What historical prejudices against textured hair does the CROWN Act address?

Roots

Consider, for a moment, the living history held within each strand of textured hair. It is not merely a biological structure, but a testament to ancestral ingenuity, a chronicle of resilience, and a canvas of identity that has weathered centuries of societal pressures. The CROWN Act, a legislative effort born from profound necessity, addresses a lineage of prejudice that has long sought to diminish this heritage, aiming to sever the ties between one’s intrinsic self and the freedom to exist authentically.

It speaks to the deep, often unspoken, wounds inflicted by norms that deemed anything other than a narrow, Eurocentric ideal as unprofessional, unkempt, or simply unacceptable. This act does not simply codify protection; it stands as a societal affirmation of a beauty tradition that has always been present, vibrant, and rich with meaning, even when suppressed.

The journey of textured hair begins at the very source, in the intricate architecture of the follicle. Unlike straight hair, which typically grows from a round follicle, textured hair often emerges from an elliptical or oval-shaped follicle, dictating its characteristic curl pattern. This inherent structure results in hair that is more susceptible to dryness due to the difficulty of natural oils traveling down the spiral, and more prone to breakage if not handled with reverence.

Yet, these very qualities, often misconstrued as flaws, are the source of its magnificent volume, its sculptural versatility, and its remarkable ability to hold intricate styles. Ancestral communities, long before the advent of modern science, understood these unique properties, developing sophisticated care practices that honored the hair’s natural inclination.

The prejudice against textured hair is not a recent phenomenon; its roots stretch back to the transatlantic slave trade. Enslaved Africans, stripped of their names, languages, and cultures, also suffered the systematic assault on their hair. Traditional African hairstyles, often signifying tribal identity, marital status, age, or social rank, were forcibly shaved or crudely covered, serving as a tool of dehumanization and control. This deliberate obliteration of hair as a cultural marker was a calculated step in erasing identity and severing the profound connection to ancestral heritage.

The CROWN Act seeks to mend historical fractures, recognizing textured hair as a deeply personal and cultural expression.

The subsequent centuries saw this foundational prejudice morph and adapt, manifesting in various forms of discrimination. The concept of “good hair” versus “bad hair” became deeply embedded, where “good hair” approximated European straightness or looseness of curl, and “bad hair” referred to tighter, more coily textures. This internalized hierarchy, a direct consequence of systemic racism, created a societal pressure to conform. Individuals, seeking social acceptance, employment, or educational opportunities, often felt compelled to alter their hair through damaging chemical relaxers or heat styling, sacrificing the health of their strands and, in a broader sense, a piece of their inherited self.

How Did Early Classifications Influence Perception?

The early classifications of human hair, particularly those devised during periods of colonial expansion and racial pseudo-science, played a significant role in solidifying prejudiced views. These systems often ranked hair types on a hierarchical scale, with straight, fine hair at the apex and coily, kinky hair at the bottom. Such categorizations were not objective scientific observations; they were deeply imbued with the prevailing racist ideologies of the time, designed to justify social stratification and racial superiority.

This framework provided a pseudo-scientific basis for discrimination, normalizing the idea that certain hair textures were inherently less desirable or professional. The impact of these flawed classifications continues to reverberate, informing unconscious biases even today.

• Hair Anatomy ❉ Textured hair possesses a unique elliptical cross-section, contributing to its distinct curl patterns and inherent dryness.
• Melanin Distribution ❉ Melanin granules are often unevenly distributed in textured hair, impacting its strength and light reflection.
• Cuticle Layer ❉ The cuticle scales of textured hair may be more raised, affecting smoothness and susceptibility to tangling.

Ritual

Step into the living archives of hair rituals, where each stroke of a comb, each twist of a braid, holds generations of wisdom and adaptation. The very techniques and tools we recognize today, whether for protection or definition, carry echoes of ancestral hands. Yet, this deep well of tradition has often been met with a chilling dismissal, a judgment that forced a redefinition of what was considered acceptable. The CROWN Act, in its quiet power, acknowledges that these rituals are not mere trends, but profound expressions of cultural lineage, challenging the historical narrative that sought to delegitimize them.

Protective styles, such as braids, twists, and cornrows, are not recent inventions. Their origins are deeply embedded in various African societies, serving not only aesthetic purposes but also practical ones, like protecting the hair from environmental elements, signifying tribal affiliation, or even mapping escape routes during enslavement. These styles allowed for communal bonding during their creation, often taking hours, becoming a shared moment of storytelling and cultural transmission.

However, as Black people were brought to the Americas, these styles, once symbols of pride and heritage, became targets of derision. They were deemed “unprofessional” or “distracting” in educational and professional settings, compelling many to abandon practices that were intrinsically tied to their cultural identity for the sake of assimilation and opportunity.

Ancestral styling practices, once communal celebrations, were forced into the shadows by prevailing prejudiced norms.

The pervasive pressure to conform led to the widespread adoption of chemical straightening and heat styling. The hot comb, a tool introduced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and later chemical relaxers, offered a temporary reprieve from societal condemnation by mimicking European hair textures. While these methods provided a means of navigating a discriminatory world, they often came at a significant cost to hair health, leading to breakage, scalp damage, and hair loss.

More importantly, they represented a forced disconnect from the natural state of one’s hair, a silent acquiescence to a beauty standard that actively rejected a significant aspect of Black identity and heritage. The narrative of “good hair” became synonymous with straight hair, perpetuating a cycle of self-rejection rooted in external prejudice.

How Have Styling Practices Preserved Heritage?

Despite centuries of pressure, the ingenuity and resilience of Black and mixed-race communities ensured that the heritage of textured hair styling endured. Even when forced underground, the knowledge of braiding, twisting, and knotting techniques was passed down through generations, often in the intimate spaces of homes and family gatherings. These moments became powerful acts of cultural preservation, where mothers, aunts, and grandmothers shared not only the technical skills but also the stories, songs, and values associated with hair care.

The resurgence of the natural hair movement in recent decades is a direct reclaiming of this suppressed heritage, a conscious decision to honor ancestral practices and reject imposed beauty ideals. This movement celebrates the diversity of textures and the artistry of styles that have always been part of the cultural lexicon, reminding us that heritage is a living, breathing entity, capable of revival and reinterpretation.

The tools of hair care also carry historical weight. From the earliest intricately carved wooden combs found in ancient African civilizations to the modern wide-tooth combs and detangling brushes, each implement reflects an understanding of textured hair’s unique needs. The shift from communal grooming rituals to individual, often solitary, care reflects the societal changes and the fragmentation of community forced by historical circumstances. Yet, the enduring presence of specific tools, like the wide-tooth comb or the rat-tail comb for parting, speaks to an unbroken lineage of practical knowledge passed through time, adapted but never entirely lost.

1. Cornrows ❉ Ancient African braiding style, often used to signify status or tribal identity, later a symbol of resistance and cultural pride.
2. Bantu Knots ❉ Originated from the Zulu people of Southern Africa, serving as a protective style and a method for creating curls.
3. Locs ❉ Historically and spiritually significant in various cultures, from ancient Egypt to Rastafarianism, symbolizing natural growth and spiritual connection.

Relay

How does the echoes of historical prejudice, whispered through generations, culminate in a legislative response like the CROWN Act? This inquiry takes us to the nexus where historical injustices meet contemporary advocacy, where the enduring legacy of textured hair heritage demands legal recognition. The CROWN Act is not a sudden legislative whim; it is a direct answer to a persistent, systemic pattern of discrimination that has denied opportunities and inflicted psychological harm upon individuals based solely on the natural presentation of their hair. It aims to dismantle the ingrained biases that have long dictated what is deemed “professional” or “acceptable” in workplaces and schools, biases that are inextricably linked to a colonial past that devalued Black aesthetics.

The historical narrative of hair prejudice is replete with instances where Black individuals faced adverse consequences for wearing their natural hair or traditional protective styles. One powerful, though perhaps less universally cited, historical example that illuminates the very essence of the CROWN Act’s purpose is the Louisiana Tignon Laws of 1786 . These sumptuary laws, enacted under Spanish colonial rule, mandated that free women of color in New Orleans cover their hair with a headwrap (tignon) when in public. This was a direct response to the perceived threat of their elaborate hairstyles and sophisticated dress, which often rivaled or surpassed those of white women, blurring racial and social distinctions.

The intent was clear ❉ to visibly mark and subordinate free Black women, to “reestablish their ties to slavery” by stripping them of their visible expressions of beauty and status (Byrd & Tharps, 2001). This legal imposition on hair expression, rooted in racial control and social hierarchy, is a direct antecedent to the modern-day school and workplace grooming policies that the CROWN Act addresses. It reveals a long-standing pattern of controlling Black bodies and identities through the regulation of hair.

The CROWN Act stands as a legal bulwark against biases rooted in centuries of controlling Black hair expression.

The impact of such historical prejudices extends far beyond mere appearance; it permeates economic opportunity, educational access, and psychological well-being. Studies have consistently shown that Black women, in particular, face disproportionate scrutiny and negative evaluations based on their hair. A 2019 study, for instance, found that Black women were 80 percent more likely than non-Black women to report having to alter their hair to fit in at work.

The same research indicated that Black women with natural or braided hairstyles were consistently rated as “less ready” for job performance, highlighting the subtle yet potent biases at play (Goodman, 2021). These biases translate into tangible barriers, costing individuals promotions, job offers, and even educational opportunities.

How Does the CROWN Act Redefine Professionalism?

The CROWN Act directly challenges the narrow, Eurocentric definition of “professionalism” that has historically excluded textured hair. By legally prohibiting discrimination based on hair texture and protective styles associated with race, it asserts that one’s natural hair, or culturally significant hairstyles, are inherently professional and should not be a barrier to opportunity. This redefinition is a profound cultural shift, recognizing that standards of appearance have often been weaponized to maintain systems of racial inequality.

The act forces institutions to confront their implicit biases and acknowledge the diversity of human appearance, particularly as it relates to racial and ethnic identity. It is a legislative affirmation that authenticity, especially when tied to ancestral heritage, should be celebrated, not penalized.

The legislative journey of the CROWN Act, from its initial passage in California in 2019 to its adoption in numerous states and ongoing federal efforts, reflects a growing societal awareness of this specific form of racial discrimination. Its success hinges on the recognition that hair is not merely an aesthetic choice but a deeply embedded aspect of racial identity and cultural heritage for Black and mixed-race individuals. The act provides a legal framework for redress, empowering individuals to challenge discriminatory policies and practices that have long gone unchecked. It aims to dismantle the systemic structures that perpetuate hair prejudice, paving the way for a future where textured hair is universally respected and celebrated in all spaces.

The conversation surrounding the CROWN Act also extends to the realm of self-acceptance and mental wellness. For generations, the pressure to conform has led to significant psychological distress, contributing to feelings of inadequacy and a disconnect from one’s racial identity. By protecting the right to wear natural and protective styles, the CROWN Act contributes to a broader movement of self-love and affirmation within Black and mixed-race communities. It sends a clear message that one’s natural hair is beautiful, professional, and worthy of respect, fostering an environment where individuals can stand in their full, authentic selves without fear of reprisal.

• Education ❉ Ensures students can attend school without being disciplined for their natural hair.
• Employment ❉ Protects individuals from being denied jobs or promotions due to hair texture or style.
• Cultural Affirmation ❉ Validates and protects hairstyles intrinsically linked to Black racial identity and heritage.

Reflection

As we draw breath at the culmination of this exploration, the enduring resonance of textured hair heritage becomes ever more apparent. The CROWN Act, while a legislative document, represents a profound moment in the continuing narrative of Black and mixed-race identity. It is a legal acknowledgment that the soul of a strand, woven with ancestral memory and cultural significance, must be protected from the shadows of historical prejudice. The journey from ancient practices to contemporary legal protections reveals a continuous thread of resilience, creativity, and unwavering spirit.

This act reminds us that true wellness extends beyond the physical, touching the deepest parts of our being, including the freedom to present ourselves authentically. It speaks to a future where the beauty of every coil, every curl, every loc, is celebrated in its natural state, free from the burdens of imposed conformity. The work is not complete, but the CROWN Act marks a significant step, allowing the wisdom of our ancestors to echo louder, guiding us toward a world where hair is unequivocally recognized as a crowning glory, a sacred aspect of self, and a vibrant testament to an enduring heritage.

References

• Byrd, A. & Tharps, L. (2001). Hair Story ❉ Untangling the Roots of Black Hair in America. St. Martin’s Press.
• Goodman, J. (2021). Wearing My Crown to Work ❉ The Crown Act as a Solution to Shortcomings of Title VII for Hair Discrimination in the Workplace. Touro Law Review, 37 (4), 1011-1030.
• Nichols, E. (2006). The Black Dress. Smithsonian Institution.
• Morrow, W. L. (1973). The History of Black Hair ❉ From the Sacred to the Profane. Morrow’s Unlimited, Inc.
• Onwuachi-Willig, A. (2010). Another Hair Piece ❉ Exploring New Strands of Analysis under Title VII. Georgetown Law Journal, 98 (4), 1079-1130.