Can the CROWN Act reshape perceptions of professionalism for textured hair?

Roots

There exists a profound connection between who we are and how our hair chooses to unfurl itself, a truth etched into the very core of our being, particularly for those of us whose lineage traces through the richly textured strands of African and mixed-race heritage. For generations, the crown atop our heads has served as more than mere adornment; it is a living archive, a scroll of stories whispered from ancestral winds. Yet, for too long, this vibrant legacy has met with the blunt force of imposed norms, standards that demand a conformity erasing the very essence of our inherited beauty. The question of whether the CROWN Act can reshape perceptions of professionalism for textured hair is not simply a legal musing; it is an inquiry into the liberation of identity, a deep breath exhaled after centuries of holding back.

It speaks to the recognition of what has always been true ❉ our hair, in its natural state, is inherently professional, inherently magnificent. This legislative act does not create acceptance; rather, it aims to clear the path for an acceptance that should have always been present, acknowledging a history that has systematically dismissed the inherent dignity of textured hair in professional spaces. It asks us to look beyond superficial biases and to witness the long journey of resilience woven into every coil, every curl, every loc.

Hair Anatomy and Ancestral Knowing

At its foundation, hair, regardless of its form, arises from the same elemental biology—a complex protein fiber, primarily keratin, emerging from the scalp’s follicles. However, the exquisite diversity of human hair, particularly the tightly coiled configurations often seen in African and Melanesian populations, reflects ancient adaptations to varied environments (Lasisi, cited in Mental Floss, 2019). These coils, far from being a deviation, are a sophisticated biological design.

They serve a purpose, perhaps historically in thermal regulation, providing insulation and protection from intense sun (Lasisi, cited in Mental Floss, 2019). Understanding this foundational biology allows us to appreciate that textured hair is not a random occurrence, nor is it “difficult” or “unruly”; it is a marvel of natural engineering.

For generations before the advent of modern science, ancestral communities held a deep, intuitive understanding of hair’s intricate workings. Hair was not just biology; it was spirit, status, and communication. Different styles could signify marital status, age, religion, or even tribal affiliation. These intricate connections between hair’s physical form and its cultural meaning existed long before microscopes revealed follicular structure.

The wisdom passed down through generations on how to nurture and adorn textured hair was a form of applied science, honed over millennia. The CROWN Act, in its legislative reach, compels a modern society to acknowledge this deep, ancestral understanding of hair’s inherent nature, pushing back against the narrow, colonial definitions of what is deemed acceptable.

Challenging Hair Classification Systems

The history of classifying hair types, sadly, is intertwined with problematic racial categorizations. For a significant period, scientific research often reduced human hair to three broad types ❉ Caucasian, Asian, and African, a reduction that failed to grasp the vast diversity within populations. This oversimplified categorization, often rooted in biased perspectives, contributed to the devaluation of textured hair by setting European hair as the unspoken norm.

Even Andre Walker’s widely adopted hair typing system, while more detailed with its 1a-4c scale, emerged from a landscape where more precise scientific classification was still developing (CurlsBot, 2025). The very language we use to describe textured hair has been shaped by these historical biases, often implying a deviation from a perceived norm, rather than recognizing its unique beauty and biological function.

The CROWN Act stands as a legislative counterpoint to these historical biases, aiming to redefine professionalism by asserting that traits associated with race, including hair texture and protective styles, are protected from discrimination. It pushes us to dismantle the underlying assumptions that have made hair typing a tool of social hierarchy, rather than a neutral descriptive system. The act indirectly demands a re-evaluation of how we categorize and speak about hair, encouraging a lexicon that celebrates its diversity rather than ranking it against an arbitrary standard.

The CROWN Act’s journey is one of dismantling centuries of ingrained biases, pushing society to honor textured hair’s intrinsic value and ancestral stories within professional settings.

The lexicon of textured hair, for those deeply connected to its heritage, extends beyond scientific terms. It includes names for styles, tools, and practices that carry cultural weight and meaning. For example:

• Cornrows ❉ An ancient African braiding style, often used for communication and resistance during enslavement.
• Locs ❉ Historically significant, these hair formations carry spiritual and cultural meaning across various African and diasporic communities.
• Bantu Knots ❉ Named after the Bantu people of Southern Africa, these coiled sections of hair are both a style and a foundational technique.

These terms are not merely descriptors; they are echoes of ancestral practices, each word holding generations of meaning and resilience. The CROWN Act’s power lies not just in legal protection, but in its potential to normalize these terms and the hairstyles they represent, allowing them to exist freely and proudly in every space, including the professional sphere.

Ritual

Stepping into the realm of ‘Ritual’ invites us to consider how our hands, guided by wisdom passed down through time, have always engaged with textured hair—a dialogue of care and creativity. It’s a space where the practical knowledge of styling and maintenance, shaped by both ancestral ingenuity and contemporary understanding, takes center stage. The journey of textured hair through history is a testament to persistent artistry in the face of adversity, and the CROWN Act emerges as a vital, if relatively recent, chapter in that ongoing story, acknowledging hair practices rooted in heritage as legitimate and worthy of respect.

It acknowledges the deep spiritual significance of hair in many African and diasporic cultures, where hair was believed to communicate with spirits and gods, carrying the very essence of a person’s soul. This profound connection meant hair care was never a mere aesthetic choice, but a spiritual and communal act, a ritual in itself.

Protective Styling Beyond Adornment

Protective styling, deeply rooted in African hair heritage, extends far beyond mere aesthetic choice; it represents a centuries-old practice of preservation, communal bonding, and quiet defiance. Styles like braids, twists, and cornrows, which are now legally protected under the CROWN Act in many jurisdictions, were originally developed out of both necessity and cultural expression. During the transatlantic slave trade, for instance, enslaved African women would braid seeds into their hair, a survival tactic that allowed them to carry vital sustenance and cultural knowledge to new lands. These hairstyles were also intricate maps, guiding paths to freedom.

This historical context underscores the deep meaning embedded within these practices. The CROWN Act, in explicitly safeguarding these protective styles—such as Afros, Bantu knots, braids, cornrows, and twists—recognizes them not as mere fashion trends, but as authentic expressions tied to racial and cultural identity. The act helps to dismantle the long-held, Eurocentric notion that these styles are “unprofessional” or “unacceptable” in formal settings, forcing a re-evaluation of what constitutes ‘professional’ appearance. It acknowledges that demanding their alteration is not just a grooming request, but an attack on deeply personal and collective heritage.

Historical Context of Protective Styles

The deep history of protective styles is a testament to the ingenuity and resilience of African peoples. Consider the Tignon Laws of 1786 in Spanish colonial Louisiana, a poignant example of hair discrimination woven into legal fabric. Governor Esteban Rodriguez Miró decreed that free women of color had to cover their hair with a tignon, a scarf or handkerchief. The stated purpose was to suppress their “excessive attention to dress” and maintain class distinctions, as these women’s elaborate hairstyles and refined appearance were seen as a threat to the social order and a challenge to white women’s status.

Yet, in a powerful act of resistance, these women transformed the tignon itself into a symbol of distinction, adorning their headwraps with rich fabrics, jewels, ribbons, and feathers, effectively subverting the law’s intent and continuing to express their pride and identity. This historical instance, though predating the CROWN Act by centuries, perfectly illuminates the struggle for hair autonomy that the modern law addresses. It highlights how even when attempts were made to control hair for discriminatory purposes, communities found ways to assert their heritage and selfhood.

The CROWN Act’s protective scope extends to ancestral styles, validating a continuum of cultural expression and resilience against historically imposed beauty standards.

Redefining Professional Aesthetics

The push for the CROWN Act was spurred by countless instances where Black individuals, particularly women, faced employment and educational discrimination due to their natural hair or protective styles. Studies have shown that Black women with natural hairstyles are less likely to receive job interviews than white women or Black women with straightened hair, with many viewing Black hairstyles as “less professional” (Perception Institute, 2020; cited in Legal Defense Fund, 2020). This bias forced many to chemically straighten their hair or adopt styles that conformed to Eurocentric norms, often at great financial and health costs.

The CROWN Act directly challenges these biased perceptions, aiming to dismantle the systemic racism embedded in workplace and school grooming policies. It is a legislative affirmation that professionalism should be measured by capability and contribution, not by hair texture.

The act does not just codify protection; it sparks a broader societal dialogue, encouraging a re-evaluation of what constitutes a truly inclusive and equitable environment. It’s about recognizing that authenticity, particularly when it comes to expressing one’s cultural identity through hair, does not diminish one’s ability to perform in a professional capacity. Rather, it enriches the collective human experience within the workplace, fostering a climate where diverse expressions of self are valued and celebrated.

Relay

Now, we move into a realm where the threads of science, law, and enduring cultural practices intertwine most profoundly. What deeper historical echoes resonate through the legal protections of the CROWN Act, revealing its role in shaping future hair traditions and our understanding of professionalism? This section will delve into the complexities surrounding the CROWN Act, examining its historical underpinnings, its societal implications, and the scientific realities of textured hair that lend weight to its protections. This is a discourse that requires us to move beyond superficiality, to consider the biological, psychological, social, and cultural currents that define our relationship with hair, particularly for those whose heritage is etched in its unique contours.

The Historical Trajectory of Hair Discrimination

To truly grasp the significance of the CROWN Act, one must trace the long, often painful, lineage of hair discrimination, which is intrinsically linked to the broader history of racial subjugation and the imposition of Eurocentric beauty standards. From the moment enslaved Africans were forcibly brought to new lands, their hair became a site of control and dehumanization. The deliberate act of shaving heads upon capture was not just a hygienic measure; it was a psychological assault, a symbolic stripping away of identity and cultural connection.

In many pre-colonial African societies, hair was a powerful marker of identity, conveying social status, age, marital standing, and even spiritual beliefs. To destroy or manipulate this symbol was to sever a connection to one’s heritage, a profound act of cultural erasure.

This historical pattern of hair-based oppression continued through generations, evolving from explicit laws like the Tignon Law into more insidious, yet equally damaging, workplace policies. Even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which sought to outlaw racial discrimination, a loophole persisted ❉ courts often ruled that while racial discrimination was forbidden, hair styles were a matter of choice and thus not protected. This distinction created a legal void where employers could, and did, discriminate against natural Black hairstyles under the guise of “grooming policies”. The 2013 case of Chastity Jones, who had a job offer rescinded because she refused to cut her locs, epitomizes this long-standing issue.

The court’s initial ruling, upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, asserted that “Title VII protects persons in covered categories with respect to their immutable characteristics, but not their cultural practices”. This legal interpretation starkly illustrates the systemic disregard for the cultural significance of Black hair and its heritage, setting the stage for the CROWN Act’s necessity.

CROWN Act as a Paradigm Shift

The CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair) directly addresses this historical injustice by amending the definition of race to include hair texture and protective styles commonly associated with a particular race or national origin. By doing so, it legally recognizes that discrimination against natural hair is indeed racial discrimination. As of 2023, several states have passed the CROWN Act into law, with many more introducing similar legislation. This legislative action represents a significant cultural moment, pushing back against decades, even centuries, of ingrained bias that has deemed tightly coiled, braided, or locked hair as “unprofessional” or “unruly”.

The Psychological Impact of Hair Bias

The enforcement of Eurocentric hair standards has had deep psychological costs for Black and mixed-race individuals. Research indicates that Black women frequently feel compelled to change their hair to align with conservative workplace standards. A 2020 study found that Black women with natural hairstyles are less likely to secure job interviews than their white counterparts or Black women with straightened hair, with employers perceiving natural Black hairstyles as less professional (Michigan State University and Duke University, cited in Legal Defense Fund, 2020).

This persistent bias directly impacts career advancement, self-esteem, and even physical health, as some Black women avoid exercise to preserve chemically straightened hair. The CROWN Act, therefore, is not merely a legal mandate; it is a step towards liberation from these imposed standards, fostering an environment where individuals can present their authentic selves without fear of professional repercussions.

The CROWN Act serves as a legislative catalyst, moving perceptions of professionalism beyond narrow, Eurocentric norms to encompass the rich, authentic expressions of textured hair heritage.

The very notion of “professionalism” has historically been constructed upon a foundation of white, often European, appearance norms. This implicitly demands conformity, requiring individuals with textured hair to chemically straighten their hair or adopt styles that mimic straighter textures. The methods used to achieve such conformity are often costly and damaging, both financially and physically. The CROWN Act argues that such requirements are akin to demanding a person change their skin color or facial features to conform to a specific racial standard, which would be unequivocally recognized as racial discrimination.

The CROWN Act aims to:

• Protect from Discrimination ❉ It provides a legal framework to challenge race-based hair discrimination in workplaces and schools, recognizing that hair texture and protective styles are linked to racial identity.
• Promote Inclusivity ❉ By validating diverse hair expressions, it fosters environments where individuals can be their authentic selves, potentially leading to increased self-esteem and productivity.
• Address Economic and Health Disparities ❉ It alleviates the pressure for Black individuals to spend significant time and money on altering their hair to meet biased standards, and reduces health risks associated with chemical treatments.

The act does not just prohibit discrimination; it invites a profound shift in societal understanding. It challenges us to examine the very definition of professionalism, asking whether it is truly about competence and capability, or if it remains tethered to antiquated, racially biased aesthetic codes. The CROWN Act acts as a beacon, guiding us towards a future where the rich heritage of textured hair is celebrated, not penalized, in every sphere of life.

Reflection

The journey to understand the CROWN Act’s potential to reshape perceptions of professionalism for textured hair brings us full circle to the very heart of Roothea’s ‘Soul of a Strand’ ethos ❉ the enduring power of heritage. This legislative stride is far more than a legal decree; it is a profound acknowledgment of the living, breathing history carried within each curl, coil, and loc. It whispers of the resilience that transformed headwraps of suppression into crowns of defiance, mirroring the ancestral spirit that sustained communities through untold hardships.

The act does not simply offer protection; it offers a public validation of what has always been understood within communities of color—that their hair, in its myriad forms, is a testament to beauty, adaptability, and an unbroken lineage. As this law takes deeper root, it nurtures a future where the stories written in textured hair are not just tolerated, but truly seen, honored, and understood as a rightful, vibrant part of the global tapestry of professionalism.

References

• Byrd, A. D. & Tharps, L. (2001). Hair Story ❉ Untangling the Roots of Black Hair in America. St. Martin’s Griffin.
• Dabiri, E. (2019). Don’t Touch My Hair. Allen Lane.
• Donahoo, S. (2023). Working with style ❉ Black women, black hair, and professionalism. Gender, Work & Organization, 30(2), 596-611.
• Gould, V. M. (1997). The Devil’s Lane ❉ Sex & Race in the Early South. Oxford University Press.
• Harris, C. & Davis, D. R. (2023). Wear Your CROWN ❉ How Racial Hair Discrimination Impacts the Career Advancement of Black Women in Corporate America. Journal of Business Diversity, 23(2), 27-40.
• Johnson, P. L. & Harris, J. (Eds.). (2001). Tenderheaded ❉ A Comb-Bending Collection of Hair Stories. Washington Square Press.
• Jude, Y. (2010). The Black Hair Care Revolution ❉ A Simple Pocket Guide to Growing & Maintaining Healthy Natural & Permed Hair. Yetunde Jude.
• Mensah, C. (2021). Good Hair ❉ The Essential Guide to Afro, Textured and Curly Hair. Penguin.
• Opie, T. R. & Phillips, K. W. (2015). Hair penalties ❉ the negative influence of Afrocentric hair on ratings of Black women’s dominance and professionalism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1392.
• Ramirez, M. R. & Miró, E. R. (1786). Bando de Buen Gobierno (Proclamation of Good Government). Spanish Colonial Archives, Louisiana.