What historical legal rulings set the stage for the CROWN Act’s purpose?

Roots

Consider the whisper of the wind through ancient trees, a sound carrying stories of resilience, of pathways carved through time. Our textured hair, too, holds such whispers, a living archive of generations, a testament to the earth’s bounty and the human spirit’s enduring strength. For countless ages, this hair has been a crown, a canvas, a connection to the divine. Yet, as shadows lengthened across continents, as forced migrations fractured communities, this sacred aspect of self became entangled in the unforgiving machinery of law and social control.

The CROWN Act, a beacon in our present moment, a shield against bias, did not materialise from thin air. Its necessity, its very breath, is drawn from a long lineage of legal pronouncements that, with varying degrees of insight and oversight, shaped the ground upon which the struggle for hair liberation would ultimately stand. These rulings, often seemingly distant from the intimate world of one’s coils and kinks, nonetheless cast long, undeniable shadows, determining whose hair was deemed acceptable, whose identity could move unburdened through public spaces.

The Shifting Sands of Acceptance

The legal terrain preceding the CROWN Act is akin to arid land slowly, grudgingly yielding to a persistent spring. For generations, the legal framework governing appearance, particularly within workplaces and educational settings, often defaulted to Eurocentric ideals. This preference, though frequently unstated in explicit terms, operated as an invisible hand, shaping policies that disproportionately affected individuals with hair that naturally grows in coils, curls, and waves. These policies, presented as neutral standards of professionalism or neatness, were anything but.

They demanded a forced conformity, a suppression of ancestral expressions, a denial of biological truths. The impact was not merely cosmetic; it struck at the heart of identity, at the right to exist authentically.

Think of the earliest judicial pronouncements regarding race in America. While these judgments rarely, if ever, directly mentioned hair, they built the very architecture of racial hierarchy. For instance, the infamous Plessy V. Ferguson ruling in 1896, with its chilling doctrine of “separate but equal,” codified segregation.

This legal sanction of racial separation created an environment where anything associated with Black identity, including natural hair, could be deemed inferior or disruptive. The very notion of “acceptable” appearance became inextricably linked to a white aesthetic, setting a deeply problematic precedent for centuries to follow. In this climate, the simple act of wearing one’s hair in its natural state became a silent protest, a declaration against an imposed norm, though one often met with severe professional and social penalties.

The legal struggle for hair freedom finds its origin in deeply ingrained historical biases that shaped perceptions of Black and mixed-race identity.

Early Legal Challenges and Their Limits

As the Civil Rights Movement gained momentum, bringing forth landmark protections like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the hope for broader inclusion grew. This sweeping legislation aimed to dismantle discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. However, its application to hair discrimination proved to be a protracted and often disheartening journey. The legal system, accustomed to tangible forms of discrimination like segregated facilities or unequal pay, struggled to grasp the subtle, yet potent, impact of policies dictating hair appearance.

A crucial turning point, though one that revealed the law’s limitations, arrived with the 1971 Supreme Court decision in Griggs V. Duke Power Co.. This ruling, while not directly about hair, established the principle of “disparate impact” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This meant that even if a policy appeared neutral on its face, it could be considered discriminatory if it disproportionately harmed a protected group and was not a business necessity.

This legal theory offered a glimmer of possibility for hair discrimination cases, suggesting that appearance policies could be challenged if they disproportionately affected Black individuals. The path, however, remained steep and often unyielding.

The journey continued, haltingly. For example, in the case of Eunice Rogers against American Airlines in 1981, a Black flight attendant was prohibited from wearing cornrows. The court’s decision, ultimately upholding the airline’s right to ban the style, drew a distinction that would trouble hair activists for decades. It declared that while an “Afro” was an immutable racial characteristic, cornrows were a “hairstyle,” a “choice,” and therefore not protected under anti-discrimination laws.

This ruling starkly underscored the profound misunderstanding within the legal system regarding the intrinsic connection between Black hairstyles and Black identity. Cornrows, far from being a mere fleeting fashion, are an ancient practice, a lineage of intricate artistry and communal care, a protective style that speaks volumes of ancestral ingenuity and survival. To separate the style from the person, from the very heritage it embodied, was a grievous misstep.

Ritual

To understand the heart of hair discrimination, one must walk through the rituals of care, the ancestral practices that bind us to our strands. For centuries, the styling of textured hair has been more than adornment; it has been a sacred act of preservation, a communal gathering, a defiant expression of self in the face of erasure. The legal battles that followed the Civil Rights Act often failed to comprehend this deeper truth, reducing the rich heritage of Black hair to matters of mere aesthetics or “choice.” This profound disconnect set the stage for rulings that would reinforce, rather than dismantle, the barriers faced by those whose hair spoke a different, yet equally beautiful, language.

Why Was Hair So Often Dismissed?

The courts frequently struggled with how to classify hair-based discrimination. Was it racial discrimination? Sex discrimination? Or something else entirely?

The prevailing legal interpretation often hinged on the idea of “immutability” – that a characteristic had to be unchangeable to warrant protection. Skin color, for instance, is immutable. Hair texture, in its natural state, is also immutable. However, many traditional Black hairstyles, like braids, twists, or dreadlocks, were incorrectly categorized as “styles” or “choices” rather than expressions of natural texture or cultural heritage. This legal distinction ignored the fundamental truth that for many, these styles are the most natural, healthy, and culturally appropriate ways to wear their hair.

The historical narrative of hair in Black communities is one of ingenuity and adaptation. When one considers the practice of braiding, for instance, it is not merely a method of arranging hair; it is a profound act of care, a way to protect delicate strands from environmental aggressors, a legacy passed down through generations. The intricate patterns can carry symbolic meaning, marking social status, marital status, or even tribal affiliation in ancestral African societies (Byrd & Tharps, 2014, p. 10).

To ban such styles in a professional setting was to ban a part of one’s identity, a direct link to one’s lineage. Yet, time and again, courts sided with employers, often citing concerns about “professionalism” or “grooming standards” that implicitly, or explicitly, favored straight hair.

The judicial system often failed to recognize the deep cultural and historical roots of textured hairstyles, categorizing them as mere choices rather than inherent aspects of identity and heritage.

The Unheeded Voices of Textured Hair

Several significant cases prior to the CROWN Act illustrate this judicial blind spot. They demonstrate how individuals were penalized for wearing their hair in styles that were protective, culturally significant, or simply their natural state.

• Early Challenges to Grooming Policies ❉ Many of the earliest cases involved challenges to employer grooming policies. These policies, while ostensibly neutral, frequently resulted in the termination or refusal to hire Black individuals whose hair did not conform to unstated norms. These initial legal skirmishes rarely found success, as courts often deferred to employer discretion in matters of appearance.
• The “Style Vs. Trait” Divide ❉ The central legal battleground became the distinction between an immutable racial trait (like skin color) and a chosen hairstyle. This false dichotomy proved immensely damaging. If a Black woman wore an Afro, it might be protected as a natural expression of her race. However, if she chose to braid that same hair, it could be deemed unprotected. This legal interpretation ignored the reality that for many, braids or twists are the most practical, healthy, and culturally aligned way to wear their natural texture.
• The Legacy of Rogers V. American Airlines ❉ The 1981 ruling in Rogers V. American Airlines created a lasting precedent that allowed employers to discriminate against Black employees for wearing traditional hairstyles. This case became a significant point of reference, often cited in subsequent rulings to deny protection for braided styles, locs, and other natural expressions of textured hair. It solidified the notion that while discrimination based on race was illegal, discrimination based on “Black hairstyles” was permissible, even if those styles were inherently linked to race and culture.

These prior rulings, rather than offering recourse, illuminated the glaring gaps in existing anti-discrimination law. They revealed a system unable or unwilling to fully grasp the intersection of race, culture, and appearance, particularly when it came to hair. This persistent legal vulnerability created a chilling effect, forcing countless individuals to alter their natural hair, often through damaging chemical processes or uncomfortable styles, simply to navigate professional and educational spaces without fear of penalty. The burden of conformity fell disproportionately on Black individuals, a silent toll exacted by a society that failed to see the richness in their strands.

Relay

The journey toward the CROWN Act is a relay race, where each generation passed the baton of resistance, building upon the sometimes-disheartening precedents set before. The legal landscape, initially barren of meaningful protection for textured hair, gradually began to shift, albeit slowly. It was a movement driven by lived experience, by the cumulative weight of countless indignities, and by the refusal of a people to allow their heritage to be legally erased strand by strand. The legal rulings that precede the CROWN Act are not merely dusty court records; they are markers along a historical path, revealing the persistent fight against systemic bias that deemed culturally significant hairstyles as “unprofessional” or “unacceptable.”

Why Did Courts Fail to See the Link to Race?

The persistent struggle to establish legal protection for textured hair stemmed from a narrow interpretation of racial discrimination. Courts often required explicit discriminatory intent or a direct link to immutable physical characteristics. The nuanced reality of hair, as both a biological trait and a deeply personal cultural expression, proved challenging for a legal system built on more rigid definitions. The concept that a hairstyle could be inherently tied to one’s racial identity and heritage was consistently overlooked.

This legal blindness came to a sharp point in cases involving locs or dreadlocks. These ancient styles, worn across diverse cultures for millennia, hold deep spiritual, philosophical, and communal significance in many Black traditions. They are a declaration of identity, a celebration of natural growth, a testament to patience and self-acceptance. Yet, in many courtrooms, they were simply seen as a “style,” a “choice,” and therefore unprotected by existing anti-discrimination laws.

A particularly stark example occurred in EEOC V. Catastrophe Management Solutions. In 2016, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling against a Black woman who was denied employment because she refused to cut her dreadlocks. The court stated that Title VII, while prohibiting discrimination based on race, did not cover discrimination based on hairstyles, even if those styles are associated with a particular race.

This ruling, coming just years before the CROWN Act began its legislative ascent, underscored the dire need for a new legal framework. It vividly illustrated that despite decades of civil rights advocacy, the existing laws were insufficient to protect individuals from a pervasive form of racial discrimination. This wasn’t merely about appearance; it struck at the right to earn a livelihood without compromising one’s cultural identity.

What Historical Misunderstandings Persisted?

The consistent mischaracterization of Black hairstyles as mere “fashions” or “choices” stemmed from a profound lack of cultural literacy within the legal system. For many, particularly those outside of Black and mixed-race communities, the practices around textured hair were not understood as intrinsic elements of health, protection, and identity. The concept of protective styles – braids, twists, locs – which shield hair from environmental damage, breakage, and promote growth, was not afforded the same professional legitimacy as a chemically straightened or heat-styled look.

This bias had far-reaching implications, extending beyond the professional realm into educational settings. Children, too, faced suspension or exclusion for wearing their natural hair or culturally significant styles. These policies, rooted in a colonial gaze that valued conformity over cultural expression, perpetuated cycles of self-doubt and undermined the very essence of identity formation. The constant pressure to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards meant individuals had to choose between their authentic selves and their ability to participate fully in society.

The persistent dismissal of textured hair as merely “style” rather than inherent identity underscored the need for explicit legal protection.

The collective experience of these legal setbacks, the individual stories of discrimination, and the continued advocacy from civil rights organizations and hair liberation movements, coalesced into an undeniable demand for change. These rulings, each a painful echo of a societal bias, ultimately paved the way for the CROWN Act. They provided irrefutable evidence that existing laws were insufficient, that a new, explicit legal shield was desperately needed to affirm the right to natural hair in workplaces and schools.

The Act, in its legislative text, directly addresses the gaps exposed by these historical precedents, unequivocally stating that discrimination based on hair texture or protective hairstyles associated with race is indeed racial discrimination. It acknowledges the deep heritage woven into every coil, every loc, every braid, seeking to undo centuries of legal and social marginalization.

Reflection

And so, the journey continues, a steady current flowing from the ancient source to the boundless sea of the future. The CROWN Act, in its very spirit, is a testament to the enduring power of heritage, a vibrant declaration that the stories held within our strands are not just personal narratives but essential threads in the collective human experience. It speaks to a profound truth ❉ our hair, in all its wondrous forms, is a gift, a connection to lineage, a symbol of resilience that has weathered storms and emerged, still luminous. The legal battles that preceded it, though often steeped in misunderstanding, served as crucible moments, revealing the urgent need for a deeper societal respect for Black and mixed-race identities.

This Act is more than legislation; it is a step towards healing, a recognition of the emotional labor and historical trauma caused by forced conformity. It offers a gentle reassurance that the ancestral wisdom held within each curl, each kink, each loc, is worthy of celebration, not condemnation. As we move forward, may we carry this understanding, tending to our strands not just with oils and combs, but with profound reverence for the journey they represent. For in honoring our hair, we honor ourselves, our past, and the vibrant tapestry of our shared human story.