# Politically Correct Stupidity: Episode 3,872,390,576 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768 "2010-08-19T18:32:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/41 "2010-08-19T20:59:46Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > I guess it’s only partisan if you accept that the stupidity of political correctness is much more closely aligned with the left than the right. Congratulations for getting something right. 😉 > > Oh surely it’s more aligned with the left. The right is all about being bigoted jerks. 😃 So it’s the stupid vs the bigoted. If that’s the case, I’m going to have to go with the bigoted. I mean the bigoted will get some stuff wrong, the stuff that touches on their biases. But the stupid’s stupidity will touch everything. I guess we could make them decide every decision by coin flip, so they’d get half right. may I recommend… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/42 "2010-08-19T21:06:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@tim314](#): > > > > I agree with her. There’s nothing involved in being a hostess at a hotel that should require you not to wear a hijab. Since when does “managing the experience” mean “pretending Muslims don’t exist?” > > > > It would be totally different if she were an actor, because then part of her job would be _pretending to be someone_ and that someone might not be Muslim. So wearing a hijab could actually interfere with an essential component of that job. > > Disney is trying to create a highly branded experience. They find it valuable to do so. And controlling it over the years is one reason why their brand is one of the strongest in the entire world. > > > [@tim314](#): > > > > What part of a hostess’s job is compromised by wearing a hijab? Catering to bigots? If Disney’s position is “We don’t want her to dress like a Muslim because we want our bigoted customers to feel more comfortable” then they ought to at least say so. > > :rolleyes: If they didn’t hire any black people, would you think that was justified as part of “creating a highly-branded experience”? What if they made their black employees paint their faces white to blend in? (Or else they could work in the back, of course.) And if it’s not OK for them to say “We don’t want our brand to be associated with anyone who looks too black”, then why is it OK for them to say “We don’t want our brand associated with anyone who looks too much like an observant Muslim?” I’d appreciate a more thoughtful answer than “rolleyes”, assuming you actually intend to have a _debate_ about the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/43 "2010-08-19T21:12:06Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > If they didn’t hire any black people, would you think that was justified as part of “creating a highly-branded experience”? > > What if they made their black employees paint their faces white to blend in? (Or else they could work in the back, of course.) Asked and answered. The OP refers, approvingly, to what he asserts was Ralph Lauren’s decision not to hire models of color when creating an image of WASPy privilege (as to whether RL ever actually did this, I express no opinion). It would seem that if the OP were Congress, he would draft to law to allow these kind of employment practices. ---
**Author:** ![markdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@markdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markdash)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/44 "2010-08-19T21:13:36Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > Disney is trying to create a highly branded experience. They find it valuable to do so. And controlling it over the years is one reason why their brand is one of the strongest in the entire world. > > > > :rolleyes: > > If they didn’t hire any black people, would you think that was justified as part of “creating a highly-branded experience”? > > What if they made their black employees paint their faces white to blend in? (Or else they could work in the back, of course.) > > And if it’s not OK for them to say “We don’t want our brand to be associated with anyone who looks too black”, then why is it OK for them to say “We don’t want our brand associated with anyone who looks too much like an observant Muslim?” > > I’d appreciate a more thoughtful answer than “rolleyes”, assuming you actually intend to have a _debate_ about the issue. Because a hajib is not part of a person’s body? ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/45 "2010-08-19T21:19:12Z")
> [@markdash](#): > > > [@tim314](#): > > > > If they didn’t hire any black people, would you think that was justified as part of “creating a highly-branded experience”? > > > > What if they made their black employees paint their faces white to blend in? (Or else they could work in the back, of course.) > > > > And if it’s not OK for them to say “We don’t want our brand to be associated with anyone who looks too black”, then why is it OK for them to say “We don’t want our brand associated with anyone who looks too much like an observant Muslim?” > > > > I’d appreciate a more thoughtful answer than “rolleyes”, assuming you actually intend to have a _debate_ about the issue. > > Because a hajib is not part of a person’s body? Nor is religion to begin with. Anti-discriminatory laws cover more than just the physical. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/46 "2010-08-19T21:20:10Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > According to [this law firm’s website](http://www.rhddlaw.com/PracticeAreas/Discrimination-Harassment.asp) and the details provided by your link, Disney has been overzealous in managing its brand experience. It’s been the Magic Police State from day one. When old Walt was alive, he was one hell of a union-buster, anti-semite, and informant for the FBI. See [_Walt Disney: Hollywood’s Dark Prince,_](http://www.amazon.com/Walt-Disney-Hollywoods-Dark-Prince/dp/0233051228/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282252731&sr=1-1) by Marc Eliot. ---
**Author:** ![markdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@markdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markdash)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/47 "2010-08-19T21:21:32Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > > [@markdash](#): > > > > Because a hajib is not part of a person’s body? > > Nor is religion to begin with. Anti-discriminatory laws cover more than just the physical. I’m probably committing a forum faux pas here, but can’t you slippery slope this argument? Couldn’t you then state that any clothing, hairstyle or body grooming choice that is based on a person’s religion cannot be “discriminated against”? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/48 "2010-08-19T21:25:57Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > What part of a hostess’s job is compromised by wearing a hijab? Catering to bigots? If Disney’s position is “We don’t want her to dress like a Muslim because we want our bigoted customers to feel more comfortable” then they ought to at least say so. Since you asked nicely this time, I’ll answer your first question here. I don’t think any of a hostess’s job—in the generic sense—is compromised by wearing a Hajib. None. We are not talking about some physical danger of her suffering some Isadora Duncan type fate. But greeting people, handing out menus, and seating them is not the whole of her duties. Appearance matters. And it sometimes matters more than others. For instance, if I were going to open an Italian restaurant, one that I wanted to come off as really authentic Italian, don’t you think I might have pictures of Italy, play Italian music, and have people that might pass as Italian. Now some Italians are quite light and some are quite dark, like lighter skinned blacks, so there’s quite a bit of latitude there. But do you think it might detract from the brand experience I’m trying to create if I had a Sikh with a Turban as Head Waiter? Or someone wearing a dashiki? So, her duties as a _hostess_ are not the problem, it’s her duties as a Cast Member that are. And THAT is the job. she’s not just a hostess, she’s also a cast member that is counted on to enhance the Disney brand. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/49 "2010-08-19T21:29:00Z")
> [@markdash](#): > > > [@straight\_man](#): > > > > Nor is religion to begin with. Anti-discriminatory laws cover more than just the physical. > > I’m probably committing a forum faux pas here, but can’t you slippery slope this argument? > > Couldn’t you then state that any clothing, hairstyle or body grooming choice that is based on a person’s religion cannot be “discriminated against”? If you couldn’t show that it was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) (or you’re the U.S. military, see, e.g., Goldman v. Weinberger, among others). Conforming to minimum conventional standards of hygiene would be considered a BFOQ. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/50 "2010-08-19T21:30:44Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > The OP refers, approvingly, to what he asserts was Ralph Lauren’s decision not to hire models of color when creating an image of WASPy privilege (as to whether RL ever actually did this, I express no opinion). It would seem that if the OP were Congress, he would draft to law to allow these kind of employment practices. In these types of situations, I would support such a law, or exemption. That doesn’t mean that people behind the scenes at Disney couldn’t wear their religious garb, as was offered to the woman in question. But, no. Better to whine and sue and join the ranks of the Oh-I’m-So-Persecuted! ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/51 "2010-08-19T21:33:23Z")
> [@markdash](#): > > > [@straight\_man](#): > > > > Nor is religion to begin with. Anti-discriminatory laws cover more than just the physical. > > I’m probably committing a forum faux pas here, but can’t you slippery slope this argument? > > Couldn’t you then state that any clothing, hairstyle or body grooming choice that is based on a person’s religion cannot be “discriminated against”? Of course you could! This is why Disney is free to fire her _if they can show a legitimate problem with permitting the religious behaviour/dress._ IOW, the law is, from the very start, a balancing act. And that’s okay. ---
**Author:** ![Suil\_Dubh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85f322/32.png) [@Suil\_Dubh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suil_Dubh)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/52 "2010-08-19T21:36:22Z")
The story gets a little more complicated: > [@](#): > > Disneyland spokeswoman Suzi Brown said Disney has a policy not to discriminate. The resort offered Boudlal a chance to work with the head covering away from customers while Disneyland tries to find a compromise that would allow Boudlal to cover her head in a way that fits with her hostess uniform, Brown said. > > “Typically, somebody in an on-stage position like hers wouldn’t wear something like that, that’s not part of the costume,” Brown said. “We were trying to accommodate her with a backstage position that would allow her to work. We gave her a couple of different options and she chose not to take those and to go home.” > > Boudlal, who is a native of Morocco, has worked at the Storyteller restaurant at the hotel for two-and-a-half years but only realized she could wear her hijab to work after studying for her U.S. citizenship exam in June, Qazi said. > > She asked her supervisors if she could wear the scarf and was told they would consult with the corporate office, Qazi said. Boudlal didn’t hear anything for two months and was then told she could wear a head scarf, but it had to be designed by Disneyland’s costume department to comply with the Disney look, Qazi said. > > … > > She was fitted for a Disney-supplied head scarf but was not given a date when the garment would be finished and was told she couldn’t wear her own hijab in the interim. > > … > > “After these two months and this complicated process, she decided to come forward,” Qazi said. “She really wanted to be able to wear it on Ramadan.” [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/19/national/main6786918.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/19/national/main6786918.shtml) -apparently Disney considers it an “on-stage” position -according to Disney there was some attempt at compromise, possibly including a “Disney-supplied head scarf” or a back-stage position in the interim -according to this article [L. A. Times Link](http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0819-disney-hijab-20100819,0,5537139.story?track=rss) Disney suggested a hat instead of a head scarf -the incident began because Boudlal wanted to wear something in time for Ramadan -from the article quoted above it appears that Boudlal worked there for 2 1/2 years with no head scarf So some attempts at compromise were made, and it’s not simply a case of Disney enforcing a blanket “no head scarf” ban (although the “hat” idea is obviously a very poor compromise). I see this less as an example of “political correctness”, and more of two different cultural viewpoints at odds. In this situation, I tend to subscribe to the “job-as-brand” viewpoint. I would view her (or anyone working at Disney) to be “on stage”, and thus be required to wear whatever is mandated. However, I also believe that it would improve Disney’s image as a company if they were to come up with an “official” head scarf that all non-performing (e.g. characters, jugglers etc.) Muslim staff could wear. I can understand Boudlal’s desire to wear her head scarf for Ramadan, but the above article makes it seem as if she already went without for 2 years or so. In this case I would argue that she should wait until a compromise head scarf is decided on, and in the meantime work in a “backstage” position until then. ---
**Author:** ![markdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@markdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markdash)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/53 "2010-08-19T21:37:24Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > [@markdash](#): > > > > I’m probably committing a forum faux pas here, but can’t you slippery slope this argument? > > > > Couldn’t you then state that any clothing, hairstyle or body grooming choice that is based on a person’s religion cannot be “discriminated against”? > > If you couldn’t show that it was a **bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)** (or you’re the U.S. military, see, e.g., Goldman v. Weinberger, among others). > > Conforming to minimum conventional standards of hygiene would be considered a BFOQ. That’s the rub, isn’t it? Defining what constitutes a BFOQ? The question isn’t whether there exists a right for employers to discriminate based on BFOQs, but whether wearing a hajib violates that. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/54 "2010-08-19T21:38:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Couldn’t you then state that any clothing, hairstyle or body grooming choice that is based on a person’s religion cannot be “discriminated against”? They can’t, as long as they don’t conflict with a bona fide occupational requirement. If I have a religion that prohibits me from wearing anything on my head, then I can’t work in a kitchen, because kitchen workers need to wear headgear to keep hair from getting in the food. But if I’m working a job where that (or other bona fide objections) isn’t an issue? Then no, they can’t discriminate. **magellan** , if you opened an Italian restaurant and refused to hire someone because they didn’t look Italian, then you’d be facing a lawsuit faster than you could shout “Lawyer!”. And rightly so. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/55 "2010-08-19T21:40:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > > > According to [this law firm’s website](http://www.rhddlaw.com/PracticeAreas/Discrimination-Harassment.asp) and the details provided by your link, Disney has been overzealous in managing its brand experience. > > I couldn’t find the info you’re referring to on that site. And I think Disney is free to manage their brand in a way that THEY think serves them the best. The lawyers specialize in employment discrimination and give examples that indicate management’s actions to be discriminatory under California law. Of course it’s a lawyer’s website who would like clients and the website’s examples may be too non-specific in order to attract potential clients. > [@magellan01](#): > > > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > > > Could you please identify a brand that has an image that specifically includes the message “No practicing muslim women?”. > > I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. But the distinction is not if someone is Muslim, it’s the degree to which their appearance and action go to the furtherance of the brand. She was a practicing Muslim the day before she wore the hajib, and guess what? No problem. What I am saying is that unless there is some detail about a company’s brand that is damaged by headscrarf-wearing employees (or any employee wearing traditional religious outfits) then I do not support discriminating against employees who choose to wear their religious garments. I also think the law will back my opinion up, but I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/56 "2010-08-19T21:41:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > … Appearance matters. And it sometimes matters more than others. For instance, if I were going to open an Italian restaurant, one that I wanted to come off as really authentic Italian, don’t you think I might have pictures of Italy, play Italian music, and have people that might pass as Italian. Now some Italians are quite light and some are quite dark, like lighter skinned blacks, so there’s quite a bit of latitude there. But do you think it might detract from the brand experience I’m trying to create if I had a Sikh with a Turban as Head Waiter? Or someone wearing a dashiki? … So, are you saying that and Italian restaurant could refuse to employ someone who looked, Scandinavian, Chinese or West African as the head waiter? On the grounds that they did not look authentically Italian? I’m not sure how well that would go down in court. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/57 "2010-08-19T21:42:33Z")
> [@markdash](#): > > Because a hajib is not part of a person’s body? You’re not the only guilty party here, but take one for the team would you ? It’s a hijab. I, A. Not to be confused with “haji” (A, I), which is an honorific for people who have completed their hajr to Mecca), or alternatively the new US Army synonym for “towelhead”. ---
**Author:** ![markdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@markdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markdash)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/58 "2010-08-19T21:45:20Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > > [@markdash](#): > > > > Because a hajib is not part of a person’s body? > > You’re not the only guilty party here, but take one for the team would you ? It’s a hijab. I, A. > > Not to be confused with “haji” (A, I), which is an honorific for people who have completed their hajr to Mecca), or alternatively the new US Army synonym for “towelhead”. Absolutely. I was going off the OP’s original spelling. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/59 "2010-08-19T21:47:45Z")
> [@markdash](#): > > > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > > If you couldn’t show that it was a **bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)** (or you’re the U.S. military, see, e.g., Goldman v. Weinberger, among others). > > > > Conforming to minimum conventional standards of hygiene would be considered a BFOQ. > > That’s the rub, isn’t it? Defining what constitutes a BFOQ? > > The question isn’t whether there exists a right for employers to discriminate based on BFOQs, but whether wearing a hajib violates that. Well, once it’s shown that the employment practice falls disproportionately on members of a particular religion, the burden of persuasion transfers to those who assert that it is a BFOQ. And “brand management,” which seems like a clever way of saying “'cause we want to,” doesn’t really carry that burden. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/60 "2010-08-19T21:51:42Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > > > According to [this law firm’s website](http://www.rhddlaw.com/PracticeAreas/Discrimination-Harassment.asp) and the details provided by your link, Disney has been overzealous in managing its brand experience. > > It’s been the Magic Police State from day one. When old Walt was alive, he was one hell of a union-buster, anti-semite, and informant for the FBI. See [_Walt Disney: Hollywood’s Dark Prince,_](http://www.amazon.com/Walt-Disney-Hollywoods-Dark-Prince/dp/0233051228/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282252731&sr=1-1) by Marc Eliot. He sounds swell; judging from what another poster wrote about the company’s attempts to accommodate their employee it sounds like Walt’s special magic has dissipated a bit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768.md?page=4)