News New Changes Coming to the Disney Look 2021

[lazyboy97o]

Policies had to be changed when a Muslim cast member started to wear a hijab onstage at DLR. Her managers advised her she needed to move to a backstage position away from the guests. She refused and she was fired. Now religious accommodations are happening.

Not quite. She wanted to wear her own hijab and not one designed and provided by Disney as part of her costume. She was offered a backstage role as an alternative where she could wear one of her choosing, which she also refused. She was ultimately terminated when she stopped showing up for work.

 

[monothingie]

Is this really the argument you want to grasp on to?

Refute it.

 

[dreday3]

Refute it.

The guidelines of the old look-book spoke to all cast members looking like clean cut 1950s American white teens. That was the "ideal". I know it, you know it, the guy over there knows it. No one is saying Disney discriminated when hiring.

It was the times back then, but now things have changed.

 

[Lilofan]

Remind me where Walt Disney segregated his parks or his company? Remind me when TWDC Imposed hiring restrictions for POC or openly discriminated against specific races or gender? Quite frankly I resent the the implication of racist motivations where there wasn't.

At DLR - Cast member fired for wearing a hijab , That's targeting a specific race and religious belief.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

Remind me where Walt Disney segregated his parks or his company? Remind me when TWDC Imposed hiring restrictions for POC or openly discriminated against specific races or gender? Quite frankly I resent the the implication of racist motivations where there wasn't.

It was still a predominantly white company. I doubt any POC had any input in writing that policy. Diversity and inclusion wasn't at the front of their minds when they wrote the policy. It never occurred to them that the policy didn't offer enough flexibility for a black woman's hair. It didn't occur to them that a man's long hair might be part of his native heritage. We're learning, and that's a good thing. It doesn't mean we're judging the people of the 50s; it was the way life was back then, but it doesn't belong in 2021.

 

[DreamsCrusher]

Just to say “I was in that thread”

Ohh - me too.

 

[Creathir]

So when they say "appropriate tattoo" that sounds to you as if they would allow a naked mermaid?

....

Who defines “appropriate”? What exactly is that definition?

 

[Lilofan]

I hope she sued.

The DLR did and sued in 2012. In 2004 a WDW cast member was fired for a similar incident. She sued and settled out of court.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Wow, gender-inclusive hairstyles! Now both boys and girls can wear mullets!

 

[monothingie]

Not quite. She wanted to wear her own hijab and not one designed and provided by Disney as part of her costume. She was offered a backstage role as an alternative where she could wear one of her choosing, which she also refused. She was ultimately terminated when she stopped showing up for work.

At DLR - Cast member fired for wearing a hijab , That's targeting a specific race and religious belief.

 

[SamusAranX]

It was still a predominantly white company. I doubt any POC had any input in writing that policy. Diversity and inclusion wasn't at the front of their minds when they wrote the policy. It never occurred to them that the policy didn't offer enough flexibility for a black woman's hair. It didn't occur to them that a man's long hair might be part of his native heritage. We're learning, and that's a good thing. It doesn't mean we're judging the people of the 50s; it was the way life was back then, but it doesn't belong in 2021.

Just because a company was predominantly white during a time of majority white demographics doesn't make the company racist.

 

[aliceismad]

Make sure not to complain about CEO and executive compensation next time they decide to trim the fat then. Because you know at least in the companies I've worked for they compartmentalize budgets and don't move them around that way.

I didn't say it was necessarily right. I said it's just the way I've seen things. Personally I think companies should've tried to do everything in their power to keep people employed during the pandemic, but I think few companies did. And some of the jobs lost are never coming back because the existing employees should do more and just be happy they still have a job.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Who defines “appropriate”? What exactly is that definition?

As stated earlier, from the updated look book:

"TATTOOS

Visible tattoos are permitted, with the exception of placement on the face, head or neck. Tattoos must be no larger than the Cast Member’s hand when fully extended with the fingers held together.

Undergarments, which include matching fabric tattoo sleeves, are permitted for coverage of larger tattoos on the arms.
Tattoos that depict nudity, offensive or inappropriate language or images, or violate Company policies (including policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ancestry, age, disability or any other protected category) are not permitted."

So who decides... management, area leaders, and arbitrator if there is a dispute. As has always been the case with the look book and guidelines.

It's really no big.

 

[SamusAranX]

They just need to update their wording about hair.

I'm serious - what about this doesn't say clean or professional?

View attachment 540472View attachment 540473

Agreed, 98 percent of hairstyles across the cultural spectrum aren't inherently "unprofessional"

 

[aliceismad]

Just because a company was predominantly white during a time of majority white demographics doesn't make the company racist.

Absolutely true. But on the flip side, something can be racist without being intentionally created to be discriminatory at the time.

 

[Lilofan]

Not quite. She wanted to wear her own hijab and not one designed and provided by Disney as part of her costume. She was offered a backstage role as an alternative where she could wear one of her choosing, which she also refused. She was ultimately terminated when she stopped showing up for work.

And the Muslim female still sued.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And the Muslim female still sued.

So?

 

[StarWarsGirl]

Just because a company was predominantly white during a time of majority white demographics doesn't make the company racist.

What I'm saying is that the lack of input from POC in writing that policy means that it's not very inclusive. At the time, they wouldn't have even been thinking about it or had the correct people for diversity and inclusivity.

As someone earlier on this thread pointed out, this is a racial issue, not a racist issue. There is a difference.

 

[Indy_UK]

I am so conflicted on this. I am 1000% for inclusion and as a gay man myself, I would be a hypocrite if I wasn’t however...

I would like cast to stay in character to where they are working. The released images don’t bother me at all and I wouldn’t have an issue with any of them but the gentlemen from haunted mansion does seem a tad far for me.

From personal experience, one of my previous employers (a retailer) was known for staff being well dressed in suits and it kind of went with the brand (even if a bit too far) but when staff morale and wages were so low, they axed any sort of uniform at all and my lord, standards across the board seemed to slip. People dressed like they just got out of bed or been out partying the night before.

I think I’ll just keep quiet on the subject because I was hounded on Twitter for showing reservations

 

[monothingie]

The guidelines of the old look-book spoke to all cast members looking like clean cut 1950s American white teens. That was the "ideal". I know it, you know it, the guy over there knows it. No one is saying Disney discriminated when hiring.

It was the times back then, but now things have changed.

It was still a predominantly white company. I doubt any POC had any input in writing that policy. Diversity and inclusion wasn't at the front of their minds when they wrote the policy. It never occurred to them that the policy didn't offer enough flexibility for a black woman's hair. It didn't occur to them that a man's long hair might be part of his native heritage. We're learning, and that's a good thing. It doesn't mean we're judging the people of the 50s; it was the way life was back then, but it doesn't belong in 2021.

Honest question, do you think that back in the 1950's when the Disney Look was established, was done to discriminate or just to maintain the "1950's" look? Since then Disney has expanded and grown to be a welcoming places for people of all races, nationalities, orientation, and gender. If it was not done to discriminate but rather a product of the period, why include the "White People" comment?