Yes, facts are important. MJ did have diversity within his ready to wear collection16 but not in the specific runway show discussed. The 2017 show didn't not have black models wearing the wool dreads. This after federal appeals court has ruled that banning an employee from wearing their hair in locs is not racial discrimination
If you are referring to this decision,
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201413482.pdf, then you are not quite following the nuances of the decision.
The decision does not conclude that a dreadlocks ban could never be based on an individual's race. One important part of the decision is that the EEOC only asserted an intentional race discrimination claim (which we call "disparate treatment"). It did not assert an unintentional discrimination claim (which we call disparate impact). An example of disparate impact discrimination is that if, with all the good intentions in the world, an employer adopts a racially neutral policy that has the effect (typically accessed by statistics) of causing a more harmful impact on a class of individuals because of that classes' race, that could violate federal law. (So, in this sense, intention does not matter.)
The difference in the two theories is fundamental but for reasons only it knows, the EEOC chose not to argue that the dreadlocks ban disproportionately impacted blacks.
Instead, the EEOC argued the ban was intentional discrimination because of race. Intentional race discrimination has historically been meant to apply to immutable characteristics, not social choices (which, as I said, can still be the basis of an unintentional discrimination type of claim). Obviously, skin color is an immutable characteristic. So to, the court explained, can be "hair texture" but that doesn't mean that a hairstyle associated with that hair texture is itself immutable. Applying this precedent, the court explained its ruling:
Critically, the EEOC's proposed amended complaint did not allege that dreadlocks themselves are an immutable characteristic of black persons, and in fact stated that black persons choose to wear dreadlocks because that hairstyle is historically, physiologically, and culturally associated with their race. That dreadlocks are a "natural outgrowth" of the texture of black hair does not make them an immutable characteristic of race. Under
Willingham and
Garcia, the EEOC failed to state a plausible claim that CMS intentionally discriminated against Ms. Jones on the basis of her race by asking her to cut her dreadlocks pursuant to its race-neutral grooming policy. The EEOC's allegations—individually or collectively—do not suggest that CMS used that policy as proxy for intentional racial discrimination.
There is much you say that I do not disagree with (though I have to say I don't watch fashion shows so the references to that escape me). I understand your point about "colorblind" comments and the perspective from people of "privilege." Like Kevin said, I try and be as unbiased and conscious of any racism that I have had bred into me by being 57 years old. I also agree with his assertion that the "younger generations are less prone to see race (gender, religion sexual preference etc) as an issue", at least I hope that is the case. I also believe that any comments made on the podcast were meant to reflect this belief. I don't think any of the podcasters said or implied that we now live in a utopian society where race no longer is a concern.
