A Baltimore arts organisation has come under scrutiny after its newly appointed executive director was dismissed only days into the job following controversy over her decision to wear cornrows.
Kelly Carnes, who is white, said the dispute began after she returned from Burning Man wearing the hairstyle, which she explained was intended to protect her hair while she was in the desert.
However, shortly after she assumed her position at the Baltimore Rock Opera Society, concerns were raised about her hairstyle, with some people accusing her of cultural appropriation.
The controversy has also raised questions about Maryland’s Crown Act, a law designed to protect people from discrimination based on hairstyles and hair textures associated with race.
“In the state of Maryland, we have what’s called the Crown Act. The Crown Act was enacted by the legislature in 2020. And what the Crown act said, and it really was meant for individuals of African descent to protect certain hairstyles that we associate with African or Black culture,” Attorney Jeremy Eldridge said.
The Baltimore Rock Opera Society’s board acknowledged receiving complaints about Carnes’ appearance and said it was taking the concerns seriously.
The organisation also announced plans to review its anti-discrimination policy and introduce anti-racism training for its leadership.
Carnes said the controversy soon became a major issue surrounding her employment. According to her, the board advised her not to attend a town hall organised to address the dispute.
She said she was dismissed several days later and was simply told that she was not a good fit for the organisation.
Carnes argued that the circumstances surrounding her dismissal suggested that her physical appearance had become a determining factor in the decision to terminate her.
Eldridge said the case could potentially raise questions under the Crown Act, but determining whether the law was violated would depend on establishing the actual reason for Carnes’ dismissal.
“In evaluating whether the Crown Act applies, meaning whether there was discrimination and whether this individual was terminated as for a discriminatory reason because of a hairstyle, we still have to deal with there are two competing narratives,” he said.
He explained that the circumstances surrounding the termination, including public statements made by the organisation, could become relevant if Carnes pursued a legal claim.
“Had the Baltimore Rock Opera simply separated from this individual without providing a discriminatory reason; the timeline would be all of the evidence that the fired employee would have. But here, when you’re making comments publicly that lean into the discriminatory allegation made by the fired employees, that itself could be evidence of the fact that you were terminated wrongfully, meaning that it’s discrimination under the crown,” Eldridge said.
The dispute does not simply centre on whether the termination was appropriate. Instead, the key legal issue would be whether Carnes was dismissed because of her hairstyle and, if so, whether that motivation amounted to unlawful discrimination under state or federal law.
Eldridge also suggested that the controversy highlighted broader questions about the scope and application of Maryland’s legislation.
“If we have an argument of racial discrimination as it relates to hairstyles at the Baltimore Rock Opera, that is telling us all we need to know about the necessity of cleaning up this law,” he said.
