Can a hairstyle be deemed unprofessional?

As a general rule, men's and women's hair should be well-kept and groomed, but that does not rule out certain styles
As a general rule, men's and women's hair should be well-kept and groomed, but that does not rule out certain styles

 A recent article in the Lawyers Weekly examined appropriate hairstyles at the office. Although presented in a neutral tone, the article makes several racial, religious and even heterosexist assumptions. I will use this column to present a competing vision that is hopefully cognizant of the healthy diversity among members of the bar.

As a general rule, men’s hair should appear well-kept and groomed. (I will safely assume that this applies to women as well.) Beyond that, I cannot make definitive statements that men “need to have short and properly groomed hair. Men should not have long, scruffy hair or have a ponytail,” as stated in the Lawyers Weekly article.

In all of my style columns I have tried to justify the advice I’ve given. I avoid making bald assertions without any reasoning to support them. I would therefore suggest that the rule against men having ponytails cannot be justified on any other basis than personal preference. Indeed, I might even agree with the idea that male lawyers shouldn’t have ponytails, but I would never go so far as to masquerade that personal opinion as anything resembling a professional one.

For instance, personally I don’t like dress shirts with pockets. I suppose I could rationalize this by saying that the pocket throws off the symmetry of the shirt. But I’m a little more honest than that. My disdain stems from the uniforms we were required to wear when I attended high school in the Caribbean (you stood a good chance of being caned, among other things, if your shirt didn’t have that asymmetrical pocket to affix the school badge to).

Equally troubling is the article’s assertion that “hairstyles designed to draw attention, that detract from our overall professional image, such as: beehives, cornrows, dreadlocks, emo hair, mohawks, mullets and spiky hair” are on the “do-not-wear list.” This suggests that these hairstyles are unprofessional. Although some of those hairstyles could be ruled out on the basis of the legal profession’s conservative nature, there is nothing that necessarily makes beehives, cornrows or dreadlocks unprofessional.

Indeed, it’s difficult to understand how an author can present a rule against cornrows and dreadlocks (in particular) as being racially or religiously neutral. I once worked with a lawyer — a human rights lawyer no less — who had dreadlocks. He simply wore a crown (or “Rasta tam”). In my opinion his appearance was professional at all times.

The legal profession is diverse, and it needs to actually recognize this. To present rules regarding hairstyles as objective, when they are so laden with racist, religionist and heterosexist assumptions, betrays that diversity. Although some measure of conservatism is expected within the profession, I encourage readers to maintain a neat and tidy hairstyle that embraces, rather than disguises or sacrifices, your personal identity.


Emir Aly Crowne is a law professor at the University of Windsor, Faculty of Law

Image: Ceskino via Wikimedia Commons