Forum

WARNING! Do You Have Racist Hair? You are not going to believe this! Kelly Carnes had barely started as executive director of the Baltimore Rock Opera Society when a video of her in cornrows ended her job.

Here's the crime: She is White. The law has declared her hairstyle racist!

Here's how it started. She wore the style as a protective braid after Burning Man, a practical way to keep her hair off her neck in the heat and dust, but now she must become a registered racist of the highest caliber because of her unlawful hairstyle!

Then it happened! The nonprofit said it had received “many heartfelt and concerned messages” about a White executive wearing cornrows at a public event, that it shared “the weight of these concerns,” and that it took the matter seriously.

Big trouble! A town hall followed. Carnes was ordered to stay away! Days later, she was fired and told that she was “not a good fit.” Her lawyer, Jeremy Eldridge, has said those public comments could support a claim under Maryland’s CROWN Act.

This massive infringement of the law and its deep ramifications stem from that egregious offense: a hairstyle.

OBTW - Cornrows are tight, flat braids. People wear them because they withstand heat, dust, and a long day without needing to be redone every morning. Carnes’s use fits that plain function. A protective style after a desert festival is a convenience choice, the same family of decisions as a ponytail before a run or a bun in a kitchen. Treating it as a racist trigger is nonsensical at best!  

Therefore, the hairstyle must be reclassified as racial property, and the wearer judged not by what she did with her own head but by the political trigger attached to her skin.

Maryland’s CROWN Act, passed in 2020, was written to stop that kind of policing. It folds “traits associated with race,” including protective styles such as braids, twists, and locks, into the legal meaning of race, and it covers hiring, discipline, and firing. But it seems to apply only to white people.

The point was that an employer should not punish a worker for a braid. This case turns the principle around. The worker was punished for wearing one, and the stated concern was that she was the wrong race to wear her hair in that manner! YIKES!  

If the Act means what it says, race-plus-hairstyle is not a lawful reason to fire someone. Once an organization publicly takes a hairstyle complaint seriously, “not a good fit” stops looking like a neutral opinion and more like a personality lynching, killing a woman's free expression because of her race.

The selective use of bodily autonomy is harder to miss. “My body, my choice” is treated as a moral decision about pregnancy, tattoos, piercings, surgery, and dress. Hair is body. It grows from the scalp of the person who cuts, dyes, shaves, or braids it. The slogan does not come with a cultural-clearance exception. A woman may pierce her nose or cover herself in ink without a license or fear of legal ramifications.

However, a woman (later to be defined) may not, under this newer rule, put her own hair in rows if the rows read as someone else’s race trigger. Autonomy is affirmed right up to the moment an identity claim is inconvenienced. Then the body needs permission.

None of this requires pretending the style has no history. Braided patterns, including cornrows, have long been used in many societies, from European beer garden waitresses to African aristocracy.

BUT WAIT! What about black folks who dye their hair blond, use skin whitener, and even iron their hair to look white? Does that count as racist? Was Michael Jackson a racist?

Tight braids appear across climates and centuries because hair gets in the way and braids solve the problem. Borrowing a useful pattern is ordinary human behavior. Racism requires hostility, exclusion, or a claim of superiority. A festival braid is none of those.

The firing communicates a hierarchy of permission. Some bodies may wear the style as identity and be protected by law. Another body wears the same style as convenience and is treated as a provocation. No performer was silenced. No wage was stolen. A woman arranged her hair, and an arts nonprofit decided the arrangement was disqualifying.

Is it time to license your hair? If protective hairstyles are lawful traits rather than costumes that require a license, the rule must run both ways. Calling a hairstyle racist does not describe the hair. It describes the demand that a woman treat her own head as someone else’s property.