For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 5, 2002

Remarks by the President at John Sununu for Senate Reception
Expo Center of New Hampshire
Manchester, New Hampshire

12:15 P.M. EDT

[...] I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will. We owe it to our children to think about this issue, we owe it to the future. My belief is, is that the enemy hit us, and out of the evil can come some incredible good. And one of the good that can come is peace. [...]

Yes, I know...  he's an easy target, our President, but this is one promise I bet Saddam wishes Bush would keep.

My husband participates in a message board for men with long hair.  From time to time, one certain topic comes up that just about drives him nuts: Civil Rights protections for men with long hair and/or beards.

I can understand why it irritates him.  As you may have noticed, I tend to be in favour of Civil Rights in general, and with protections to prevent discrimination against things like sexual orientation or religion.  There are limits, however, as to what I think should be protected.

There are any number of reasons a person can be subjected to discrimination.  Some of these are factors totally out of their control, such as what country they were born or raised in, what race they are, what gender they are and physical or mental deficincies (in the vast majority of cases).  Others may have an aspect of control, but are still an intrinsic part of who the person is and are things that cannot be readily changed, such as religion, size or sexual orientation.  A large number, however, are things that are entirely voluntary and can be changed at will.  This last group includes things like length of hair, decision to wear facial hair, piercings, tatoos, modes of dress/style/fashion sense, whether or not to smoke, drug and alcohol use and other such choices. The first two groups I can see extending certain protections to, to help ensure that they have equal opportunities, though I do believe that trying to ensure equal outcomes is both nearly impossible and rather foolish. 

Part of the problem I have with groups like the one proposed on the Men's Long-Haired board is that they tend to dilute the effectiveness of those groups fighing for civil rights based on factors that actually have some substance to them.  Sure, how long you wear your hair is an expression of who you are, and it may even make you look better, but if you have to cut your hair for a job, it's not going to change who you fundamentally are the way having to change your religion might. 

One argument I've heard that I find especially specious is that because how you wear your hair can be considered a form of expression, then under the First Amendment, no one can take away your right to wear it that way.  This, as far as I'm concerned, is bull.  First off (and this is a point far too many people seem to be oblivious of), the guarantee of Free Speech doesn't literaly mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want or wherever you want.  It means that the <b>government</b> cannot place restrictions on your abiity to express yourself.  It does not, however, mean that property owners, employers and other non-governmental entities do not have the right to estabish what they consider appropriate in terms of self-expression in areas or situations under their control.

It's what I sometimes call "the living room theory".  When you're in my living room, I have the right to set the rules for my house.  If I don't want you to smoke, I can tell you not to smoke; if I don't want you swearing while in my home, and I can ask you to stop and tell you to leave if you don't.  When I'm in your home, you have the same right to place restrictions on me.

This same theory applies to businesses.  They have fair amount of leeway in determining what kind of behaviour or (controllable) appearance they want in their employees.  Whenever you interact with someone, you are representing the company, and how the company is represented affects the ability of the business to succeed or can bring about its failure.  Even in areas where employees have no contact with customers, though, they company still has the right to establish rules for what they consider appropriate.  Its just like the rights they have as to what you can use their equipment for (by forbidding personal phone calls or using company computers for non-company-related work, etc.), and to monitor your activity.

I know that many men are frustrated becuase they can't find jobs that will let them keep their long hair or beards.  People who must wear their hair or beards a certain way for religious reasons are generally exempt from rules forbidding them, but for people who wear their hair long as a choice or a fashion statement, such exemptions aren't necessary.  Imagine for a moment that the issue, instead of being men wearing long hair, was a group of people who, as a means of expressing themselves (or to make a fashion statement) decided to do away with bathing all together.  How many people would feel it appropriate to give them special consideration, to reqiure companies to hire them, even though they smell horrible, and could easily change the situation if they wanted?  While long hair may not be offensive in the same way, the issue is still quite similar.  Both involve people making a personal choice for the purpose of self-expression, and both involve behaviour that some may consider inappropriate for their company (or other entity).

It just really bothers me when people with this kind of a frivolous issue try to focus the Civil Rights spotlight on themseles, eating away at the credibility of groups who genuinely need the Civil Rights protections.