Should white people have dreadlocks?

The focus of the dreadlocks debate should be on inequality

Question: Should white people have dreadlocks?
Position‹3 of 3: Dreadlocks are irrelevant
Argument: The focus of the dreadlocks debate should be on inequality

The larger issue at hand is eliminating the negative connotations dreadlocks have with marijuana and the judgement of uncommon hairstyles in the workplace.

The argument

Proponents of this position hold that the question of who has permission to wear dreadlocks is the wrong question, and that the effort spent on settling it would be better directed at the negative associations attached to the hairstyle itself: to stoner culture, and to being seen as unprofessional or dirty. On this view the permission framing concedes the premise that matters least while leaving untouched the judgement that does the actual damage. Part of the argument concerns ownership. Dreadlocks may have been popular with African-Americans in the U.S., supporters acknowledge, but the style has multiple origins, and where a practice has arisen in more than one place no one culture can claim ownership of it. An appropriation dispute requires an owner whose property is being taken; if no such owner can be identified, the dispute has no subject, and the question of who is entitled to wear the style cannot be settled on those terms at all. The harm proponents identify lies elsewhere. Many hairstyles from minority cultures are often viewed as unprofessional or messy, and in more conservative professions uncommon hairstyles are frequently banned from the dress code outright. On this account the consequence is concrete and unequally distributed: people whose hair is treated as a deviation from the norm face costs in work and standing that others do not, and those costs are imposed whoever is wearing the style and whatever their intentions. That, supporters argue, is what the debate should be addressing, so that all hairstyles come to be accepted in every environment and no one's professionalism is judged on the basis of their style. Measured against that, the question of which groups may wear dreadlocks is held to be a distraction, which is why proponents treat the appropriation question itself as beside the point.

Premises

[P1]Rather than debating who may wear dreadlocks, attention should go to erasing their negative associations with being unprofessional or dirty. [P2] Because dreadlocks have multiple cultural origins, no single culture can claim ownership, so the appropriation framing misses the point. [P3] Many minority hairstyles are wrongly judged unprofessional and banned in conservative dress codes, which is the real harm. [C] Therefore, the appropriation debate is irrelevant; the focus should be on inequality and accepting all hairstyles.

Counter-arguments

Dreadlocks are an important part of the fight for equality because of their importance in many minority cultures. In the United States, dreads are popular with African-Americans but have a stereotype of being messy and unprofessional. This causes accusations of discrimination in the workplace since many companies don't allow their employees to have that hairstyle, claiming because it does not match their overall image. When people forbid others to wear parts of their culture, they are being prejudicial.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Dreadlocks are associated with African and Rastafarian cultures.