Discrimination based on hair texture
Discrimination based on hair texture refers to the social injustice faced primarily by people of African descent, particularly those with afro-textured hair. This form of discrimination is rooted in harmful stereotypes that label African hairstyles as messy or unprofessional, leading to restrictive policies in workplaces and schools. As a result, many individuals often feel pressured to alter their natural hair through straightening treatments, which can cause significant damage and health issues. The historical context reveals that such discrimination dates back to the time of slavery, where individuals were forced to adopt Eurocentric beauty standards, perpetuating the idea that natural hair was undesirable.
In recent years, advocacy efforts have emerged to combat this discrimination, notably through the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act, which seeks to make hair texture discrimination illegal. As of 2024, numerous states in the U.S. have enacted laws reflecting this stance. The fight against discriminatory practices highlights not only the need for legal protections but also the importance of cultural identity and self-acceptance among those with afro-textured hair. Discrimination based on hair texture remains a significant issue, with ongoing dialogue surrounding the implications of such policies on mental and physical well-being.
Discrimination based on hair texture
Discrimination based on hair texture is a type of social injustice that specifically affects people of African descent who have afro-textured hair. This particular form of discrimination arises from the inaccurate and racist belief that common African hairstyles are inherently messy, unkempt, unhygienic, or disruptive. In the United States, such beliefs have frequently led to black adults and children becoming the targets of discriminatory hair policies at workplaces and schools. To comply with such policies, African Americans often have to go to great lengths to straighten or otherwise manipulate their natural hair, sometimes to the point that treatments cause severe damage or even hair loss.
In the late 2010s, a number of states began to implement measures to end discrimination based on hair texture by considering and adopting bills making this sort of discrimination illegal. Many of these bills were based on a national effort to end hair texture discrimination known as the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act.
Background
Historically, people of African descent have been forced to adopt altered hairstyles practically from the time they first arrived in North America. In the eighteenth century, African slaves who worked inside plantation manors often attempted to emulate the hairstyles of their owners, frequently wearing wigs or taking steps to straighten their naturally kinky, or afro-textured, hair. Discrimination on the basis of hair texture also got its start during this time. Notably, free Creole women of color living in New Orleans and other cities in that region were forced to comply with the Tignon Laws, which were regulations requiring women with afro-textured hair to cover their heads with a type of scarf called a tignon that signified membership in the slave class. In the late nineteenth century, noted African American entrepreneur Madam C.J. Walker introduced the hair-straightening comb. The widespread popularity of Walker’s comb furthered the notion that African Americans had to manipulate their natural hair to meet conventional beauty standards if they wanted to advance in life—a belief that remained in place for decades.
The 1960s saw the rise of the first natural hair movement, which sought to convince African Americans that their natural hair was beautiful as is and did not need to be altered just to satisfy the preferences of others. Activists involved in the movement argued that black women should embrace their natural hair because emulating Eurocentric beauty standards denigrated their own beauty. One hairstyle that became particularly popular among African Americans of the time was the afro, which was often viewed as a symbol of black power and an active defiance of white standards of beauty. While black activists succeeded in securing the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which brought an end to segregation and employment discrimination and created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), none of this ultimately prevented continued discrimination based on hair texture. As a result of that shortcoming, court cases over such discrimination began to appear as early as the 1970s. While some of these cases led to advances such as employees winning the right to wear afros in some work places, most did little or nothing to seriously diminish hair texture discrimination. Even as more people of color came to embrace natural hairstyles, it was still decades before any significant progress was made in the fight against the discrimination they faced because of their hair texture.
Overview
Although not all those of African descent share the same type of hair texture, so-called afro-textured hair is the sort most commonly associated with people of color. Often tightly coiled or tightly curled, afro-textured hair is frequently styled into locs, cornrows, braids, twists, fades, afros, or Bantu knots. Some people with afro-textured hair also choose to wear wigs or head coverings or use hair extensions. In any case, one’s specific choice of hairstyle is deeply personal and often arises from more than just fashion tastes. In fact, people with afro-textured hair choose to wear certain hairstyles for a wide range of reasons. Some adopt a hairstyle as a protective style that serves to ensure good hair health. Others may choose a hairstyle that particularly speaks to their own cultural identity. Many also adopt a certain hairstyle for religious, financial, medical, or other personal reasons.
Throughout American history, society has often held a common—and deeply racist—belief that afro-centric hair and the hairstyles frequently worn by people of color are unhygienic, unkempt, disruptive, and/or simply inappropriate for formal settings. As a result of such erroneous and prejudiced beliefs, African Americans have often been the targets of discriminatory dress codes in workplaces and schools. In many cases, these policies prohibit African Americans from wearing natural hairstyles or other hairstyles associated with afro-textured hair. One such policy briefly enacted by the US Department of Defense in 2014 banned afros, cornrows, twists, braids, and other common Black hairstyles before it was rescinded due to an outcry from Black service members.
In addition to simply being discriminatory, bans on Black hairstyles can have a range of negative consequences for those affected. To comply with discriminatory hair policies, people of color often have to endure extensive hair manipulation or chemical styling aimed at straightening or relaxing their natural hair. This can damage the hair and lead to breakage and loss. Undergoing regular manipulation and chemical styling can also result in the development of various medical conditions related to the hair and scalp. In addition, the cost of maintaining one’s hair in this manner can also have severe financial ramifications for those who have to comply with discriminatory hair policies. Psychological issues stemming from being forced to change hairstyles to comply with a hair policy can be a problem as well.
The first major steps forward in the fight against discriminatory hair policies came with the formation of the CROWN Coalition – an alliance of organizations that seeks to advance anti-discrimination legislation – and the subsequent introduction of the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act in 2019. A law that prohibits discrimination based on hairstyle and hair texture, the CROWN Act was first adopted by the state of California in March 2019 and enacted less than a year later. In July 2019, the state of New York solidified the NYC Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Race Discrimination on the Basis of Hair and, in the process, became the second state to pass a version of the CROWN Act. As of early 2024, the CROWN Act was also law in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. A proposed federal version of the CROWN Act was introduced in the US House of Representatives in late 2019. Members of Congress continued to press for passage of the CROWN Act in 2024.
Bibliography
Arefin, D. Sharmin. “Is Hair Discrimination Race Discrimination?” American Bar Association, 17 Apr. 2020, www.americanbar.org/groups/business‗law/publications/blt/2020/05/hair-discrimination. Accessed 13 June 2020.
Duster, Chandelis. "Democrats Reintroduce Federal CROWN Act Legislation to Ban Hair Discrimination." CNN, 2 May 2024, www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/us/crown-act-congress-2024-reaj/index.html. Accessed 3 May 2024.
Ellis, Nicquel Terry and Charisse Jones. “Banning Ethnic Hairstyles ‘Upholds This Notion of White Supremacy.’ States Pass Laws to Stop Natural Hair Discrimination.” USA Today, 14 Oct. 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/14/black-hair-laws-passed-stop-natural-hair-discrimination-across-us/3850402002. Accessed 13 June 2020.
Gandy, Imani. “Black Hair Discrimination Is Real – But Is It Against the Law?” Rewire.News, 17 Apr. 2017, rewire.news/ablc/2017/04/17/black-hair-discrimination-real-but-is-it-against-law. Accessed 13 June 2020.
Griffin, Chanté. “How Natural Black Hair at Work Became a Civil Rights Issue.” JSTOR Daily, 3 July 2019, daily.jstor.org/how-natural-black-hair-at-work-became-a-civil-rights-issue. Accessed 13 June 2020.
Kaur, Harmeet. “In Just 1 Week, 3 States Considered Bills to Ban Discrimination Based on Hair Texture or Style.” CNN, 16 Feb. 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/02/16/us/hair-discrimination-bills-trnd/index.html. Accessed 13 June 2020.
“Legal Enforcement Guidance on Race Discrimination on the Basis of Hair.” City of New York, 2020, www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/hair-discrimination-legal-guidance.page. Accessed 3 May 2024.
McGregor, Jena. “More States Are Trying to Protect Black Employees Who Want to Wear Natural Hairstyles at Work.” Washington Post, 19 Sept. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/09/19/more-states-are-trying-protect-black-employees-who-want-wear-natural-hairstyles-work. Accessed 13 June 2020.
Payne-Patterson, Jasmine. "The CROWN Act." Economic Policy Institute, 26 July 2023, www.epi.org/publication/crown-act. Accessed 3 May 2024.
Robinson, Helen. “Colorado Becomes 5th State to Ban Hair Discrimination.” Colorado Springs Business Journal, 9 Mar. 2020, www.csbj.com/2020/03/09/colorado-becomes-5th-state-to-ban-hair-discrimination. Accessed 13 June 2020.