What historical legislative efforts supported textured hair in professional settings?

Roots

The stories held within each coil, each strand, are not merely biological marvels; they are chronicles of ancestry, resilience, and a profound connection to self. For generations, the textured hair of Black and mixed-race individuals has been a canvas of expression, a marker of identity, and a sacred link to heritage. Yet, this deep, living history has often met with societal standards born of oppressive pasts, particularly within the confines of professional settings.

The question of what historical legislative efforts supported textured hair in professional settings prompts us to consider the journey from ancient veneration to contemporary legal battles, a path marked by persistent challenges and the enduring spirit of self-affirmation. We trace the lineage of these efforts, understanding that each step taken in law is a reverberation of voices that long sought recognition for an intrinsic part of who they are.

A Legacy of Imposed Standards

From the era of chattel slavery, where the forced shaving of heads aimed to strip enslaved Africans of their cultural markers, to later periods that elevated Eurocentric beauty ideals, textured hair faced deliberate suppression. In the Western world, Afro-textured hair was historically met with disdain, often perceived as “unprofessional” or “unclean”. Policies that prohibited natural hairstyles like Afros, braids, Bantu knots, and locs justified excluding Black individuals from classrooms and employment.

This historical imposition created a landscape where conforming to dominant appearances became a gateway, or even a demand, for access to opportunities. The concept of “good hair,” often signifying straighter textures, arose as a societal construct, creating internal divisions within Black communities and external pressures for assimilation.

The historical imposition of Eurocentric beauty standards created a systemic bias against textured hair in professional environments, forcing conformity for opportunity.

Early forms of legislative discourse, if they existed at all, often failed to acknowledge the cultural significance of Black hair or the inherent racism in policies demanding its alteration. While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination based on race, its interpretation by courts frequently overlooked hair as an aspect of racial identity. For a long time, the legal system focused on “immutable characteristics,” meaning traits that could not be changed.

Many courts ruled that hairstyles, being “changeable,” were not protected under existing civil rights statutes. This narrow view effectively created a loophole, allowing hair discrimination to persist unchecked, despite its clear connection to racial bias.

Echoes of the Tignon Laws

Consider the infamous Tignon Laws of 18th-century New Orleans. While not directly about professional settings, these laws provide a stark historical precedent for legislated control over Black hair. Enacted in 1786, they compelled free Creole women of color to cover their hair with a tignon, a scarf or handkerchief, in public spaces.

This measure aimed to distinguish them from white women and reinforce a social hierarchy, attempting to suppress their elaborate and expressive hairstyles that sometimes mirrored or even surpassed those of the white elite. This historical legislative effort serves as an early, chilling illustration of how laws were wielded not to support, but to suppress, expressions of identity through hair, setting a deeply rooted pattern of control that would echo through centuries.

Ritual

The journey toward legislative support for textured hair in professional spaces represents a vital ritual of reclamation—a collective effort to restore dignity and selfhood where it was systematically denied. For far too long, policies dictated appearances based on narrow, exclusionary definitions of professionalism, leaving Black and mixed-race individuals navigating an often hostile terrain in workplaces and schools. The legal mechanisms that began to offer genuine support for textured hair are relatively recent, emerging from a persistent chorus of voices demanding recognition of hair as an extension of racial identity and cultural heritage.

The Emergence of Specific Protections

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 , while fundamental, did not explicitly safeguard against hair discrimination. Courts, through the years, rendered varied decisions when confronting discrimination cases involving natural hair. Early rulings, like the 1976 case of Jenkins V. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance, allowed a race discrimination lawsuit against an employer for bias against afros, with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirming that workers were entitled to wear afros under Title VII.

Yet, this protection proved fleeting and often narrow. Subsequent cases often failed to secure similar protections for styles like braids, twists, or locs, based on the argument that these were mutable choices rather than immutable racial characteristics. This legal reasoning created a significant barrier.

A particularly illustrative instance is the 2013 lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of Chastity Jones against Catastrophe Management Solutions. Ms. Jones had a job offer rescinded because she refused to cut her locs, which the company deemed violated their grooming policy.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2016, upheld the lower court’s decision, asserting that Title VII “protects persons in covered categories with respect to their immutable characteristics, but not their cultural practices”. This ruling starkly underscored the limitations of existing anti-discrimination laws and ignited a renewed push for more specific, explicit protections.

The journey to legally affirm textured hair began with limited judicial interpretations of civil rights law, often failing to recognize hairstyles as expressions of racial identity.

How Do These Legislative Efforts Redefine Professionalism?

The recognition that such hair discrimination is a direct manifestation of systemic racism led to the advent of the CROWN Act . Standing for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair,” this legislative initiative aims to prohibit race-based hair discrimination by explicitly expanding the definition of race in anti-discrimination laws to include hair texture and styles historically associated with specific racial or ethnic identities. California took the lead, signing the CROWN Act into law on July 3, 2019, becoming the first state to outlaw racial discrimination based on natural hairstyles. This landmark action protected all presentations of natural hair, including braids, twists, locs, and knots, from discrimination in employment and K-12 public schools.

Since California’s pivotal step, the movement has gained significant momentum. As of late 2024, twenty-seven states have enacted their own versions of the CROWN Act, creating a patchwork of protections across the nation. While a federal version of the CROWN Act has passed the U.S. House of Representatives twice (most recently in March 2022 with a 235-189 vote) it has not yet passed the Senate, remaining a priority for ongoing advocacy.

These laws redefine the very notion of “professionalism,” shifting away from a narrow, Eurocentric ideal to one that embraces the authentic appearance of Black and mixed-race individuals. They recognize that hair is not a mere aesthetic choice, but an intimate aspect of cultural expression and identity, rooted deeply in ancestry.

• Locs ❉ Seen for generations as signs of spiritual journeys and deep cultural connection, these formations of coiled hair often faced immediate dismissal as “unprofessional.” The CROWN Act directly challenges this bias.
• Braids and Cornrows ❉ Ancestral styles originating from various African communities, used for practicality, social status, and artistic expression, they were historically maligned in formal settings.
• Afros ❉ A powerful symbol of Black pride and resistance during the Civil Rights movement, its natural volume and shape were often targeted by restrictive grooming policies.

These legislative actions are a direct response to pervasive discrimination. A 2020 study by Michigan State University and Duke University, titled “The Natural Hair Bias in Job Recruitment,” found that Black women with natural hairstyles were less likely to get interviews than white women or Black women with straightened hair. Furthermore, a 2019 study by Dove indicated that Black women are 1.5 times more likely to be sent home from the workplace due to their hair, and 80 percent of Black women reported feeling they needed to switch their hairstyle to align with more conservative standards to fit in at work. These statistics underscore the urgent need for the legislative support provided by the CROWN Act and similar measures.

Relay

The ongoing pursuit of legislative protections for textured hair in professional settings represents a crucial relay race—a continuous passing of the baton from those who fought for recognition to those who now work to ensure these protections are truly felt and lived. This phase of understanding moves beyond simply identifying the laws; it delves into their living application, their triumphs, and the persistent challenges that continue to shape the experience of textured hair in modern workspaces. We look to the deeper cultural impact and the complex interplay of legal frameworks with societal norms.

What Challenges Remain in Applying Hair Protection Laws?

Even with the passage of the CROWN Act in many states, obstacles remain. Enforcement can be inconsistent, and subtle forms of bias, often termed “microaggressions,” continue to affect Black women with textured hair. A 2023 research study noted that Black women’s hair is 2.5 times as likely as white women’s hair to be perceived as “unprofessional”.

These ingrained perceptions, though perhaps not overtly discriminatory under the letter of the new laws, can still influence hiring, promotion, and daily workplace interactions. The very definition of “professionalism” remains a societal construct that requires ongoing deconstruction, even when explicit prohibitions are removed.

The federal CROWN Act, despite passing the House of Representatives, has yet to be signed into national law. This legislative standstill means that while many states have protections, individuals in states without such laws may still face discrimination without specific recourse. This fragmented legal landscape highlights the uneven progress across the country, underscoring the necessity of a unified national standard to truly safeguard textured hair heritage.

The journey to secure legal protection for textured hair extends beyond statute enactment, confronting subtle biases and fragmented enforcement across the nation.

One enduring challenge comes from cases like Darryl George, a 17-year-old student in Texas who faced ongoing suspension for his locs, despite Texas having enacted a CROWN Act. His school’s policy, requiring boys’ hair not to fall below the shirt collar, eyebrows, or earlobes, was deemed to violate the spirit of the CROWN Act, even though he wore his hair neatly tied atop his head. This particular case, which gained national attention, speaks to the persistence of interpretations that prioritize arbitrary appearance rules over genuine cultural and racial protection, even in the face of new legislation. It makes plain that the work of legal support involves not only passing laws, but also vigorously defending their intent.

Societal Shifts and Ancestral Affirmation

Beyond the courtroom, the cultural consciousness surrounding textured hair is shifting, a gradual acknowledgment of its deep origins and intrinsic worth. Activists and organizations continue to educate the public and employers about the historical significance and beauty of Black hair, advocating for broad acceptance that transcends mere legal compliance. This societal movement works in tandem with legislative efforts, reinforcing the idea that acknowledging and respecting textured hair is a matter of both law and fundamental human dignity. The cultural context in which these laws are enacted is as vital as the laws themselves, reflecting a societal embrace of diverse appearance and a recognition of ancestral practices.

Consider the broader impact of the CROWN Act. It is not simply a legal document; it is a declaration of cultural sovereignty. For many, hair is a declaration of personal identity, a symbol of heritage and ancestry.

Black and brown people signify their cultural heritage through styles like braids, locs, or curls. These laws reinforce the idea that no one should be forced to leave parts of themselves behind when they enter a professional space.

The struggle is far from over, yet the existing legislative efforts provide a foundation. They are a powerful affirmation of the right to exist authentically, to carry one’s heritage, visible and honored, into every sphere of life. The movement is a testament to the persistent voice of Black and mixed-race communities, who, through advocacy and legal action, are shaping a more respectful and inclusive future for textured hair in every professional space.

Reflection

The journey of legislative efforts supporting textured hair in professional settings traces a profound path from historical oppression to a powerful reassertion of self. Each statute, each legal victory, is more than a mere policy adjustment; it is a deep affirmation of Textured Hair Heritage itself. It is a testament to the enduring spirit of Black and mixed-race communities, whose ancestral knowledge of hair care and styling, long dismissed or devalued, is finally gaining legal recognition as an inseparable part of identity. The “Soul of a Strand” echoes through these legal battles, reminding us that hair is not just fiber, but a living archive of resistance, cultural richness, and untold stories.

These legislative actions mark a pivotal moment where the legal framework begins to align with a more holistic understanding of well-being, recognizing that the freedom to wear one’s hair naturally impacts mental health, self-esteem, and the very ability to bring one’s complete self into public spaces. The fight to protect textured hair in professional settings is a continuation of ancient traditions, a quiet acknowledgment that the wisdom passed down through generations—about care, about adornment, about identity—is not only valid, but worthy of protection. As we move forward, the spirit of these laws reminds us to honor each coil and curl, recognizing them as sacred expressions of who we are and from whom we descend.