How did laws shape Black hair heritage?

Roots

There exists a lineage, woven not of spun fiber alone, but of spirit and shared memory, etched deep within the very helix of textured hair. For those whose ancestors journeyed through the Middle Passage, whose histories bear the weight of forced displacement, the story of hair is far from trivial. It is a chronicle of resistance, a silent language of identity, and a profound connection to a heritage spanning continents and centuries. Before the brutal severing of ancestral ties, in lands now called Africa, hair was a vibrant canvas for storytelling, marking status, spiritual devotion, and community bonds.

Each coil and curl held meaning, tended with reverence and the knowledge passed down through generations. The deliberate care of hair was a ritual, linking individuals to their lineage, their community, and the rhythms of the earth itself. The patterns of braids, the oils applied with intention, the adornments chosen with purpose—these were not simply aesthetic choices. They embodied a living archive of self and belonging. But this rich inheritance was met with a jarring rupture upon arrival in the Americas, where the very act of existing with textured hair became a site of profound legal and social control.

The dawn of slavery in the Americas brought with it an immediate assault on the visual markers of African identity. One of the earliest, most brutal acts of dehumanization was the forced shaving of heads. This act severed more than just hair; it aimed to dismantle the ancestral practices and cultural significance that hair represented. It was a deliberate erasure of a person’s visible connection to their origins, their people, and their self-worth.

This practice, often enforced by the very systems of control, established a cruel precedent ❉ Black hair, in its natural, untamed state, was deemed incompatible with the enslaved condition. The institution of slavery weaponized hair texture, creating a cruel caste system within plantation life. Individuals with straighter hair were at times granted the dubious privilege of domestic work, while those with tightly coiled hair faced the arduous labor of the fields (Historical Perspectives on Hair Care, 2025). This subtle, yet insidious, differentiation based on hair texture contributed to internalized prejudices that would echo for centuries.

What Early Laws Targeted Hair?

Colonial powers, driven by a desire to enforce rigid social hierarchies and control the visibility of free Black populations, enacted specific statutes that directly impacted hair. Among the most striking were the Tignon Laws of Louisiana in the late 18th century. These mandates, rooted in an attempt to diminish the perceived allure and social standing of free women of color, demanded that their hair be covered in public spaces. In Spanish Louisiana, around the 1780s, free Black women were known to wear elaborate and beautiful hairstyles (Byrd and Tharps, 2001).

The Tignon Laws, enacted in 1786 by Governor Esteban Miro, sought to curb this visibility. They mandated that free women of color wear a tignon—a kerchief or scarf—over their hair, often in an effort to distinguish them from white women and reinforce racial segregation (Midlo Hall, 1992). The intention was to suppress their elegance and social standing by making them appear less desirable in the eyes of white men. However, the resilience of these women manifested in a powerful, creative defiance.

They responded by tying their tignons with luxurious fabrics and in ornate, artistic styles, transforming an instrument of oppression into a statement of defiance and artistry, subtly subverting the very laws designed to control them. This episode illuminates how legal mandates sought to dictate public appearance, directly impacting the self-expression inherent in textured hair heritage.

The Tignon Laws, though designed to suppress the visibility of free Black women, ultimately became a canvas for their resilient artistry and cultural expression.

The legacy of these early laws extended beyond mere aesthetics. They codified a distinction between hair deemed “acceptable” and hair deemed “unruly,” a distinction heavily biased towards Eurocentric ideals. This legal framework laid foundational stones for future discrimination, implanting the idea that natural Black hair required policing and correction. The imposition of head coverings, for instance, not only stripped away personal choice but also symbolically veiled a part of one’s inherent identity, forcing a visual conformity that contradicted deep-seated ancestral traditions.

Ritual

The journey of textured hair through the ages became a living testament to adaptation and quiet rebellion, a continuation of ancestral practices even when under relentless scrutiny. Post-slavery, while the overt legal chains shattered, the societal and institutional pressures to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards tightened their grip. Laws might not have explicitly commanded straightening, but pervasive cultural norms and implicit biases created a powerful, unspoken mandate. The notion of “good hair” versus “bad hair” became deeply ingrained, a narrative subtly enforced by institutions, including workplaces and schools.

“Good hair” often connoted straighter textures, perceived as more “manageable” and “professional,” while natural, tightly coiled hair was frequently labeled “unkempt” or “unprofessional.” This systemic bias pushed many towards chemical relaxers and heat styling, painful processes that aimed to alter the very structure of their hair to fit into a narrowly defined standard of beauty and acceptance. This societal expectation, while not always written into explicit law, functioned as a powerful, coercive force, dictating access to opportunities and social mobility.

When Did Hair Discrimination Reach the Courts?

The struggle against hair-based discrimination entered the legal arena in the latter half of the 20th century, particularly as Black individuals increasingly sought their rightful place in professional spaces. These legal battles frequently centered on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, federal courts often interpreted this statute narrowly, creating a significant loophole for hair discrimination. One landmark case that profoundly shaped this legal landscape was Rogers v.

American Airlines in 1981. Renee Rogers, a Black flight attendant with American Airlines, challenged her employer’s grooming policy, which prohibited employees from wearing all-braided hairstyles like cornrows (Rogers v. American Airlines, 1981). Rogers argued that the policy constituted both race and sex discrimination, asserting the cultural and historical significance of cornrows to Black women (Rogers v.

American Airlines, 1981; Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc. 1981).

The court sided with American Airlines, ruling that the prohibition of braids did not violate Title VII. The court reasoned that the policy was “neutrally applicable” to all employees and that cornrows were a “mutable” characteristic—meaning they could be changed—rather than an “immutable” racial characteristic (Rogers v. American Airlines, 1981). This decision established a detrimental precedent ❉ if a hairstyle was deemed a choice, regardless of its deep cultural roots, it fell outside the protections of anti-discrimination laws.

This ruling essentially permitted employers to discriminate against natural Black hairstyles, except for Afros, which were seen as an immutable texture (Greene, 2017). This distinction forced a peculiar dichotomy where an Afro might be protected, but cornrows, locs, or twists—styles often worn for protection and cultural expression—were not. This legal outcome underscored a pervasive misunderstanding within the legal system concerning the intrinsic connection between Black hair practices and racial identity.

The Rogers v. American Airlines decision highlighted a critical flaw in anti-discrimination laws, failing to recognize cultural hairstyles as integral to racial identity.

The persistence of these discriminatory policies, despite the Civil Rights Act, reveals a deeper societal issue. Grooming standards in workplaces and schools frequently reflect Eurocentric beauty norms, leaving little room for the diverse expressions of textured hair. This has led to Black individuals facing disciplinary actions, job denials, and social ostracization.

The very act of wearing one’s hair in its natural state, or in traditional protective styles, became an act of quiet defiance against a system that sought to homogenize appearance. The wisdom of ancestral care, passed down through generations, became not just about hair health but also about preserving a connection to self, a heritage challenged by legal and social constructs.

For example, a study by Dove found that 80 percent of Black women reported feeling pressured to change their hairstyle to align with more conservative standards to fit into workplace environments (Legal Defense Fund, 2022). This statistic underscores the psychological burden and the real-world consequences of these unwritten, yet deeply felt, expectations. The ritual of daily hair care, once a communal and celebratory act in many African societies, transformed into a private struggle against external judgment and the threat of professional setback.

Relay

The narrative of laws shaping Black hair heritage is not confined to the past; it is a living, evolving story, finding its modern voice in legislative efforts like the CROWN Act. After decades of legal setbacks and persistent discrimination, a broad coalition of advocates recognized the need for explicit legal protections. The CROWN Act, an acronym for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair,” was born from this urgency.

This legislation aims to prohibit discrimination based on an individual’s hair texture or hairstyle, specifically including protective styles like braids, locs, twists, and knots, in workplaces and public schools (The CROWN Act, 2019; Legal Defense Fund, 2022). Its genesis in 2019, with California becoming the first state to pass such a law, marked a significant turning point in the ongoing fight for hair freedom (The CROWN Act, 2019).

How Does The CROWN Act Redefine Race?

The fundamental power of the CROWN Act lies in its expansion of the definition of race within anti-discrimination laws. Where previous interpretations, such as those applied in Rogers v. American Airlines, failed to recognize culturally significant hairstyles as immutable racial characteristics, the CROWN Act explicitly includes hair texture and protective styles as protected aspects of race (The CROWN Act, 2019).

This redefinition is profound, challenging the deeply ingrained notion that certain hairstyles are merely “choices” rather than expressions intrinsically tied to racial identity and heritage. It legally acknowledges that discrimination against a Black person’s natural hair or traditional style is, in essence, racial discrimination.

The legislative journey of the CROWN Act, from its California inception to its introduction at the federal level and adoption in numerous states, speaks to the widespread recognition of this historical injustice. As of May 2024, the federal CROWN Act has been reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate (The CROWN Act, 2024).

Beyond federal efforts, over 27 U.S. states have enacted their own CROWN Act legislation (Legal Defense Fund, 2022; The CROWN Act, 2024). This growing legislative wave provides a much-needed shield for individuals, particularly Black women, who face disproportionate scrutiny and negative consequences because of their hair in professional and educational settings. The data underscores this pressing need ❉ a 2020 study found that Black women with natural hairstyles are less likely to secure job interviews than white women or Black women with straightened hair (Legal Defense Fund, 2022).

• California ❉ First state to enact the CROWN Act in 2019, extending protection under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Education Code (The CROWN Act, 2019).
• New York ❉ Followed California in 2019, providing similar workplace and school protections.
• New Jersey ❉ Signed the CROWN Act into law in 2019, reinforcing protections against hair discrimination.

The scientific understanding of textured hair supports the legal arguments for its protection. The unique curl patterns, density, and structural characteristics of textured hair are inherent biological traits, directly linked to ancestry. Policies that penalize these natural traits are, by extension, targeting biological racial characteristics. The cultural practices surrounding textured hair—from braiding patterns to the use of specific oils and butters—are often responses to the biological needs of this hair type, developed over generations within ancestral communities.

These practices are not arbitrary; they are deeply rooted in understanding the hair’s elemental biology and ensuring its health and vitality. To ban a protective style like cornrows or locs, therefore, ignores both the scientific reality of textured hair and the centuries of heritage and ingenuity embedded within these practices. The laws, in this context, serve to bridge the gap between scientific understanding and cultural recognition, seeking to align legal protections with the lived experiences and biological realities of textured hair.

The CROWN Act stands as a testament to the persistent advocacy for the right to wear culturally significant hairstyles without fear of discrimination.

Beyond legislative action, the movement to protect textured hair has spurred greater public awareness and cultural discourse. Organizations, activists, and everyday individuals are reclaiming the narrative of Black hair, advocating for its beauty, versatility, and cultural significance. This collective voice is powerful, challenging the remnants of discriminatory mindsets and fostering a more inclusive understanding of beauty.

The impact of laws like the CROWN Act extends beyond legal recourse; they foster a broader societal shift, encouraging institutions to re-examine outdated grooming policies and promoting an environment where textured hair is celebrated, not subjugated. This ongoing legal and social relay ensures that future generations can inherit their hair heritage not as a burden, but as a source of pride and connection to their ancestral lineage.

Reflection

The journey of textured hair through the labyrinth of legal systems and societal norms is a poignant testament to the enduring spirit of a people and the resilience of a heritage that simply refuses to be silenced. From the cruel directives of the Tignon Laws to the modern legislative battles for the CROWN Act, laws have indeed shaped Black hair heritage, often through attempts at control, subjugation, and erasure. Yet, within each legal imposition, a counter-narrative of resilience and reinvention has taken root. Our coils and curls, our locs and braids, have not merely endured; they have evolved, carrying within their very structure the echoes of ancient practices and the defiant spirit of those who wore them.

It is a story of alchemy, transforming instruments of oppression into symbols of unapologetic selfhood. The whispers of ancestral wisdom, carried through the tender rituals of care, continue to guide our understanding of textured hair’s fundamental biology, reminding us that its capabilities and unique characteristics are a gift, not a burden.

The Soul of a Strand ethos calls us to see hair not as a mere appendage, but as a living archive, a repository of history, struggle, and triumph. It reminds us that every product choice, every styling technique, every conversation about textured hair is an act of acknowledging this profound legacy. The laws, in their shifting forms, have sometimes sought to define what Black hair should be, rather than celebrating what it is.

But the unwavering spirit of those who carried this heritage forward—the enslaved, the free women of color who tied their tignons with defiant grace, the activists who fought for legal recognition—has ensured that the true definition of Black hair remains rooted in its inherent beauty and cultural richness. We are custodians of this legacy, tasked with honoring the journey, learning from the legal landscapes our ancestors navigated, and continuing to advocate for a future where textured hair is universally respected, celebrated, and free to express its boundless heritage.