Why did textured hair become a legal target?

Roots

The story of textured hair, a story woven into the very fabric of Black and mixed-race identity, holds within its coils and patterns an ancient wisdom, a vibrant celebration of self and community. Yet, for too long, this organic expression of heritage has been a target, subjected to scrutiny, control, and legal assault. To truly comprehend why textured hair became a legal battleground, one must journey back to the very source, to the elemental biology of the strand, and how its innate being was misinterpreted, then weaponized, against its bearers.

The question of its legal targeting is not a mere footnote in legal history. It unveils a deeper cultural conflict, a profound clash between ancestral veneration of self and the imposed uniformity of dominant societal norms.

What is the Biological Makeup of Textured Hair?

Textured hair, with its unique helical structure, differs from straight hair at a fundamental biological level. Its elliptical follicle shape gives rise to its characteristic curls, coils, and waves. The hair shaft itself experiences varying rates of growth and cellular differentiation along its length, contributing to its curl pattern. These biological distinctions, which are expressions of human diversity, became twisted into markers of inferiority during periods of colonial expansion and chattel slavery.

Pseudo-scientific assertions, often driven by a desire to justify enslavement and racial hierarchy, categorized Black hair as something less than human hair, sometimes comparing it to animal wool. This dehumanization, built on a misrepresentation of biological truth, laid a disturbing groundwork for later social and legal policing.

Ancestral communities understood hair differently. They viewed it as a living extension of self, a spiritual antenna connecting individuals to their heritage, their community, and the divine. The Maasai people of East Africa, for example, held specific beliefs about hair and spiritual energy, considering the top of the head a point of entry for this energy.

This perspective stands in stark contrast to the dehumanizing categorizations imposed by colonizers. (Afriklens, 2024)

The fundamental biology of textured hair, misconstrued and weaponized through pseudoscientific racism, laid the groundwork for its subsequent legal targeting.

How Did Early Attempts at Control Manifest against Hair Heritage?

The earliest legal assaults on textured hair were not always explicit statutes banning specific styles. Often, they were sumptuary laws, designed to control the appearance and social mobility of free Black individuals. A poignant example is the Tignon Laws enacted in Louisiana in 1786.

Under the administration of Spanish Governor Esteban Rodríguez Miró, free Black women, particularly Creole women of color in New Orleans, were compelled to cover their hair with a tignon, a headscarf (JSTOR Daily, 2019). The stated purpose was to curb their perceived extravagance and to distinguish them from white women, thereby enforcing racial hierarchies and preventing free Black women from engaging in relationships with white men (VICE, 2021).

This law, though seemingly about head coverings, was a direct attack on the freedom of expression embodied in Black women’s elaborate hairstyles, which often incorporated jewels and feathers and showcased their inherent beauty and cultural identity (The New York Historical, 2024). These women, however, responded with remarkable resilience, transforming the mandated tignon into a statement of defiance and artistry, using vibrant fabrics and intricate wraps, thereby turning an instrument of oppression into a symbol of pride and resistance (Maroons.Black, 2024). This historical episode highlights how legislative actions aimed to suppress a visual marker of identity, a direct assault on the heritage of hair as a personal and cultural statement.

Ritual

The purposeful styling of textured hair, often steeped in community and cultural meaning, became a battleground where heritage collided with imposed standards of conformity. Across the diaspora, hair styling traditions, passed down through generations, were not merely cosmetic. They were acts of storytelling, expressions of status, and deeply rooted connections to ancestral lands.

Yet, in the modern era, these very practices became the subject of legal and institutional policies designed to police appearance. This legal targeting was often cloaked in concepts of “professionalism” or “neatness,” codes that historically masked a preference for Eurocentric hair textures and styles.

How Did Traditional Styling Practices Meet Legal Opposition?

Centuries of communal hair styling have shaped Black and mixed-race heritage. In ancient Africa, practices like braiding were not simply about aesthetics. They conveyed marital status, age, community role, and even served as maps for escape routes during enslavement (EqualiTeach, 2023; Halo Collective). These intricate styles, a living archive of a people’s journey, were later deemed “unprofessional” or “distracting” in Western contexts.

The legal challenges to textured hair truly intensified with the rise of modern workplaces and educational institutions. Policies, often seemingly neutral on their surface, disproportionately affected individuals with natural hair, coercing them to alter their inherent texture.

The 1976 case of Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance marked an early legal confrontation where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a race discrimination lawsuit against an employer for bias against afros (JSTOR Daily, 2019). While this ruling allowed afros, the social pressure to adopt straightened styles persisted, leading to a complex and often contradictory legal landscape (JSTOR Daily, 2019).

Ancestral styling practices, deeply tied to identity and community, became deemed unprofessional by systems favoring Eurocentric norms, inviting legal challenge.

One particularly stark instance of this legal targeting occurred with the case of Chastity Jones against Catastrophe Management Solutions. In 2010, Ms. Jones had a job offer rescinded because she refused to cut her locs, with the company’s hiring manager reportedly stating, “They tend to get messy” (JSTOR Daily, 2019). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on her behalf, arguing that the company’s policy, while facially neutral, manifested a preference for hairstyles suiting white hair texture and effectively prohibited many natural styles for Black hair (Legal Defense Fund).

In 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling against Jones, determining that the company’s refusal did not violate Title VII (Legal Defense Fund). This ruling underscored the vulnerability of textured hair to discriminatory policies, highlighting a system where an employer could legally impose beauty standards rooted in racial bias.

• Locs ❉ These deeply symbolic strands, revered in many ancestral traditions, faced bans in professional and educational settings, often mischaracterized as unkempt.
• Braids and Cornrows ❉ Ancient techniques for hair protection and storytelling were penalized in schools and workplaces (Legal Defense Fund).
• Afros ❉ A powerful symbol of Black pride during the Civil Rights era (Halo Collective), yet often deemed too “large” or “unprofessional.”
• Bantu Knots ❉ Traditional coiled styles, culturally significant, encountered similar discrimination (Legal Defense Fund).

What Cultural Tools and Their Traditions Faced Scrutiny?

The tools and preparations used in textured hair care are themselves steeped in cultural heritage. Ancestral communities utilized a range of natural ingredients and methods, from specific oils and butters to wooden combs and specialized braiding techniques, all designed to care for and adorn hair. These practices fostered connection and knowledge transfer within families and communities (Afriklens, 2024). When textured hair and its associated styles became legally targeted, it implicitly devalued these traditional tools and the communal rituals surrounding them.

The pressure to conform often meant individuals had to resort to chemical relaxers or heat styling, methods that could cause damage, in order to meet an imposed standard of “professionalism” (Consumer Notice, 2023). The very act of performing self-care in an ancestral way became a potential liability in the public sphere.

Relay

The enduring spirit of textured hair, a continuous story of resilience and adaptation, carries forward the legacy of its ancestral origins even as it confronts contemporary challenges. The legal battles waged over hair reveal an ongoing societal tension, where individual expression rooted in heritage often meets systemic resistance. Our collective understanding of hair care, holistic well-being, and self-acceptance is deeply intertwined with this historical struggle.

How Did Ancestral Wisdom Inform Resilience against Legal Pressures?

Ancestral hair care was never simply about superficial appearance. It was a holistic practice, deeply connected to physical and spiritual health, community well-being, and generational knowledge. Families would gather for hours, engaging in communal braiding sessions, sharing stories, advice, and strengthening bonds while tending to each other’s hair (Afriklens, 2024; Bebrų Kosmetika, 2024).

These rituals, passed down through time, embodied a deep respect for natural ingredients and the body’s intrinsic connection to the earth. Shea butter, castor oil, and various herbal rinses were not merely products; they were extensions of ancestral wisdom, used to nourish and protect the hair in its natural state (Substack, 2025).

When legal frameworks began to police textured hair, they simultaneously attacked these deeply seated practices. The pressure to chemically straighten hair, for example, directly undermined traditional care methods and introduced harsh chemicals that often damaged hair and scalp (Consumer Notice, 2023). This forced conformity, however, also fueled a quiet, yet powerful, resistance. The continued practice of ancestral styles, even in private, became an act of defiance, a way to preserve cultural integrity against external imposition.

The generational fight for hair autonomy, culminating in legislative action, reflects a deep-seated demand to honor ancestral practices and self-expression.

What Modern Legal Efforts Safeguard Hair Heritage?

The struggle against hair discrimination has gained significant legal momentum in recent years, demonstrating a contemporary relay of ancestral resilience. The CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair), first introduced in California in 2019 by Senator Holly Mitchell, stands as a pivotal legislative response to decades of hair-based discrimination (The CROWN Act, 2024; Voyant Beauty, 2024). This act extends legal protections to hair texture and protective styles, including braids, locs, twists, and knots, in workplaces and public schools (The CROWN Act, 2024).

The CROWN Act directly addresses the systemic issue where Black hair, in its natural and culturally significant forms, was often deemed “unprofessional” or “unkempt” in alignment with Eurocentric beauty standards (Consumer Notice, 2023; Nu Origins Magazine, 2023). Prior to this legislation, legal avenues for individuals facing hair discrimination were often ambiguous. For instance, the 2016 Eleventh Circuit Court ruling in the Chastity Jones case revealed a legal loophole, where race discrimination protections did not explicitly extend to hairstyles linked to racial identity (Legal Defense Fund, 2016). The CROWN Act aims to rectify this by explicitly defining race to include such characteristics, reinforcing that discrimination based on hair texture and protective styles constitutes racial discrimination (Economic Policy Institute, 2023).

A particularly stark example of this ongoing fight, and a case that highlights the personal impact of such policies, is that of Darryl George, a high school student in Texas. In 2023, George faced repeated suspensions and disciplinary actions because his locs violated his school district’s dress code, which specified male hair length (OPB, 2024). His case garnered national attention, even prompting legal challenges under the Texas CROWN Act (ACLU of Louisiana, 2025). This instance, alongside others like that of Andrew Johnson, a New Jersey wrestler forced to cut his locs to compete, underscores the pressing need for nationwide legislative protection (Consumer Notice, 2018).

Studies reveal that 66% of Black girls in majority-white schools report experiencing hair discrimination, with 100% of Black elementary school girls experiencing it by age 10 in such environments (Dove, 2023; The Official CROWN Act, 2021). The CROWN Act represents a vital step in ensuring educational and professional equity, allowing individuals to show up authentically without fear of penalty for their natural hair, a profound expression of their heritage.

The passage of the CROWN Act in numerous states, with ongoing efforts for federal legislation, symbolizes a collective refusal to allow heritage to be a target. It acknowledges that hair is not merely aesthetic; it is an undeniable facet of identity and cultural legacy, demanding respect and legal protection. This forward movement speaks to a growing understanding that celebrating the diverse textures of hair is a pathway to a more inclusive and respectful society.

Reflection

The journey of textured hair, from revered adornment in ancient civilizations to a legal target in more recent history, stands as a testament to its profound meaning within Black and mixed-race communities. This exploration unveils a narrative that extends far beyond biology or aesthetics; it is a story of power, resilience, and unwavering identity. The targeting of textured hair through legislation, dress codes, and social pressure was never a random act. It was a systematic effort to dismantle cultural pride, to sever ancestral connections, and to enforce a narrow, exclusionary vision of acceptability.

Each coil, each strand, each carefully crafted style carries echoes of generations past, of wisdom passed down through communal touch and shared stories. The very act of caring for textured hair, from selecting a bonnet for night-time protection to braiding a child’s scalp, connects one to a living legacy of wellness and cultural affirmation. This heritage is not static; it lives and breathes in every individual who chooses to wear their natural hair with confidence, in every family that passes down traditional styling techniques, and in every legislative victory, however small, that secures the right to wear one’s hair without fear of penalty.

The ongoing struggle for hair freedom—from the Tignon Laws to the CROWN Act—underscores the enduring spirit of communities who understand their hair as a sacred extension of self. It is a powerful reminder that our hair is a living archive, a repository of history, a symbol of resistance, and a vibrant declaration of identity. To understand why textured hair became a legal target is to grasp the depth of its meaning, not just as a biological feature, but as a cultural cornerstone, a radiant emblem of heritage that continues to shape futures.