What legal protections exist today for natural textured hair?

Roots

To walk the path of understanding legal protections for natural textured hair is to trace a lineage that stretches back through time, reaching beyond contemporary codes and statutes to the very essence of identity, community, and ancestral wisdom. It is a journey not just through law books, but through the vibrant, resilient stories etched into every coil, every strand, every intricate braid. Our hair, a living crown, carries the whisper of generations, a testament to endurance and a beacon of belonging. For those whose hair springs forth in textures of extraordinary depth and dimension—the tight curls, the coily spirals, the majestic waves—this biological truth has always been intertwined with cultural expression and, regrettably, with the imposition of external standards.

What Wisdom Did Ancestors Weave into Hair?

In ancestral African societies, hair was a profound visual language, a living canvas communicating status, lineage, age, marital standing, and even tribal affiliation. Styles were not merely aesthetic choices; they served as markers of community, symbols of spiritual connection, and sometimes, even as maps to freedom. Consider the meticulous artistry of cornrows, a practice stretching back thousands of years.

These styles, often requiring hours of communal effort, deepened bonds and transmitted knowledge, acting as living archives of a people’s shared experience (Dabiri, 2020). Hair care rituals themselves were communal acts of tenderness and instruction, passed from elder to youth, infused with indigenous botanicals and a deep reverence for the body’s innate design.

Hair has always been a powerful, visual language, speaking volumes about identity and lineage long before written words.

Yet, with the brutal disruption of the transatlantic slave trade, this sacred relationship was violently severed. Enslaved Africans suffered the systematic shearing of their hair upon arrival, a deliberate act designed to strip them of identity, culture, and humanity. This forced erasure was a calculated step towards dehumanization, aiming to sever the tangible links to their homeland and heritage. Hair, once a symbol of pride and knowledge, became a site of profound trauma and forced assimilation.

How Did the Tignon Laws Shape a New Resistance?

The echoes of this historical subjugation continued to reverberate through the centuries. An especially striking example, one that vividly illustrates the early legal policing of Black hair, finds its origins in 18th-century Louisiana. In 1786, Governor Esteban Rodríguez Miró enacted the infamous Tignon Laws (Gould, 1997).

These sumptuary laws mandated that free women of color in New Orleans cover their hair with a tignon—a scarf or handkerchief—when in public. The intent was clear ❉ to visibly distinguish them from white women and to diminish their perceived social standing and attractiveness, which some white individuals viewed as a threat to societal order (Roberts, 2017).

Despite the oppressive intent, these resilient women transformed the mandate into an act of sartorial defiance. They donned vibrant, colorful headwraps, adorned with beads, ribbons, and jewels, twisting them into elaborate, regal forms. This defiance, this reclamation of self-expression through constrained means, serves as a powerful testament to the enduring spirit of textured hair heritage.

It demonstrates how, even under legal stricture, a people can find ways to assert their inherent worth and cultural pride, laying a historical groundwork for the struggles and legal battles that would follow. The very act of legally restricting hair revealed its profound, undeniable connection to racial identity and social control.

Ritual

The journey of textured hair through history is a testament to persistent self-care, a profound conversation between ancestral practices and the contemporary world. What has endured through generations is the spirit of ritual ❉ the tender touch of oil, the rhythmic parting of strands for braids, the communal act of styling. These are not merely cosmetic routines; they are living traditions, threads of continuity that connect us to those who came before.

How Did the Afro Challenge the Legal Landscape?

As the 20th century turned its pages, a powerful reawakening stirred. The 1960s witnessed the ascendance of the “Black is Beautiful” movement, a cultural wave that championed the inherent beauty of Black features, skin, and, most notably, natural hair. The Afro became an undeniable symbol of self-acceptance, racial pride, and political resistance.

It was a visual declaration, a rejection of Eurocentric beauty standards that had long dictated a preference for straightened hair (Dabiri, 2020). This cultural shift, however, soon collided with established norms and, inevitably, with legal frameworks.

Early attempts to secure legal recognition for natural hairstyles often navigated the terrain of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark legislation prohibited employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, its application to hair discrimination was far from straightforward.

Courts grappled with whether hair was an “immutable characteristic” of race, or merely a “mutable” choice of appearance. This distinction became a significant hurdle.

The law’s early interpretations struggled to recognize natural hair as an intrinsic racial characteristic, often treating it as a mutable choice.

One notable early case, Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance (1976), saw the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit uphold a race discrimination lawsuit against an employer for bias against Afros. This was a step forward, a recognition that denying employment due to an Afro could indeed be a form of racial bias.

Yet, this nascent protection proved inconsistent. Just a few years later, in Rogers v. American Airlines (1981), a Black flight attendant challenged a policy that prohibited cornrows. The court ruled against her, asserting that cornrows, unlike an Afro, were a chosen hairstyle, not an immutable characteristic of race, and therefore not protected under Title VII. This ruling highlighted a crucial blind spot in existing law, leaving many traditional Black hairstyles vulnerable to discriminatory policies.

Were Early Laws Blind to Hair’s Cultural Meanings?

The disparate treatment of Afros versus braids, locs, or twists in early legal interpretations underscored a profound lack of understanding regarding textured hair heritage. These hairstyles, deeply interwoven with cultural identity and ancestral practices, were often dismissed as mere fashion choices or grooming preferences. Policies in workplaces and schools frequently deemed natural styles “unprofessional” or “unkempt,” standards rooted in white Anglo-Saxon Protestant cultural norms.

This perpetuated a cycle where Black individuals were forced to alter their hair, often through damaging chemical relaxers or heat styling, to conform to Eurocentric ideals, risking their hair health and severing a connection to their heritage. A 2019 study, for example, found that 80% of Black women reported feeling they needed to switch their hairstyle to align with more conservative standards to fit in at work.

These early legal skirmishes and the prevailing societal pressures demonstrated that protections were fragmented and insufficient. The essence of textured hair, its unique biology, its cultural significance, and its historical journey of resilience, demanded a more precise and comprehensive legal shield.

Relay

The ongoing pursuit of justice for natural textured hair has culminated in legislative efforts that aim to explicitly safeguard ancestral expressions. This recent legislative movement, born from generations of discrimination and perseverance, represents a significant shift in legal thought, moving beyond the ambiguities of past interpretations to acknowledge the profound cultural and racial connection inherent in Black and mixed-race hairstyles.

What Is the CROWN Act’s Reach Today?

Recognizing the inadequacies of previous legal frameworks, a coalition of advocates, including Dove, the National Urban League, Color of Change, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty, initiated the CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair). California led this vital movement, signing the first CROWN Act into law in July 2019. This pioneering legislation explicitly amended the definition of race in state anti-discrimination statutes to include traits historically associated with race, encompassing hair texture and protective hairstyles. This meant that styles like Locs, Cornrows, Twists, Braids, and Afros, long targeted by discriminatory policies, finally received explicit legal protection.

Since California’s initial enactment, the CROWN Act has garnered substantial momentum across the United States. As of September 2024, at least 27 states, along with Washington, D.C. have enacted similar legislation. These laws aim to ensure that individuals, particularly Black individuals, are not unfairly treated in workplaces, schools, or other public settings due to their hair.

• California ❉ First state to pass, July 2019, extending protections under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Education Code.
• New York ❉ Became the second state in July 2019 to criminalize race-based hair discrimination, amending its Human Rights Law.
• Texas ❉ Implemented its CROWN Act, effective September 1, 2023, strengthening prohibitions on racial discrimination in schools, workplaces, and housing.

How Does Legislation Protect Textured Hair’s Identity?

The CROWN Act’s significance lies in its direct challenge to the notion that certain hairstyles are merely “choices” disconnected from racial identity. It unequivocally states that discrimination based on hair texture or styles commonly associated with a particular race is a form of racial discrimination. This directly addresses the “mutable characteristic” argument that hindered earlier Title VII cases, providing a clearer legal foundation for those experiencing hair bias. For instance, policies requiring a student’s hair to not fall below a certain length, which disproportionately impacts those with naturally coily hair textures, are now explicitly challenged under these new laws.

Consider the highly publicized case of Darryl George, a Texas high school student who faced repeated suspensions for his locs, which school officials claimed violated a policy on hair length for male students. This ongoing struggle, even after Texas passed its CROWN Act, underscores the critical need for robust enforcement and continued societal understanding of these laws. His case, along with others such as Ruby Williams, who was sent home from school for her Afro, demonstrates how ingrained these discriminatory standards remain. These individual battles become powerful narratives within the broader tapestry of textured hair heritage, inspiring legislative action and cultural shifts.

The CROWN Act champions the inherent racial connection of natural styles, aiming to dismantle bias embedded in appearance policies.

Are There Still Gaps in Legal Shielding?

Despite the widespread state-level adoption of the CROWN Act, the journey for nationwide protection continues. The Federal CROWN Act has been introduced to the U.S. Congress multiple times, passing the House of Representatives in both 2019 and 2022, yet it has faced roadblocks in the Senate. The absence of a federal law means that protections for natural hair remain inconsistent across states, leaving individuals in jurisdictions without specific CROWN Act legislation vulnerable to discrimination.

Opponents sometimes argue that existing anti-discrimination laws should suffice, or that protecting hairstyles amounts to protecting self-expression rather than immutable racial characteristics. Such arguments, however, overlook centuries of documented prejudice where hair, specifically textured hair, has been weaponized as a tool of control and a basis for racial bias. The ongoing legislative efforts are not simply about hair; they are about affirming the right to self-determination, honoring ancestral identity, and dismantling systemic racism that has long policed Black and mixed-race bodies, beginning with their hair. The fight for a unified federal law is a fight for universal recognition of this profound heritage.

1. Uniformity ❉ A federal CROWN Act would provide consistent protections across all states, removing the patchwork of laws that currently exist.
2. Comprehensive Reach ❉ It would extend protections to federally assisted programs, housing, and public accommodations, broadening the scope beyond just employment and education.
3. Symbolic Power ❉ Federal legislation would send a strong national message that hair discrimination is a civil rights issue, reinforcing the value of Black and mixed-race heritage and identity nationwide.

Reflection

As strands of time spool from ancient practices to the present day, the question of legal protections for natural textured hair becomes less about legal jargon and more about a profound reverence for heritage. Our journey through the roots of ancestral wisdom, the rituals of care, and the relay of legislative progress shows us that hair is never merely fiber and protein. It is a chronicle, a living testament to resilience, a vibrant declaration of self. The CROWN Act, in its varying forms, stands as a modern echo of ancestral defiance—a formal acknowledgment that the very texture that grows from our heads holds an undeniable connection to who we are, where we come from, and the stories our lineage carries.

The spirit of Roothea, the “Soul of a Strand,” reminds us that each coil and curl is a repository of history, a carrier of spirit. The fight for legal protections is a collective act of remembrance, a societal ritual of care that seeks to create a world where every individual can wear their hair, in its natural, magnificent form, as a visible celebration of their heritage, unbound and free. This quest continues, guided by the wisdom of the past and the unwavering strength of those who carry these living archives.