NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12660

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 7.6 KB | 166 lines

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!psygate.psych.indiana.edu!nate
From: [e-mail] (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mushroom.psych.indiana.edu
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:35:53 GMT
Lines: 152

I feel almost like Mrs Manners with this followup.

[e-mail] (A.P.K.) writes:
>     Hi.  I'm in a bit of a predicament for a couple of reasons,
>and I'm not sure what my response to the situation should be,
>and besides, this might open up another thread of discussion (Oh
>NO!!!)  <grin>

    Let me get this straight. You're in a predicament and you want *us*
to offer suggestions on how to get out of it? You really are in trouble.

[condensation: Jim was a long hair in his youth, but cleaned up when
he got out of the military.]

>     When I returned to the States, I remained the Johnny Kleencut
>type and started college.  Soon, however, I noticed a pattern.
>I was frequently asked if I had drugs, wanted to party, etc,
>although I considered myself to be the geeky type at that point.

    Hey, I was substantially geeky during my college days and it was my
experience that the geeky-types had the best drugs and threw the best
parties.

[another condensation: Jim noticed that the clean-cut kids were the
heaviest partiers, so he grew his hair long again so that people would
leave him alone.]

>     Jump to today...  I'm burnt out on school, having attended
>three years now with absolutely no breaks (not really even between
>semesters, having jobs and such.)  I have to take some time off
>but I have to get a job if I'm to survive while "taking a break."
>Some "break," huh?  Ah well.  So next week I have a job interview
>lined up, and everyone keeps telling me that I simply HAVE to
>get my haircut before I go in for an interview.

    This is not always true, but it really isn't bad advice. I've never
heard of any cases in which anyone was rejected due to their squeaky-
clean appearance, but I've heard of lots of cases in which people were
rejected on poor appearance (particularly in sales).

>I don't have
>any desire/intention of doing this, for two reasons.  One, I
>have no desire to conform to the closet-druggie standard of
>being a Johnny Kleencut look-a-like (which is a blatent farce
>which I find disgusting.)

    Hey, if you're *not* a closet druggie then you're not conforming to
the standard, right? This country will have come to a very sad state if
drug-users ever corner the market on good grooming habits. IMHO there's
not much danger of that happening in the near future.

>  Not only that, but I view the
>societal standard of men having to be clean cut to be sexual
>discrimination against men.

    Oh, for crying out out. Last time I checked being clean cut was a
standard which applied equally to both men and women.

>  No, I've no intention of wanting
>to wear makeup and earings and skirts next!  I keep myself
>shaved and my hair clean and combed and I'm no dirtbag or
>anything.  But forcing men to conform to the standard of having
>hair kept exceptionally short, and then perhaps not being
>hired on the grounds of being a "longhaired maggot infested
>freak of nature" (to quote Rush) is a form of sexual
>discrimination, is it not?

    Who are you planning to interview with? I had pretty long hair when
I hired on at AT&T, and that was only a couple years ago. I generally
keep it shorter these days but that's because I'm married. If you think
that hiring criteria constitute sexual discrimination, then I just can't
wait to hear your thoughts on marriage...

>  Not only that, but it's too
>reminiscent of the way Hillary Clinton conformed to the standards
>of being a "preppy-type" just in order to further her husband's
>cause of running for president.  It would almost sicken me to lower
>myself to such a standard just to get a much needed job.

    Man, you're breaking my heart. You're really trying to say that you
don't want to dress up for fear of being reminiscent of Hillary Clinton?
Have you ever seen any photos of Barbara Bush? Marilyn Quayle? (Now
*there's* a long hair if ever I saw one).

    You know, I've noticed that Hillary Clinton breathes oxygen. Are you
going to stop breathing oxygen too?

>     Hopefully, my predicament is fairly clear at this point.

    Yes, it is. You're almost hopelessly confused.

>Is it considered sexual discrimination not to be hired on the
>grounds of having longer hair than is deemed appropriate?

    Nope, sorry. Employers are free to choose and enforce whatever dress
codes and standards of personal grooming that they feel are appropriate
for the position being filled.

>Am I correct in asserting myself in such a manner, or should I
>conform to the standards of this society?

    That depends. As I found at AT&T, having long hair is not necessarily
a fatal drawback. I would say that engineers and technical types get a lot
of leeway in personal appearance, particularly if they have very desirable
skills.

>Couldn't it be considered a form of stereotyping that warrents such
>behavior against me on the mere grounds of length of hair?

    Yes, it could be be considered a form of stereotyping, but I don't
believe that it's a violation of the law, especially considering that
hair length is almost never going to be the sole make-or-break criterion
in deciding whether to hire someone or not. If they don't like you on
account of your refusal to cut your hair, then there are bound to be at
least a half dozen other things they could state as the reason you don't
get hired (probably with "Poor communication skills" at the top of the
list).

>I mean, I'd pass any drug test, I've nothing to hide. I only grew my
>hair long again to avoid the temptation which just 15 years
>ago came from the opposite direction of HAVING longer hair.

    I can just see myself trying to explain *that* to a prospective
employer...

    Jim, there's something about hiring that a lot of people don't realize.
There are occasional cases when a company is trying to fill a position and
they come across a resume that's an exact perfect match. Those are no-
brainers; that person gets hired. But far more often the case is that
there are a half-dozen or more people who're more or less equally qualified
for the job, and the one who wins the cigar is going to be the one with
the least "red flags". Being adamant about keeping long hair is a red flag,
because companies don't want people who're inflexible. *Having* long hair
is not necessarily a problem, but being adamant about it almost always is.

>Well, any comments or such are obviously being solicited, so
>would be most welcome.

    Best of luck. In my experience, a positive "can-do" attitude is the
first and best ingredient for a successful interview. I think that my
ultimate advice to you is if you decide to keep the long hair when you
go in for the interview, don't even raise it as an issue unless they ask
you about it first. They may just not care, but if they do (and if they're
interested enough in your other merits to want to hire you) then they'll
ask. If they do think it's important and that's the difference between
working and not working, then IMHO you'd be crazy to fight. You could
always use your lucrative salary to buy yourself a long-haired wig...

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
[e-mail]      [e-mail]