Aaron Horne about the incident.

Horne, who oversees the Northwest Police Division, which includes the 35th District, is the supervisor who directed Strain to banish the braids.

"The policy's the policy, it doesn't matter what race you are," Vanore said.

Police policy requires officers to have "clean, properly trimmed and combed hair" that doesn't prevent them from wearing their uniform hat "in a military-manner," Vanore said.

The policy prohibits "unnatural" hair colors such as blue, purple or green but doesn't ban specific styles, such as cornrows, mohawks, dreadlocks or bouffants.

Vanore didn't see Strain's cornrows, but speculated that they may have kept his hat from fitting his head in the required military manner. He couldn't explain why black officers with cornrows weren't ordered to get haircuts - unless they're women, because the hair policy for female officers is slightly more permissive.

Still, while the division inspector did instruct Strain to get a haircut, Vanore emphasized, the officer wasn't formally disciplined."
Cop with cornrows pulled from street duty | Philadelphia Daily News | 09/21/2009
Click to expand...


They have the legal right to have separate standards for grooming for men and women. And they have the legal right to determine what is 'professional' and what is not.
 
i read it...did you?

'Professional' look
Police spokesman Lt. Frank Vanore says Strain's boss told the officer to cut his hair to look more "professional."

Vanore says officers' hats must fit "in a military manner" over their hair, and that Strain's hat did not. Strain got a haircut; he declined comment to the paper.

Interviewed by the Daily News, Vanore said he couldn't explain why black officers with cornrows weren't ordered to get haircuts — unless they're women. The policy for female officers is slightly more permissive, he said.
Click to expand...
 
Tucker Case said:
Interestingly enough, those are banned by the same police department and had a case in 2007 about it.

To me this cornrow thing is obviously racism. I' seeing reports where dozens of black male officers are allowed to have cornrows.

I don't use the BS term "reverse racism", because racism doesn't have a preset direction.
Click to expand...

I agree with this merely because racism presumes one race is superior to another merely due to their race. This is more a lack of uniform application of the rules in favor of blacks rather than racist.

Our society has a tendency to abuse the term "racism" too frequently.

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
 
jackalope said:
Quite the contrary, holding a woman to male social norms can be held to be hostile to women in the workplace.

And, again, contrary to what you are saying in this post, you don't have a legal argument to stand on. Women have been held in court to be legally able to be required to wear both skirts and makeup in the workplace, regardless of whether they personally wanted to or not. Safety regulations must be gender-neutral, grooming regulations can be based on community/social norms.
Click to expand...

Ah, so the court deems what is sexist or racist now?

So I take it that you, jackalope, believe that having slaves was perfectly okay, moral, and not racism in any way up until such a point that it was made legal? Cause I mean, courts had no issue with it till that point, so naturally it couldn't have been racism.
 
Zyphlin said:
Ah, so the court deems what is sexist or racist now?

So I take it that you, jackalope, believe that having slaves was perfectly okay, moral, and not racism in any way up until such a point that it was made legal? Cause I mean, courts had no issue with it till that point, so naturally it couldn't have been racism.
Click to expand...


Yes, the courts do so determine.
And, no, re: slaves. You'd be wrong, and btw, nice lame strawman there, Zyph.
 
Truth Detector said:
I did, is there a point to your trolling? :doh
Click to expand...



REALLLLYYYYY, truf? Beware accusations of trolling.

Show me where in the source article it states that other black male officers were allowed to wear cornrows?
 
earthworm said:
Neither, IMO.
Don't these people have anything better to do ?
Don't they know that their duty to the public is number one, their reason for being?
"They" includes the governor on down.
Being concerned with an officer's hair is none of their business.
But, at all times, the public servants must listen to their "superiors", the general public.
"Listen" means take under advisement, not necessarily obey.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point; as an officer of the law, individuals also must garner the respect of those they are attempting to enforce the law with, thus a professional appearance is mandatory, not to mention proper attire and a badge to prove they are indeed who they say they are.

The same thing applies to discipline and why the military has such rules.


:doh
 
jackalope said:
REALLLLYYYYY, truf? Beware accusations of trolling.

Show me where in the source article it states that other black male officers were allowed to wear cornrows?
Click to expand...


Vanore said he couldn't explain why black officers with cornrows weren't ordered to get haircuts

Carry on. :roll:
 
Truth Detector said:
Vanore said he couldn't explain why black officers with cornrows weren't ordered to get haircuts

Carry on. :roll:
Click to expand...


Ahem .... where is the word "MALE"?
:2wave:

:laughat:
 
Doesn't get you anywhere but sexism, which won't be upheld when the "community norms" angle comes into play.
 
If the ban is only for White Cornrows then it is racist. If the ban is that male officers cannot have cornrows then it probably a common sense rule just as if there was a rule against males wearing skirts or dresses.

ps as for your other question yes there most likley is more to this than what we have seen thus far.
 
Truth Detector said:
What part of this statement so you not get?

Vanore said he couldn't explain why black officers with cornrows weren't ordered to get haircuts

:doh
Click to expand...
Interviewed by the Daily News, Vanore said he couldn't explain why black officers with cornrows weren't ordered to get haircuts — unless they're women. The policy for female officers is slightly more permissive, he said.

are we finished here? denial can be treated, you know.
 
jackalope said:
Yes, the courts do so determine.
And, no, re: slaves. You'd be wrong, and btw, nice lame strawman there, Zyph.
Click to expand...

How is it a strawman. You've clearly stated that apparently something isn't sexist because the courts don't deem it so.

Therefore, similarly, something should only be "racist" if a court deems it to be so (or more to the point, shouldn't be seen as racist if a court deems it isn't).

Therefore, by your own reason and logic, there was nothing racist about the notion of having slaves, or the segregation of blacks, until such a point that the courts ruled on it and decided it was.
 
Grooming standards should be the same for both races as much as possible. When I was in the navy, a bunch of black guys where allowed to not shave regularly due to some problem black guys have that I never asked about, but that is reasonably.

However, I got to admit hearing a bunch of white men complain about racism and sexism directed there way is kinda surreal, and amusing.
 
Zyphlin said:
How is it a strawman. You've clearly stated that apparently something isn't sexist because the courts don't deem it so.

Therefore, similarly, something should only be "racist" if a court deems it to be so (or more to the point, shouldn't be seen as racist if a court deems it isn't).

Therefore, by your own reason and logic, there was nothing racist about the notion of having slaves, or the segregation of blacks, until such a point that the courts ruled on it and decided it was.
Click to expand...


Therefore, similarly, something should only be "racist" if a court deems it to be so (or more to the point, shouldn't be seen as racist if a court deems it isn't).

That right there is your strawman. It is a ridiculous oversimplification of an argument, set up thus in order to more easily strike it down.

In the arguments you and Tuck and others have put forward, you have claimed it's just not fair to the men because they are being treated differently than the women. The courts have specifically found your arguments to be specious, that in fact holding women to men's norms can be hostile to women, in fact.


Putting forward an instance of a wrongful court decision that has been rightfully overturned to argue that no court's decisions should be respected because they could at any time be reversed is not just a strawman, it is a particularly outrageous strawman.
 
Redress said:
Grooming standards should be the same for both races as much as possible. When I was in the navy, a bunch of black guys where allowed to not shave regularly due to some problem black guys have that I never asked about, but that is reasonably.

However, I got to admit hearing a bunch of white men complain about racism and sexism directed there way is kinda surreal, and amusing.
Click to expand...


I remember those cases, or at least some very similar cases. I was in the 6th grade (I think) and we had to find newspaper articles about each branch of gov't. The only judicial cases on the front pages at the time were cases about male servicemen having skin problems from being forced to shave daily, or something very similar.

I remember my teacher at the time saying it used to be very hard to find articles about the judicial branch of gov't, but no longer. She didn't explain why, but I remember being puzzled by it. I've since figured out that she meant since Roe v Wade in 1973. I guess I was in 6th grade around 1978 or so, so I guess the courts were starting to show up quite regularly in newspaper articles. Anyway, the only ones I could find at the time that were about the US courts and not local ones was the serviceman's shaving cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom