This blog was a really interesting passage about something I’m sure many people never really consider, the discrimination against African American hair in professional environments. Before reading this blog, I didn’t realize the social injustice of hair discrimination was so prevalent.

It is unfortunate how the standards for what is considered a professional hairstyle can vary so much from one company to another. It seems that the Crown Act, a policy of which I was not previously aware before reading this blog is necessary in more than just the seven out of fifty states where the act has been implemented.

The CROWN Act was first implemented in California in July of 2019, and since then, it has been signed into law in six other states (ABA). In addition to this, there are movements to sign the CROWN Act federally and in 22 other states.

An interesting question brought up with the Crown Act: “Is hair discrimination also racial discrimination?” According to the American Bar Association “Minorities have suffered hair discrimination for years. A recent study found that African American women face the highest instances of hair discrimination and are more likely to be sent home from the workplace because of thier hair.” This evidence suggests that it is indeed.

In New York City, a new Human Rights Law was enacted that doesn’t allow discrimination based on hairstyles with a specific emphasis on minority hairstyles. In the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) it states, “Race discrimination based on hair and hairstyles most closely associated with Black people has caused significant physical and psychological harm to those who wish to maintain natural hair or specific hairstyles but are forced to choose between their livelihood or education and their cultural identity and/or hair health.” This bill looks to ease the burden on minorities and specifically African Americans from needing to struggle to find a balance between hair health and what is considered ‘an acceptable and professional hairstyle.’

The NYCHRL bill includes three main sets of infractions that employers cannot enact. First, employers must not have, “A grooming policy prohibiting twists, locs, braids, cornrows, Afros, Bantu knots, or fades which are commonly associated with Black people.” Second, employers can’t enact, “A grooming policy requiring employees to alter the state of their hair to conform to the company’s appearance standards, including having to straighten or relax hair (i.e., use chemicals or heat).” Lastly, there can be no, “grooming policy banning hair that extends a certain number of inches from the scalp, thereby limiting Afros.”

I think that the CROWN Act will be making a positive impact on employment for minorities, and helps to push for less discrimination in the workplace.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/blt/2020/05/hair-discrimination/
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/hair-discrimination-legal-guidance.page

It is truly disgusting how white people have attempted to shame Black people for a symbol of their identity and culture that should be respected and encouraged to be worn with pride. Disturbing, but unfortunately not surprising given the way white people have a history of doing the same for many other common Black features.

I had heard of and learned a bit about The Crown Act before this, but I don’t know much about the history and extent of hair-related discrimination and injustices experienced by Black people.

Race based hair discrimination occurs in all types of settings, from school, to work, to social environments, to the army. According to The Crown Act, 53% of girls who have experienced race related hair discrimination first experienced it by 5 years old and 100% of those that have in white majority schools report that it occurred by age 10 (The Crown Act). They also state that Black hair is 3.4x more likely to be deemed “unprofessional” and Black women are 1.5x more likely to be sent home from work due to their hair (The CROWN Act).

In addition to judgements in workplace and school environments, Black hair has been discriminated against in the U.S. Army. According to Time, in 2014 the U.S. Army banned traditionally Black hair styles such as cornrows and dreadlocks, and used offensive language in these policies, calling these hairstyles “matted” and “unkempt” (Martin). Though they eventually removed the policy, the discrimination was experienced and the racist attitudes spread through the policy will not be forgotten.

This discrimination harms Black people in many ways, with one being loss of employment opportunities, and another being a potential drop in confidence, with 32% of Black girls saying that negative comments on their hair make them feel bad about themselves (The Crown Act).

In 1954 a test was done where both Black and white children were given dolls, two with white skin, and two with black skin, that were otherwise the same. They were asked to choose which dolls were “good” or “bad” and which were more like them. The majority of the Black children chose the white doll to look more like them and labeled the Black doll as “bad” (“Kenneth and Mamie Clark Doll – Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site (US National Park Service)”). Though this test was not a study, it does suggest that the discrimination of that time made Black children feel their race was inferior.

The Crown Act recently re-tested the doll test in 2021, this time with participants of both races less likely to relate negative attributes to the Black doll than in the 1954 test, and more positive attributes with the doll of their own race (The Crown Act). Though hair discrimination and race discrimination in general are still highly prevalent and there is a drastic need for it to be addressed, this result hopefully indicates progress in self-esteem for Black children.

The Crown Act. “Dove CROWN Research Study For Girls.” The CROWN Act, 2021, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5edc69fd622c36173f56651f/t/623369f7477914438ee18c9b/1647536634602/2021_DOVE_CROWN_girls_study.pdf. Accessed 17 March 2022.
The CROWN Act. “The CROWN Research Study.” The CROWN Act, 2019, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5edc69fd622c36173f56651f/t/5edeaa2fe5ddef345e087361/1591650865168/Dove_research_brochure2020_FINAL3.pdf. Accessed 17 March 2022.
Martin, Areva. “Black Hair Discrimination Can Harm Black Women and Men.” Time, 23 August 2017, https://time.com/4909898/black-hair-discrimination-ignorance/. Accessed 17 March 2022.
“Kenneth and Mamie Clark Doll – Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site (US National Park Service).” National Park Service, 10 February 2021, https://www.nps.gov/brvb/learn/historyculture/clarkdoll.htm. Accessed 17 March 2022.

This was a very interesting civic issue blog to read. I had heard about the Crown Act on multiple occasions over the past few years on social media but had never fully understood its purpose.
While reading this civic issue blog, I was reminded of some of the recent controversies that you brought up, specifically DeAndre Arnold’s graduation case as well as the high school wrestler Andrew Johnson who had to have his dreads cut in order to compete in a match. Given I could recall many more examples, I have to agree that hair discrimination is a sneakily prevalent issue among American society. I think it would be hard to refute the claim that professionalism, along with most other American cultural aspects, is rooted in European values. I think people too easily disregard this fact: some argue that this affects all races equally. Just as black Americans cannot wear dreads or cornrows to work environments, white people cannot wear mohawks. While there is a discussion to be had between identity, hair, and how those should be affected by legislative jurisdiction among all races (if at all), it is undeniable that black culture specifically utilizes different hair styles as a major part of self-expression.
I think that infractions against this concept are especially egregious in cases such as the DeAndre Arnold case. “Today’s momentous decision enjoining enforcement of BHISD’s discriminatory dress and grooming policy makes a huge difference for our client, who may now return to class and extracurricular activities after being unfairly deprived of an equal education for many months,” (abc). Thankfully, this decision was found to be discriminatory. The libertarian in me says that something so inconsequential as a hairstyle should be limited by any governmental agency, let alone a high school during the student’s graduation ceremony. In many ways, it seems school’s reach with dress codes, hair monitoring, and other limitations on students’ garb and actions are becoming more and more limited. In a space which is supposed to teach students, this can only be a positive aspect as people can continue to learn how to properly express themselves as well as being in a classroom with other, real people.
In all, I think cases like what happened with Andrew Johnson might negatively affect the Crown act’s intentions. While we should certainly be wary of discrimination based on hair style while in irrelevant situations at the workplace, we should also realize that blasting other scenarios such as the high school wrestling match may also negatively affect the messages and reception of the Crown Act.

1)https://abc13.com/deandre-arnold-dreadlocks-barbers-hill-high-school-hair/6376156/

2) https://www.inquirer.com/education/nj-education-wrestling-dreadlocks-buena-andrew-johnson-referee-alan-maloney-20210506.html

Your blog was super insightful into how workplace discrimination can affect such a large group of individuals. Reading this blog reminded me of a 2018 incident. Andrew Johnson, a sixteen year old wrestler from New Jersey faced discrimination on the wrestling mat and in high school sports. At a local wrestling match, Johnson completed the standard weigh-in and check of his hair and skin. After this weigh-in, a referee informed his coach that his dreadlocks would need to be covered before the match. After Johnson’s mother questioned this decision, they took back their statement and he wrestled four matches without a hair covering or any issues with his hair. At another match though, a referee named Alan Maloney told Johnson that his hair and headgear did not comply with rules, and that if he desired to compete, he would have to immediately cut his dreadlocks or forfeit the match. Johnson cut his dreadlocks.
The Monday after the incident, the state association sent out an email that regulates athletes and conducts tournaments advising on hairstyles and tournaments. According to NJ Advance Media, It detailed that those with braided and dreadlocked hair needed to be covered alongside pictures of an unidentified black man.
But Elliott Hopkins, a director with the National Federation of State High School Associations, which writes the rules for competitions, stated something different. He said that it was not specific to typical African-American hairstyles, but in general if a wrestler’s hair “in its natural state” extends past the earlobe or touches the top of a shirt, a “legal hair cover” must be worn. Johnson’s team had a competition that Wednesday, and a referee had already told the coaches they expected him to wear a head covering. Johnson and his family continued to face scrutiny over his hair choices throughout the rest of that wrestling season.
Seeing this kind of discrimination in a school setting is horrifying to see. It demonstrates the struggle that so many face in the workplace and their communities.

Source:

N.J. wrestler forced to cut dreadlocks still targeted over hair, lawyer says (nbcnews.com)