What is the CROWN Act’s historical background?

Roots

There is a deep current, an ancient pulse, that beats through every curl, every coil, every resilient wave of textured hair. This is not merely an anatomical detail; it is a living chronicle, a testament to journeys across continents, through joy and sorrow, and a steadfast spirit that refused to be diminished. To comprehend the historical currents that gave rise to the CROWN Act—a legislative endeavor to safeguard our right to wear our hair as it naturally grows, or styled in traditional ways—we must first listen to the whispers of the past, trace the origins of how hair became a battleground, and how its innate being was so often deemed a transgression.

Ancestral Strands and Early Markers

For generations beyond reckoning, Black and mixed-race people have used their hair not merely as adornment, but as a vibrant language. Before any formal legislation or discrimination took root, hair in diverse African societies held profound social, spiritual, and cultural weight. Specific styles could convey age, marital status, tribal affiliation, wealth, and spiritual devotion.

A meticulously sculpted coiffure or an artfully braided pattern spoke volumes without a single word. These practices were not fleeting trends; they were deeply rooted ancestral rituals, passed from elder to youth, holding communal identity within each strand.

The CROWN Act’s historical background is intrinsically linked to the enduring cultural significance of textured hair across generations.

The very structure of our hair, its coiled and curly forms, are biological adaptations that speak of sun-kissed lands and ancestral homes. This inherent difference, a marvel of natural design, would later become weaponized in societies that sought uniformity and assimilation. The path from sacred expression to perceived professional impediment is a long, sorrowful one, woven with threads of colonialism, enslavement, and the systemic imposition of Eurocentric beauty standards. The historical denial of Black hair as ‘professional’ or ‘acceptable’ is a direct outgrowth of this long-standing subjugation, echoing centuries of attempts to erase or diminish Black identity.

Early Resistance and Forced Conformity

Consider the Tignon Laws of 18th-century Louisiana, a poignant example of early governmental attempts to suppress Black women’s visible identity. Enacted in 1786, these laws compelled Creole women of color to cover their hair with a tignon or headscarf. This measure was a calculated effort to strip away their perceived allure and social standing, particularly in the competitive social landscape of New Orleans, where free women of color often wore elaborate hairstyles that challenged racial hierarchies (White, 2018). Yet, as often happens, a spirit of defiance arose.

Women adorned their tignons with jewels, ribbons, and intricate folds, transforming a tool of oppression into a statement of style and resistance. This early historical instance clearly displays how laws, seemingly about appearance, held a deeper, more insidious agenda ❉ controlling identity and suppressing visible markers of heritage.

The legacy of these laws, though specific to a time and place, laid a conceptual groundwork for later forms of hair discrimination. It solidified the idea that certain hair textures or styles were inherently ‘unruly’ or ‘unacceptable’ within dominant society, thus requiring concealment or alteration. The notion that Black hair, in its natural state, somehow violated norms or disrupted order became a subtle, yet powerful, undercurrent in workplaces, schools, and public spaces for centuries. This historical context reveals how discrimination against textured hair is not a modern invention but a continuation of historical patterns of control and erasure.

Echoes of the Past in Modern Spaces

Even after formal slavery ended, the pressure to conform persisted. The rise of chemical relaxers in the early 20th century, while offering a perceived liberation from arduous styling, also symbolized a societal expectation. For many, chemically altering their hair became a gateway to opportunities in employment or social acceptance, effectively trading ancestral hair patterns for a semblance of conformity.

The choice, for countless individuals, was often a stark one ❉ assimilate or face barriers to economic and social advancement. This was not a personal choice in a vacuum; it was a societal imposition, a silent demand for the abandonment of a visible heritage.

The collective memory of these experiences, of being told one’s hair was too much, too distracting, or simply ‘not right,’ forms the bedrock of the CROWN Act’s necessity. The act seeks to dismantle these lingering echoes of historical oppression, to declare, unequivocally, that hair, in its myriad of textured expressions, holds its rightful place of dignity and belonging.

• Tignon Laws ❉ Mandated head coverings for free women of color in 18th-century Louisiana.
• Chemical Straightening ❉ Became a societal expectation for Black hair in professional settings during the 20th century.
• Workplace Bias ❉ The historical pattern of rejecting natural Black hairstyles as unprofessional.

Ritual

From the foundational understanding of textured hair’s ancient roots, we move to the living rituals and practices that have shaped its story, and how they ultimately collided with prevailing societal norms, giving rise to the urgent call for protections like the CROWN Act. These rituals are not static; they are dynamic expressions of care, community, and identity, passed down through generations. They are the heartbeats of hair heritage, yet they have too often been deemed inconvenient, distracting, or worse, unprofessional, by systems unprepared for their beauty.

Styling as a Cultural Dialect

Styling textured hair is an art form, a science, and a deeply communal practice. Braids, twists, locs, and afros are more than aesthetic choices; they are cultural dialects, each speaking to a unique history, a particular community, or a personal journey. The creation of intricate cornrows, for instance, is a practice stretching back thousands of years across various African civilizations, serving as both artistic expression and a mapping of agricultural patterns or social standing (Tharps & Byrd, 2001). These styles, honed over centuries, demand specific techniques, tools, and a tender patience, qualities often misunderstood or dismissed by those outside the culture.

The CROWN Act steps onto this historical stage, recognizing that these deeply ingrained styling traditions should not be a barrier to opportunity. The very essence of the legislation is to protect the right to maintain connection to one’s Textured Hair Heritage without fear of reprisal. It acknowledges that a braided crown or a freely celebrated afro is a legitimate expression of self, one that carries ancestral wisdom and cultural pride.

How Did Traditional Styling Become a Point of Contention?

The friction arose when Black individuals, moving into dominant white-collar spaces, found their customary hairstyles challenged. The expectation was often that hair should lie flat, conform to a Eurocentric ideal of ‘neatness’ or ‘professionalism.’ This expectation ignored the inherent biology of textured hair, which, when allowed to coil and gather, creates volume and form distinct from straight hair. This clash was not about hair health or hygiene; it was about appearance and power, a subtle insistence on cultural assimilation. School children were sent home, employees were disciplined, and career paths were stunted, all because of hair that was simply being itself, or styled in ways that had been sacred for centuries.

The CROWN Act recognizes that traditional Black hairstyles are vital expressions of cultural identity and should not be a barrier to opportunity.

For instance, in the 1970s, the afro became a powerful symbol of Black pride and a political statement. It was a visible rejection of assimilation and a celebration of natural form. Yet, this celebration often met with resistance in schools and workplaces, where it was labeled ‘distracting’ or ‘unprofessional.’ This period serves as a stark reminder that the fight for hair freedom is intertwined with larger movements for racial justice and self-determination. The CROWN Act directly addresses this historical pattern of systemic bias, affirming the right to wear these culturally significant styles without penalty.

The Tools of Heritage and Care

The tools associated with textured hair care are also steeped in history. From the wide-tooth combs carved from natural materials in ancient times to the meticulous practice of hair oiling passed down through matriarchal lines, these instruments and rituals are not random. They are carefully chosen for their ability to nurture, detangle, and sculpt textured strands, respecting their unique geometry. The very notion of a ‘natural hair journey’ today is a reclaiming of these ancestral practices, a return to methods that prioritize the health and integrity of the hair over imposed standards of straightness.

The CROWN Act, in its broader sense, protects the freedom to engage in these care practices without external judgment or penalty. If the very act of maintaining one’s hair, using traditional moisturizers or detangling methods, results in a style deemed ‘unprofessional,’ then the discrimination goes beyond mere aesthetics. It touches upon the autonomy of personal care, and the deep connection to a heritage of self-sustenance and resilience. The act understands that hair is not isolated; it is connected to a holistic understanding of wellbeing and cultural continuity.

Relay

We now reach the relay, the continuous passing of the torch from historical grievances to present-day advocacy, manifesting in the legislative landscape of the CROWN Act. This is where ancient rhythms meet modern legal frameworks, and the fight for hair freedom transcends individual experiences to become a collective declaration of human rights. Understanding this relay demands a look at the systemic nature of discrimination, the legislative efforts to counteract it, and the ongoing cultural and social shifts that underscore the CROWN Act’s enduring relevance.

The Systemic Nature of Hair Discrimination

Hair discrimination, when viewed through a critical lens, extends beyond individual acts of bias; it functions as a systemic mechanism of control. Sociological studies and legal analyses consistently highlight how rules around ‘professional appearance’ disproportionately affect Black individuals, effectively excluding them from opportunities in education and employment. This isn’t accidental; it stems from a historical default to Eurocentric beauty standards as the norm, subtly — or not so subtly — pathologizing anything that deviates.

A significant study by Dove and the CROWN Coalition in 2019 revealed that Black women are 80% more likely to change their natural hair to fit in at the office. This statistic is not merely a number; it represents countless individual choices made under duress, a quiet compromise of self for the sake of survival in professional spaces (Dove CROWN Research Study, 2019). The pressure to alter one’s hair often comes at a physical cost—damage from chemical treatments or excessive heat—and a psychological one, as individuals are forced to suppress a visible aspect of their heritage. The CROWN Act aims to disrupt this historical pattern, making it legally impermissible for employers or schools to perpetuate such discriminatory practices.

What Legal Pathways Led to the CROWN Act?

The genesis of the CROWN Act lies in the recognition that existing civil rights protections were not adequately addressing hair discrimination. While laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination based on race, courts often interpreted ‘race’ narrowly, excluding hair texture or styles as protected characteristics unless they were explicitly linked to immutable traits or religious practices. This legal gap allowed discriminatory policies to persist, creating a need for more specific, explicit legislation.

The CROWN Act, which stands for “Create a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair,” originated in California in 2019. Its passage was a direct response to a series of high-profile incidents across the nation where Black students and professionals faced disciplinary action or job loss due to their natural hairstyles. The legislation argues that hair discrimination is, in fact, racial discrimination because hair texture and protective styles are often inextricably linked to racial identity and heritage. This legal argument is a powerful testament to the inseparable connection between hair and race, especially for Black communities.

The legislative journey began with California, quickly followed by a groundswell of support across other states. This grassroots movement, fueled by advocacy from organizations like the CROWN Coalition (a group of concerned corporations and civil rights organizations), has led to the act being passed in numerous states and debated at the federal level. The momentum behind the CROWN Act represents a collective sigh of relief and a determined step towards racial equity, acknowledging that true inclusion means respecting every aspect of a person’s authentic self, including their hair.

The legislative effort has been a long and winding one, building upon decades of advocacy for civil rights. It has required sustained pressure from activists, legal scholars, and community leaders who understood that hair discrimination is not trivial; it is a manifestation of systemic racism that limits opportunities and undermines dignity. The act effectively states that the right to wear one’s hair in its natural state, or in protective styles, is a civil right, a fundamental aspect of racial identity that deserves legal protection.

1. Legal Precedents ❉ Pre-CROWN Act civil rights laws often failed to explicitly cover hair discrimination.
2. Grassroots Advocacy ❉ Community and civil rights groups drove the legislative movement.
3. State-Level Adoption ❉ California led the way, with many other states following suit.

Reflection

As we trace the historical journey that culminates in the CROWN Act, a profound understanding emerges ❉ textured hair is a living archive, a repository of ancestral knowledge, enduring beauty, and an unbreakable spirit. The legislative protections it offers are not merely about preventing discrimination; they are about affirming identity, celebrating heritage, and recognizing the intrinsic worth of individuals whose hair has too long been subjected to scrutiny and judgment. It is a societal acknowledgement that the echoes from the source, the tender threads of living traditions, and the unbound helix of individual expression, are all deserving of respect and freedom.

The CROWN Act, therefore, stands as a testament to resilience, a beacon guiding us towards a future where every strand, every coil, every loc, can simply be. It signals a shift, a collective awakening to the idea that true inclusion means embracing the full spectrum of human identity, starting from the crown. This journey reminds us that the fight for fairness in something as seemingly simple as hair is, at its heart, a profound meditation on dignity and belonging.