What legal measures supported textured hair reclamation?

Roots

Imagine, if you will, a landscape sculpted not by wind and water, but by generations of hands, of stories whispered and traditions carried forward, each strand a living chronicle. Our exploration begins here, at the elemental source, for the reclamation of textured hair is not a modern impulse; it echoes a profound, ancient call. It speaks to the very fiber of identity, a deep lineage connecting us to forebears who understood hair as far more than mere adornment.

For centuries, the coily, kinky, and wavy textures adorning Black and mixed-race peoples held immense social and spiritual weight. In many pre-colonial African societies, hair communicated a person’s standing, their age, marital status, or even their tribal affiliation. A warrior’s distinct braids, a elder’s intricate knots, a woman’s adorned plaits signaling her availability—each style spoke a language beyond words. Such practices were not simply aesthetic choices; they were communal expressions, binding individuals to their collective heritage.

Accounts from ancient Egypt reveal queens like Tiye, whose natural afro hairstyle adorned statues, a testament to the honor bestowed upon textured tresses in those eras. Historical records confirm that braiding techniques and patterns existed as early as 3500 BC in regions like Namibia, with distinct methods, such as the halo braid, appearing by the first century (Creative Support, 2024).

What Historical Oppression Shaped Hair Identity?

The transatlantic slave trade drastically altered this heritage. Upon forced arrival in unfamiliar lands, enslaved Africans experienced the brutal severing of their cultural ties, often beginning with the shaving of their heads. This act was not only for presumed sanitary reasons but served as a deliberate attempt to strip away identity and demolish cultural connection, rendering individuals more easily dehumanized (Darkspark, 2023). This forced conformity laid the groundwork for a new, harmful hierarchy of hair, where Eurocentric standards of straight, smooth hair became the societal ideal, leaving textured hair to be deemed “unprofessional” or “unkempt” (NYC.gov, 2019).

The historical discrediting of textured hair arose from deliberate efforts to dismantle African identity and communal bonds.

One poignant historical instance of legal suppression comes from 18th-century Louisiana. The Spanish colonial governor, Esteban Rodríguez Miró, enacted what became known as the Tignon Laws in 1786 (McGill Journal of Law and Health, 2022). These decrees compelled free women of African descent, particularly Creole women whose elaborate hairstyles with feathers and jewels were attracting attention from white men, to cover their hair with a knotted headscarf, a ‘tignon’.

This law aimed to reinforce racial and social distinctions, ensuring that Black women were visually aligned with enslaved women, thereby maintaining a supposed social order and preventing perceived social competition (McGill Journal of Law and Health, 2022; Time, 2016). Yet, in a powerful act of defiance, these women transformed the tignon into an artistic expression, crafting colorful and ornate headwraps, thus subverting the law’s oppressive intent and reclaiming their sartorial agency (McGill Journal of Law and Health, 2022).

This historical pattern of policing textured hair persisted beyond slavery, influencing social norms and economic opportunities for generations. The concept of “good hair” — hair that could be straightened or was naturally closer to European textures — emerged as a means of social mobility and acceptance within a society steeped in racial bias (Creative Support, 2022). This forced alteration often involved harsh chemical relaxers and hot combs, tools that, while offering a semblance of conformity, inflicted significant physical and psychological harm, leading to scalp burns, hair loss, and various health issues (NYC.gov, 2019).

Ritual

The spirit of reclamation for textured hair did not wane with the passage of time; it deepened, finding new expressions and new battlegrounds. The mid-20th century saw a powerful resurgence, aligning with the Civil Rights movement and the broader “Black is Beautiful” assertion. The Afro, a voluminous crown of coils and kinks, became a potent symbol of self-acceptance and political resistance (Creative Support, 2021; Uptown Curl, 2024). It was a visible declaration of cultural pride, challenging prevailing Eurocentric beauty standards (Uptown Curl, 2024).

What Early Legal Confrontations Arose From Hair Discrimination?

Early legal confrontations over hair discrimination highlight the struggle to align societal perceptions with inherent identity. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination based on race, yet it left room for interpretation regarding hair. Federal courts initially varied in their rulings (McLane Middleton, 2023). One notable early case, Jenkins v.

Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance in 1976, saw the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit uphold a race discrimination lawsuit, affirming an employee’s right to wear an afro under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (JSTOR Daily, 2019; American Bar Association, 2020). However, this victory was limited; later cases involving protective styles like braids did not always receive the same protection, with courts sometimes ruling that braids were not an immutable racial characteristic, unlike the afro (JSTOR Daily, 2019).

This legal inconsistency underscored a profound oversight ❉ if hair is inextricably linked to racial and cultural identity, then discrimination based on natural hairstyles is, by definition, race discrimination. The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) has argued this point, asserting that bans on natural hair or hairstyles associated with Black people are often rooted in white standards of appearance and perpetuate racist stereotypes (JSTOR Daily, 2019). Such policies intensify anti-Black bias in various settings, including employment and education (NYC.gov, 2019).

The CROWN Act emerged as a legislative answer to persistent hair bias, classifying discrimination against natural textures as a form of racial injustice.

This persistent issue spurred a targeted legislative movement. The CROWN Act, standing for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair,” was created in 2019 to address this precise form of systemic racism (Legal Defense Fund, n.d.). The Act prohibits race-based hair discrimination by extending legal protection to hair texture and styles such as Braids, Locs, Twists, and Bantu Knots in workplaces and public schools (Legal Defense Fund, n.d.; The Official CROWN Act, 2024).

California was the first state to pass this landmark legislation on July 3, 2019, followed swiftly by New York nine days later (Wikipedia, 2019; Legal Defense Fund, n.d.). Since then, over twenty states have adopted similar laws, signifying a growing recognition of hair discrimination as a legitimate form of racial injustice (Legal Defense Fund, n.d.; McLane Middleton, 2023).

This legislative tide marks a crucial step in the reclamation of textured hair heritage. The CROWN Act acknowledges that the denial of opportunities based on natural hair texture or protective styles is a denial of cultural identity and an impediment to socioeconomic advancement (Legal Defense Fund, n.d.).

Relay

The journey towards full textured hair reclamation is a continuous relay, passed from generation to generation, with legal measures serving as powerful batons in the ongoing pursuit of self-expression and heritage acknowledgment. Even with the passage of the CROWN Act in many states, the insidious undercurrents of hair bias persist, manifesting as subtle microaggressions or overt disciplinary actions. Studies indicate that Black women with natural hairstyles are less likely to receive job interviews than white women or Black women with straightened hair, and over 20% of Black women ages 25-34 have been sent home from their jobs due to their hair (Economic Policy Institute, 2023). This statistic alone underscores the deeply personal and economic ramifications of such biases.

What Societal Obstacles Remain for Textured Hair Acceptance?

The impact of hair discrimination is particularly sharp within educational settings, where young individuals are forming their identities. Children as young as five have faced consequences for their natural hairstyles (Legal Defense Fund, n.d.). Policies that ban natural and protective styles have led to Black children being removed from classrooms, denying them valuable instructional time and educational opportunities (Legal Defense Fund, n.d.).

• Ruby Williams ❉ In 2017, a 15-year-old in the UK was repeatedly sent home from school due to her natural afro being deemed “against uniform policy” (Creative Support, n.d.). Her family’s three-year struggle resulted in an £8,500 settlement and new guidance stating pupils should not face disciplinary action for natural hair (Creative Support, n.d.).
• Darryl George ❉ A Black Texas high school student was unlawfully denied access to public education due to the length of his locs, prompting amicus briefs from organizations like the ACLU and IDRA (IDRA, 2025).
• De’Andre Arnold ❉ Another Texan student prevented from participating in his high school graduation because of his locs in 2020 (Economic Policy Institute, 2023).

These individual stories, though distressing, serve as stark reminders of the ongoing battle. They highlight how culturally significant hairstyles, which protect hair and express identity, remain targets of discrimination, often under the guise of “race-neutral” appearance policies that disproportionately affect Black people (IDRA, 2025; Legal Defense Fund, n.d.). Such policies often label traditional Black hairstyles as “unprofessional” or “unruly,” reflecting ingrained Eurocentric beauty standards (IDRA, 2025).

How Does Ancestral Wisdom Inform Modern Hair Care Advocacy?

Modern hair care advocacy draws heavily from ancestral wisdom, often validating traditional practices through contemporary scientific understanding. The shift towards natural hair care, avoiding harsh chemicals, aligns with ancient methods of using natural oils and butters for hair health. Chemically straightening hair can contribute to significant health issues, including traction alopecia, breakage, and even a reported link to uterine fibroids, which disproportionately impact Black women (NYC.gov, 2019; McLane Middleton, 2023).

The legal reclamation of textured hair provides a framework for honoring these ancestral care philosophies. When legal protection is extended to natural hair, it creates space for individuals to prioritize hair health, foregoing damaging chemical treatments in favor of methods that respect the hair’s inherent structure. The advocacy of organizations like the CROWN Coalition and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund works to ensure that no person is forced to compromise their physical well-being or cultural expression to conform to discriminatory standards (Legal Defense Fund, n.d.). This work also extends to broader societal recognition, with initiatives like World Afro Day celebrating afro hair and African identity globally, pushing for inclusive policies that reflect cultural appreciation (Education International, 2024; World Afro Day, 2024).

The legal push for textured hair reclamation is more than a legislative change; it is a profound cultural affirmation. It is a societal acknowledgment of the enduring wisdom embedded in ancestral hair practices and the right to embody one’s heritage without fear of penalty.

Reflection

The journey of textured hair reclamation, supported by evolving legal measures, traces a path through history that is both painful and celebratory. It is a constant dialogue between the echoes of ancestral wisdom and the unfolding realities of contemporary life. Each coil, each curl, each twist, carries within it a living memory, a story of survival and magnificent resilience. The legal avenues, from the early, often flawed, attempts to the targeted specificity of the CROWN Act, represent society’s slow, yet undeniable, progress toward honoring what has long been marginalized.

This enduring connection to our hair, deeply rooted in ancestral practices, forms a vital part of our collective heritage. The legislation, while a necessary tool, is a reflection of a deeper societal shift—a growing recognition that denying someone the right to wear their hair in its natural or culturally significant style is a denial of self, a rejection of lineage. It is a tender tending to the soul of a strand, acknowledging that the way we adorn our crowns speaks volumes about who we are, where we come from, and the future we envision.