Opinion Invisible man

Gurdit Singh was made to ply a mail route that reportedly not only had a greater workload but also prevented him from helping out his colleagues running other routes.

For all the magic in its Magic Kingdom, how did Walt Disney World pull this one off? For seven years, Disney World in Florida successfully kept mailman Gurdit Singh invisible, hidden away from its guests. Singh was made to ply a mail route that reportedly not only had a greater workload but also prevented him from helping out his colleagues running other routes. But Singh’s saga needn’t be kind to the plight of his fellow mailmen, since the Sikh employee was deprived of a rotation between more and less taxing work and, above all, had his chances of professional advancement precluded.

Behind this seven-year-long persistence of injury added to insult lay Disney World’s “look policy”, which Singh purportedly “violated”. Apprehensive of the consternation Singh’s turban and beard might cause its paying guests, Disney World chose to wield the wand and make the whole man vanish — right under all their noses. But the ghost who delivered the mail got redress with the help of the Sikh Coalition and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), whose letter to his employer, underscoring the inadmissibility of the segregation which violated his civil rights, made Disney World reverse the decision and announce that Singh can, hereafter, run all mail routes, no longer hidden from public view. An “incredibly thankful” Singh was gracious in his response, to say the least.

Advertisement

But the questions will not, and must not, stop for Disney World and employers overtly or covertly discriminating against perceived inconveniences. As Singh’s lawyers argued, the segregation was “specifically because of his racial/ ethnic and religious appearance”. While there are differing perspectives on the right to sport visible religious markers, there’s no defence for robbing an employee of social dignity. In an America that hasn’t exactly washed itself of its original sin, proved by the violent explosion of race in public life, Singh’s treatment calls for a debate at least as serious as over the Confederate flag.