Will the CROWN Act Do Enough to Protect Black Hairstyles?

A photo of the author showing off her natural hair. Source: personal photo

My hair: at first, it seems like just a hairstyle, but it is not just a hairstyle. It is also an expression of my Blackness. It has been like that all my life, but I only started recognizing that in the past three years. The first time I really recognized it was when I was a member of my ex-sorority at my previous university. At the time, it was the Whitest sorority on the campus, and I was the only one who wore Black hairstyles regularly. I did feel a bit of discomfort after making that observation, but it made me feel more in-touch with my Blackness. Without wearing Black hairstyles, I would have felt more out-of-touch with myself than I already was at the time. In predominately-White spaces, my hair reminds me that I am unambiguously Black. But I am worried about losing this element of Blackness one day due to the penalization of Black hairstyles.

Before expanding more on why, it is important to acknowledge the CROWN Act. CROWN is an acronym for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair, and the CROWN Act is meant to combat hair discrimination in the workforce and schools. California was the first state to pass it in 2019, with Dove, the CROWN Coalition, and then-State Sen. Holly J. Mitchell having pioneered the efforts. The CROWN Coalition consists of organizations who not only support the CROWN Act, but also the enactment of anti-discrimination laws. The founding members are Dove, National Urban League, Color of Change, and Western Center on Law and Poverty. Members of the coalition include the NAACP; Anti-Defamation League; multiple state chapters of the ACLU; and the historically Black sororities Alpha Kappa Alpha, Delta Sigma Theta, Zeta Phi Beta, and Sigma Gamma Rho. As of this article’s publication date, 24 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted the CROWN Act.

Even so, there is an ongoing lawsuit in Texas surrounding the violation of the CROWN Act. On August 31, a Black teenager named Darryl George was placed into in-school suspension for violating Barbers Hill High School’s dress code. The violation in question being that his dreadlocks “fall below his eyebrows and ear lobes.” After his placement in ISS, he and his mother, Darresha George, filed a complaint against the school and a federal civil rights lawsuit for failure to effectively enforce the CROWN Act. Though on October 11, George was placed into an alternative school, and after that was sentenced to another 13 days of ISS on December 5th. All because of his hair.

Long hair and accessories like beads can be a genuine safety concern, but George’s case is not about any safety concern. In fact, this is not the first time his school has gone through something like this. A federal judge ruled Barbers Hill’s dress code as anti-Black in 2020, after two Black teenagers, DeAndre Arnold and Kaden Bradford, who are cousins, were ordered to cut their dreadlocks. Arnold could not attend his high school graduation without cutting his dreadlocks, and he did not. That lawsuit motivated Texas to pass their CROWN Act, which went into effect on September 1, 2023. Although George was placed in ISS the day before its enactment, the dress code was already ruled as anti-Black before then. Also, texturism is not something that can be reduced to just one policy. It has a history that is at least several centuries old.

Texturism is the word describing hair discrimination. More specifically, texturism discriminates based on hairstyle, texture, and/or type. Everyone with hair has a natural hair type, which ranges from type 1 (straight) to type 4 (coily). There are 3 subtypes under each of them labeled from a-c, with type 1a being the straightest and type 4c being the coiliest. Although, it is common for more than one hair type to coexist on one’s head. No hair type is better than the other, but the premise of texturism is that straighter hair means closer proximity to Whiteness. Type 4 hair is mostly associated with Black people, and thus faces the highest amount of texturism of all hair types. Texturism also impacts non-Black POC, but it most heavily impacts Black people. Knowing its relationship with anti-Blackness is essential to understanding the pervasiveness of texturism in society.

In a Refinery29 video titled “Why People Judge Me By My Hair Type,” Rachael Edwards says that while texturism “wasn’t created by us [Black people], we have maintained it.” She is correct. Texturism goes back to chattel slavery, as enslavers and colonizers called coily hair  “wool.” They would even go as far as to shave enslaved persons’ heads as part of perpetrating cultural genocide. But, practices like the comb test have reinforced texturism by ostracizing Black people whose hair was not straight enough to ‘glide’ through a comb. This commonly happened in social groups like Greek life. Black people with coily hair were often excluded from membership. 

During the Black power movements of the 1960s, the natural hair movement encouraged Black people to grow out their hair without the influence of perms or straightening tools. But even with that, those with coily type 4 hair continue to hear texturist slurs such as “nappy” and “bad hair.” The impact is more pronounced if the person is dark skinned. Texturism upholds White supremacy in that texturism and anti-Blackness (as well as colorism and misogynoir) work together to oppress Black people in society. What has been ingrained by the White oppressors has translated into internalized anti-Blackness. The unfortunate result of that is that Black people have been texturist towards each other.

Box braids, dreadlocks, bantu knots, afros, cornrows—they are all beautiful hairstyles. They are all styles that encourage hair maintenance. But they all also serve as expressions of Blackness and resistance against White-centric beauty standards. For descendants of enslaved persons like myself, Black hairstyles are a way to feel connected with our Blackness. A way of keeping what the European colonizers tried to take away from our African ancestors. Pre-colonialism, our ancestors used hair as a tool of non-verbal communication in their cultures. People could learn about each other’s identities just through their hairstyles. Enslaved persons would braid seeds like those of rice and okra into their hair to have a survival resource in the Americas. There are also rumors that enslaved women used their hair as maps for escaping slavery. What is commonly seen as a trivial issue by White people is of cultural significance to Black people. 

The policing of Black hairstyles infringes on bodily autonomy and bodily integrity. Bodily autonomy is violated by not allowing Black individuals to wear the hairstyles of their choice. Bodily integrity is violated by forcefully changing Black individuals’ bodies without their consent. An example of a bodily integrity violation would be the 2021 case of a biracial elementary schooler in Michigan named Jurnee Hoffmeyer. A classmate and a teacher-librarian cut Jurnee’s hair off without her permission. Her father, Jimmy Hoffmeyer, then filed a lawsuit against the Mount Pleasant School District, the teacher-librarian, and the teacher assistant who oversaw the cutting of her hair. The case has since been settled. 

An example of a bodily autonomy violation would be the case of two Black teenagers named Mya and Deanna Cook, twin sisters from Boston, Massachusetts. They were barred from extracurriculars over braided hair extensions, because having hair extensions “violated” Mystic Valley Regional Charter School’s dress code. Their mother, Colleen Cook, pointed out that White teenagers, particularly the White girls, wore hair extensions with no repercussions. She also stated that her daughters were not the first Black girls to be punished over the dress code, exposing the school’s misogynoir. The charter school temporarily stopped enforcing their dress code after facing massive ire. While there are distinctions between bodily integrity and bodily autonomy, both are related to each other and are important to emphasize in social justice dialogues.

Some people would say that those cases do not have to do with race, because those actions are not okay regardless of race. And yes, teachers should never cut any student’s hair. Schools should not coerce students into changing their hairstyles. But given that the targeted students are primarily Black or mixed with Black, it does have to do with race. If it is not about race, then why did the Butler Traditional High School in Louisville, Kentucky attempt to explicitly ban hairstyles such as dreadlocks and braids in 2016? They took their words back after massive ire, but they tried to enforce them anyway by resorting to implicit yet strict language. To treat race as a separate matter is to perpetuate the cycle of anti-Black violence. 

The CROWN Act is a necessity, but it does have potential insufficiencies-especially since legal jargon is often ambiguous. Take Tennessee’s CROWN Act, for example. It explicitly says employers should not adopt policies that discourage people from wearing hairstyles associated with different racial and ethnic groups, not limited to braids and dreads. However, the law is ambiguous where it says that the CROWN Act provisions do not apply to public safety employees whose hair  “would prevent [them] from performing essential functions of the employee’s job requirements [...]” or to employers who must adopt public safety policies “to maintain reasonable safety measures.” As mentioned before in this article, long hair and accessories can be genuine safety hazards and public safety rules should be enforced. However, there is still room for texturism to occur in this regard. If a Black person is told to cut their hip-length box braids because it is  a “safety hazard,” but the same is never told to a White person with hip-length straight hair, texturism and anti-Blackness are still occuring.

Anti-discrimination laws are important, but they should not be used as isolated solutions to oppression. An HEC Paris Business School article titled “Why Anti-Discrimination Laws Are Not Enough to Ensure Inclusiveness” gives great points about the downsides of doing so. And in one point in that article, the writer, Dr. Matteo M. Winkler, says that “companies must find ways to create a culture where the risk of microaggressions is mitigated and every employee has a sense of belonging.” This pinpoints a key flaw in anti-discrimination laws: they often overlook cases of covert discrimination. As important as it is to address overt discrimination, it is just as important to address covert discrimination. When left unchecked, covert discrimination may be considered more damaging than overt discrimination. Overt discrimination sends clear messages of opposition, and lets people know what they are up against. Meanwhile covert discrimination sends unclear messages of support. When the messages are unclear, it is often harder to know who is genuinely down for the cause and who is not. Though without drawing the line, there is distrust and a lack of progress.  No one is immune from perpetuating covert discrimination, but that is why accountability is so important: to foster and maintain safe, affirming environments for all populations.

Let’s continue with the hypothetical situation about the “safety hazard.” A company may tout themselves as being “antiracist with a ‘zero-tolerance’ policy for racism.” However, a Black employee reports to the company’s executives that the White employees still have their hip-length hair. Only for those executives to ultimately not hold any of the White employees to the same standards. In fact, they might gaslight the Black employee and tell them that the White employees are “following safety procedures by tying up their hair” or by “keeping it behind their backs.” Those actions would show that the company does not have “zero tolerance of racism,” but rather a tolerance of covert racism. Tolerance of covert racism is still a tolerance of racism.

Speaking of “zero tolerance,” zero tolerance policies have been criticized for not fostering safe environments. This example can be seen with dress codes. Schools push them thinking that they will produce respectable and productive learning environments. In reality, they often produce environments that reinforce sexism, racism, and queermisia. Barbers Hill’s dress code, for example, says this:

“The personal appearance of the student represents that individual to his fellow students. The personal appearance of the entire school body represents the school to others. It is our desire to maintain a standard of acceptable dress and grooming habits that will contribute to this image.” 

But how does policing hair length encourage healthy hygiene? What does it mean to not have hair “below the eyebrows, below the ear lobes, or below the top of a tshirt collar”? Does hair slightly above one’s t-shirt collar violate the dress code for being below the eyebrows and earlobes? The most pressing question of all: how do dreadlocks disrupt anyone’s education or discourage healthy hygiene? The answer is that they do not. Dreadlocks are supposed to be maintained like any other hairstyle. It seems like Barbers Hill equated dreadlocks with ‘dirtiness’ and ‘poor hygiene,’ assumptions that are texturist and anti-Black. They are not the first ones to do so, however. While giving commentary on the show Fashion Police in 2015, Giuliana Rancic infamously made this comment at the Oscars about Zendaya’s dreadlocks: “I feel like she smells like patchouli oil. Or weed. Maybe weed. It’s legal now. So that’s what I think, yeah, this look isn’t working.” The weed reference showed Rancic’s anti-Blackness, especially with how she associated a Black hairstyle with ‘criminality’ and ‘dirtiness.’ 

Black people have constantly been stereotyped as ‘being criminals’ and ‘being dirty,’ which contributes to racial profiling, the loss of Black lives, and an overall unsafe society. From the context of dress codes, infractions for them are supposed to be generally minor. Though more often than not, school officials give students – especially Black students – excessive punishments for violating them, which reinforces the school-to-prison pipeline. Instead of allowing students to rise from their mistakes in safe environments, they make the students feel like they are under constant surveillance. They leave the students on-edge, ostracized, and unheard. They penalize students for trivial matters, which discourages them from socializing, learning, and making post-high school plans. Those power dynamics and the lack of affirming support can thwart students’ progress towards their dreams and result in them being incarcerated as adults.

The case of Darryl George is another one in which a Black student receives excessive punishment for violating his school’s dress code. He was placed in an alternative school for “multiple infractions of campus and classroom rules.” That action does not address the root cause of his anger: the texturism he faced from the school.  He has lost weeks of his junior year over something as benign as his hair, and he noted that other students with longer hair have not faced any repercussions. He has not been able to participate in extracurriculars, play football, or even go outside during his breaks. His grades have dropped, because he has been unable to attend his classes. He has had back pain from the eight hours spent sitting on a stool in ISS. Those actions have negatively impacted George’s mental health and safety, and it has happened to marginalized students in other schools as well. The message that Barbers Hill High School is sending with that action is that Black people are ‘troublemakers’ who need to stay silent about the anti-Blackness that happens to them. That message reinforces White supremacy as the norm and discourages anyone from dismantling it.

While on the subject of mental health, Darresha George  – Darryl’s mother –was hospitalized after the intense stress of her son’s case fueled panic attacks. Imagine watching a family member be punished over a hairstyle and then having to fight a texturist school. Cases like this show how the mental health of Black individuals has not mattered to society. While people who say things like “mental illnesses do not discriminate” mean well, they ignore how Black resistance and Blackness in general have been criminalized and pathologized into mental illnesses. That is one of the ways sanism, or mental health discrimination, appears in society. It works very closely with anti-Blackness. The effects of sanism and anti-Blackness working together are present with the George family’s lawsuit right now. Darryl George has been punished for expressing vulnerability and his valid anger and for exposing his school’s texturism. His and his mother’s mental health have been negatively impacted by this case. The stressors of racism and how they impact mental health—that alone proves that mental illnesses do discriminate.

At the end of the day, will the CROWN Act do enough to protect Black hairstyles and ultimately Black people’s bodily autonomy/integrity? The short answer: maybe. The long answer: maybe it will, but it will ultimately be up to both individuals and institutions to make the CROWN Act a protector of Black hairstyles. Institutions set the tone for society, but individuals, from the commoners to the elites, are the ones who enforce or ignore the institutional policies.

For the CROWN Act to be effective, covert discrimination, including microaggressions, must be explicitly protected under it. While there can be confusion on if something is covertly discriminatory, it is important to have dialogues with a person who points out covert discrimination. For example, if a Black person is told that their dreadlocks are too long but a White person’s straight hair does not get that scrutiny, that is covert discrimination in action – more specifically, texturism and anti-Blackness. That type of unjust treatment should not go unchecked.

Alongside explicitly denouncing covert discrimination, people in all environments must commit to fostering environments where the policy is effectively enforced. That means fostering environments where people can engage in honest dialogues about their environments, learn from their wrongdoings, and convert the engagement from dialogues into action. It also means not automatically dismissing people who pinpoint an injustice in the workplace, even if the opinions differ. In the context of the CROWN Act, this means allowing Black individuals to be earnest about their experiences with texturism, including in a particular environment. It also includes asking them how they can feel supported, and then taking action to make sure that they feel supported. There may be varying opinions on that regard, but those opinions can always be taken as knowledge to formulate an action plan. 

Perhaps had Barbers Hill learned from the incident in 2020 and dedicated themselves to fostering an anti-texturist environment, they would not be going through this lawsuit right now. If all lives cannot matter until Black lives matter, then combating texturism should be part of that slogan. So, combat texturism. Respect Black hairstyles. Respect Black people’s bodily autonomy and integrity. And do it for real. Do not just say it as a slogan. Black lives, mine included, depend on it.

May the George family win their lawsuit, and may Darryl live a satisfying life while rocking his unapologetically Black hair.