Cosmetology Education Bias

Fundamentals

The Cosmetology Education Bias, at its core, represents a historical and ongoing imbalance within the professional beauty industry’s training frameworks. It is an explanation of how cosmetology schools, for generations, have predominantly centered their curricula on hair textures of European descent, often marginalizing or entirely omitting comprehensive instruction regarding the diverse spectrum of textured hair. This includes the beautiful, intricate curl patterns and unique care requirements intrinsic to individuals of African, Indigenous, and various diasporic ancestries. This systemic oversight has created a profound knowledge gap, affecting both the skills of beauty professionals and the quality of care available to communities with textured hair.

This bias is not merely an academic concept; it reflects a tangible reality for countless individuals seeking professional hair services. Imagine stepping into a salon, expecting expertise and understanding, only to find a lack of proficiency for your hair’s inherent structure. This experience, deeply rooted in the historical exclusion of certain hair types from mainstream education, reveals the profound impact of this bias. The designation of ‘Cosmetology Education Bias’ clarifies a long-standing issue where a significant portion of the global population’s hair needs has been underserved, leading to a sense of othering and a perpetuation of narrow beauty ideals.

The Cosmetology Education Bias signifies a long-standing imbalance in beauty training, historically neglecting textured hair.

Early Echoes of Exclusion

From the inception of formal cosmetology training in the early 20th century, particularly as states began regulating hairdressing, the emphasis remained firmly on techniques suitable for straight or wavy hair. While African American entrepreneurs like Madam C.J. Walker and Nobia A. Franklin established their own beauty schools and product lines to cater to Black women’s needs, these institutions often operated in a segregated landscape.

The predominant educational pathways for aspiring cosmetologists did not account for the rich heritage of textured hair, nor its distinct biological properties. This created a dual system where the mainstream curriculum inadvertently, or sometimes explicitly, conveyed that only certain hair types merited comprehensive professional attention.

The absence of dedicated, in-depth training on textured hair meant that many stylists entering the profession were ill-equipped to handle the diverse needs of clients with curls, coils, and waves. This deficit often resulted in damaging practices, the promotion of chemical alteration, and a general misunderstanding of how to maintain the vitality and health of textured strands. The implications extend beyond mere styling; they touch upon the very sense of identity and self-acceptance for individuals whose hair did not conform to the Eurocentric norm.

Common Hair Textures and Historical Omission

Understanding the spectrum of hair textures is crucial to grasping the scope of this bias. Hair is broadly categorized by its curl pattern, from straight (Type 1) to wavy (Type 2), curly (Type 3), and coily (Type 4), with further sub-classifications based on the tightness of the curl or coil. Each type possesses unique structural characteristics, influencing its moisture retention, strength, and how it responds to various products and styling techniques.

• Type 1 Hair ❉ Typically straight, often smooth and reflective.
• Type 2 Hair ❉ Ranges from a loose wave to a defined S-shape.
• Type 3 Hair ❉ Characterized by distinct curls, from loose spirals to tight corkscrews.
• Type 4 Hair ❉ Exhibits tightly coiled, often Z-patterned strands, which can appear dense and require specific moisture retention strategies.

Historically, cosmetology education heavily emphasized Type 1 and Type 2 hair, with limited, if any, substantial instruction on Type 3 and Type 4 hair. This omission meant that techniques like thermal straightening and chemical relaxing were often presented as universal solutions, even for hair types that would be severely compromised by such methods when applied without specialized understanding.

The table below illustrates the stark contrast in traditional cosmetology education’s focus versus the holistic needs of textured hair.

Intermediate

The Cosmetology Education Bias, at an intermediate level of understanding, is not merely a lack of knowledge; it is a profound structural deficit that has shaped the very fabric of the professional beauty industry, particularly as it pertains to textured hair heritage. This deficit arises from deeply embedded historical and societal norms that privileged certain hair types while relegating others to the periphery, or worse, to a category requiring alteration rather than celebration. The significance of this bias extends to the economic viability of stylists, the psychological well-being of clients, and the cultural preservation of ancestral hair practices.

This systemic inclination has manifested in various ways, from the content of textbooks to the types of mannequins available for practice, and even the skills tested for professional licensure. It creates a cycle where new stylists, even with the best intentions, enter the workforce without the necessary preparation to serve a significant portion of the population. The intention of this section is to provide a deeper description of how this bias operates within the educational ecosystem and its broader societal ramifications.

The Perpetuation of Eurocentric Ideals

For centuries, particularly following colonial expansion, European beauty standards became globalized, often positioned as the epitome of aesthetic appeal. Hair, as a prominent physical feature, was not exempt from this imposition. Straight or loosely wavy hair became synonymous with beauty, professionalism, and manageability, while tightly coiled or kinky hair was frequently deemed “unruly,” “unprofessional,” or “difficult”. This cultural conditioning seeped into the nascent cosmetology industry as it formalized in the 20th century.

Beauty schools, rather than reflecting the diversity of human hair, mirrored these societal preferences. The tools, techniques, and product formulations taught were primarily designed for hair that behaved in a predictable manner under these Eurocentric paradigms. This resulted in a curriculum that inadvertently, or sometimes directly, communicated that textured hair was an anomaly requiring correction, a problem to be solved, rather than a unique expression of heritage to be honored and understood. The implicit message was that the natural state of textured hair was somehow less desirable, leading to widespread reliance on chemical relaxers and excessive heat styling, often with detrimental long-term health consequences for the hair and scalp.

The Cosmetology Education Bias reinforces Eurocentric beauty ideals, portraying textured hair as an anomaly rather than a cherished expression of heritage.

Impact on Stylists and Clients

The consequences of this educational bias are multifaceted. For stylists, it means a significant portion of their clientele may arrive with hair types they are not adequately trained to service. This leads to stylists either declining services, attempting techniques they are not proficient in, or resorting to methods that can damage the hair.

This not only limits their earning potential but also contributes to client dissatisfaction and a sense of alienation within the beauty space. The lack of proper training can lead to significant issues, from breakage and thinning to chemical burns and alopecia, which disproportionately affect individuals with textured hair.

For clients with textured hair, the experience can be deeply disheartening. Finding a competent stylist who understands their hair’s unique properties becomes a constant challenge. This often forces individuals to rely on self-education, ancestral knowledge passed down through generations, or specialized salons that cater exclusively to textured hair, which are not always accessible or affordable. The implication is a systemic barrier to equitable beauty services, undermining confidence and perpetuating the idea that their hair is inherently problematic.

Consider the experiences of Black women, who often face criticism and disapproval for wearing natural textures, sometimes even being labeled unprofessional in various settings. This societal pressure to conform to White hair aesthetics, often reinforced by the lack of skilled professionals, creates a continuous struggle. A 2019 Dove study found that Black women are 3.4 times more likely to be labeled unprofessional due to hair presentation and 1.5 times more likely to be sent home citing “unprofessional hair”.

Consequently, 80% of Black women are likely to alter their natural hair texture through chemicals or heat to fit into organizational norms. This profound societal impact directly links back to the foundational gaps in cosmetology education.

The Call for Inclusive Curricula

Recognizing this historical imbalance, there is a growing movement advocating for mandatory textured hair education within cosmetology licensing requirements. Organizations like the Texture Education Collective (TEC) are actively working to influence state boards to include comprehensive textured hair training and testing. This shift aims to rectify the long-standing racial inequities in salons and barbershops, ensuring that all people, regardless of hair texture, have access to professional and knowledgeable care.

Several states in the United States have begun to respond to this call. For instance, as of June 2024, Minnesota and Connecticut became the third and fourth U.S. states to require licensed cosmetologists to receive training and testing on textured hair. This is a step towards acknowledging the significant portion of the population with curly, coily, or wavy hair, estimated to be around 65% in the U.S.

The table below outlines common historical practices that emerged from the bias and their contemporary implications for textured hair care ❉

Pathways to Deeper Understanding

To truly address the Cosmetology Education Bias, a multifaceted approach is necessary, encompassing not only curriculum reform but also a broader cultural shift within the beauty industry. This involves ❉

1. Revision of Textbooks ❉ Updating educational materials to accurately represent and provide detailed instruction on all hair textures.
2. Inclusion of Diverse Mannequins ❉ Providing cosmetology students with textured hair mannequins for hands-on practice, as the lack of such tools can hinder skill development.
3. Mandatory Licensure Requirements ❉ Implementing state-level mandates that require comprehensive textured hair training and testing for all aspiring cosmetologists.
4. Continuing Education ❉ Encouraging and providing accessible opportunities for existing professionals to gain expertise in textured hair care.
5. Celebrating Heritage ❉ Actively promoting and valuing the cultural significance of diverse hair traditions within beauty education.

This shift promises a future where cosmetology education truly serves all strands, honoring the diverse heritage that hair represents.

Academic

The Cosmetology Education Bias refers to the systemic and often unacknowledged inclination within professional cosmetology curricula and licensing frameworks to disproportionately prioritize and validate practices, techniques, and theoretical understandings primarily applicable to hair textures of European descent, concurrently marginalizing, misrepresenting, or entirely omitting comprehensive instruction pertinent to the diverse spectrum of textured hair, particularly that intrinsic to individuals of African, Indigenous, and diasporic ancestries. This delineation extends beyond mere pedagogical oversight, encompassing a profound sociopolitical and historical dimension that has shaped beauty standards, economic opportunities, and the very self-perception of individuals across the globe. The meaning of this bias is deeply interwoven with the historical imposition of Eurocentric beauty ideals and the subsequent devaluation of non-European hair forms, creating a complex interplay of systemic disadvantage and cultural erasure.

Genealogies of Exclusion ❉ Historical and Societal Roots

The origins of this bias are not accidental; they are deeply entrenched in the historical trajectory of racial hierarchies and colonial power structures. During the transatlantic slave trade, the forced removal of hair from enslaved Africans served as a deliberate act of dehumanization and cultural stripping, severing connections to ancestral identity and communal practices where hair held profound spiritual, social, and communicative significance. Post-emancipation, the enduring legacy of white supremacy continued to shape beauty norms, with straight hair becoming a marker of respectability and assimilation within a society that devalued Blackness. This societal pressure was then codified within the emerging professional cosmetology industry.

As cosmetology formalized in the early 20th century, state boards began regulating the profession, establishing curricula and licensing requirements. While African American beauticians, such as Madam C.J. Walker, created their own robust beauty culture industries and schools to cater to the specific needs of Black hair, these parallel systems often operated in segregation. The mainstream cosmetology education, designed largely by and for a white clientele, failed to integrate comprehensive knowledge of textured hair, effectively rendering it an “other” that required chemical alteration (e.g.

relaxers) to conform to prevailing beauty standards, rather than specialized care for its intrinsic properties. This established a fundamental dissonance between the diverse reality of human hair and the narrow scope of professional training.

The Cosmetology Education Bias is a systemic inclination within beauty training that disproportionately prioritizes European hair textures, marginalizing the rich heritage of textured hair from African, Indigenous, and diasporic ancestries.

Structural Manifestations and Disparate Outcomes

The Cosmetology Education Bias manifests through several interconnected mechanisms, creating a cascade of negative consequences. Firstly, curriculum design historically allocated minimal, if any, dedicated hours to the study and practice of textured hair care. A 2018 report, for example, indicated that a significant majority of cosmetology schools in the U.S. dedicated less than 10% of practical hours to non-straight hair, despite approximately 65% of the U.S.

population possessing curly, coily, or wavy hair. This profound disparity means that stylists, even those with personal textured hair experiences, often lack the formal, scientifically grounded training necessary for optimal care. A student on Reddit, for instance, recounted their cosmetology school covering hair extensions and braiding for only a few hours, and while their Milady textbook contained information on cutting textured hair, it was not explicitly taught as specific to African American hair; they resorted to purchasing a separate textbook and a textured mannequin to gain hands-on experience. This anecdotal evidence aligns with broader findings regarding the educational lacuna.

Secondly, licensing examinations often reflect this bias, focusing on techniques and knowledge areas that do not adequately assess proficiency in textured hair. This creates a disincentive for schools to prioritize such training, as their primary objective remains preparing students for successful licensure. The outcome is a professional landscape where stylists, regardless of their own hair texture, may not possess the requisite skills to competently service clients with diverse hair types, leading to a de facto segregation of salons and a perpetuation of inadequate services.

Thirdly, the bias extends to the very tools and products developed and promoted within the industry. For decades, the market was saturated with products designed for straight hair or those aimed at chemically altering textured hair, often containing harsh ingredients that could compromise hair health. The lack of research into the unique physicochemical properties of textured hair contributed to this dearth of appropriate solutions. This situation has only recently begun to shift with the rise of the natural hair movement and increased consumer demand for products that celebrate, rather than suppress, natural curl patterns.

Socio-Psychological and Economic Ramifications

The enduring meaning of the Cosmetology Education Bias has profound socio-psychological and economic implications, particularly for Black and mixed-race communities. Psychologically, the constant exposure to beauty standards that exclude or devalue their natural hair can foster internalized self-hatred, impacting self-esteem and identity formation, especially from a young age. Children as young as three or four years old begin to understand the social hierarchy associated with “good” hair, which is often defined as hair that minimizes African ancestry.

This pressure to conform leads many to chemically alter their hair, a practice linked to significant health concerns such as chemical burns and alopecia. The struggle to conform to Eurocentric ideals can be a lifelong journey, as individuals are “brainwashed into erasing their cultural identity”.

Economically, the bias limits the career trajectories of stylists who specialize in textured hair, as their skills may not be recognized or compensated equitably within a system that prioritizes mainstream techniques. It also places an undue burden on consumers with textured hair, who may need to seek out specialized, often more expensive, services or resort to extensive self-care regimens due to the lack of accessible, competent professional options. This perpetuates a cycle of inequity within the beauty economy.

Consider the historical example of Mrs. Hazel D. Williams, who in 1930 was denied admission to numerous cosmetology schools in Los Angeles due to racial discrimination. In response, she founded Henrietta’s School of Beauty Culture, the first school west of the Rocky Mountains specifically designed to meet the hair care needs of African Americans.

This powerful act of self-determination highlights the historical necessity for Black communities to create their own educational spaces to address the systemic bias prevalent in mainstream institutions. Henrietta’s School of Beauty Culture became a vital institution, graduating many minority cosmetologists in Los Angeles, demonstrating the enduring impact of educational exclusion and the resilience of those who sought to address it. This case study powerfully illustrates how the Cosmetology Education Bias was not merely an oversight but a deliberate, discriminatory practice that necessitated the creation of parallel, often underserved, educational pathways.

The Unbound Helix ❉ Pathways to a More Equitable Future

Addressing the Cosmetology Education Bias requires a multifaceted approach, moving beyond superficial adjustments to fundamental reform. This includes ❉

1. Mandatory Comprehensive Curricula ❉ State cosmetology boards must mandate extensive, standardized training in all hair textures, including the unique biology, care, and styling techniques for highly coiled and curly hair. This is not about adding a single chapter, rather integrating textured hair education throughout the entire curriculum, from theoretical foundations to practical application. Connecticut, for instance, now requires at least 17 classroom hours and 300 clinical hours dedicated to textured hair, covering anatomy, chemical procedures, hair care, cutting, styling, and shaving. This represents a significant, though still evolving, step towards comprehensive instruction.
2. Culturally Responsive Pedagogy ❉ Education must extend beyond technical skills to include the historical, cultural, and social significance of textured hair. This fosters a deeper respect and understanding among aspiring professionals, allowing them to approach textured hair with reverence for its heritage, rather than as a challenge.
3. Research and Development ❉ Continued investment in scientific research into the unique properties of textured hair is essential. This informs product development, refines techniques, and provides a robust scientific foundation for educational content, moving away from anecdotal or generalized approaches.
4. Industry Collaboration and Advocacy ❉ Organizations like the Texture Education Collective, comprised of industry leaders, must continue to advocate for policy changes at state and national levels, ensuring that licensure requirements reflect the diversity of hair textures in the population.

The comprehensive exploration of the Cosmetology Education Bias reveals a deep-seated issue with historical roots and far-reaching implications. The delineation of its systemic nature, its perpetuation through educational and licensing frameworks, and its profound impact on individuals and communities, underscores the urgency of transformative change. Only through a conscious and sustained commitment to inclusivity, rooted in a profound respect for textured hair heritage, can the beauty industry truly serve all its strands.

Reflection on the Heritage of Cosmetology Education Bias

The journey through the intricate landscape of the Cosmetology Education Bias, viewed through the lens of Roothea’s ‘Soul of a Strand’ ethos, offers a profound meditation on the enduring strength and resilience of textured hair heritage. This exploration reveals that the bias is not merely a modern oversight; it is an echo from the source, a persistent shadow cast by centuries of societal conditioning that sought to diminish the intrinsic beauty and cultural significance of Black and mixed-race hair. Each coil, every wave, carries ancestral wisdom, a living testament to traditions of care and community that predate formal cosmetology by millennia.

Our collective understanding of hair, therefore, must expand beyond the superficial, reaching into the deep well of history where hair was a communicator of status, spirituality, and identity. The very essence of the bias, its historical exclusion of diverse hair textures, served to silence these ancestral voices, to render invisible the tender thread of practices passed down through generations. Yet, in the face of this systemic erasure, the heritage of textured hair has not only survived but continues to flourish, a testament to the unbound helix of identity and resilience.

The unfolding recognition of this bias, and the growing calls for its rectification, represent a powerful movement towards reclaiming what was lost and celebrating what was always sacred. It is a societal awakening to the fact that true beauty education cannot be selective; it must be expansive, embracing the full spectrum of human hair in all its glorious forms. This shift is not merely about technical proficiency; it signifies a deeper respect for cultural legacy, a commitment to holistic well-being that acknowledges the inseparable link between hair, identity, and ancestral practices. As we move forward, the aim is to ensure that every strand finds its rightful place, honored and understood, in the living library of global hair wisdom.

References

• Byrd, A. D. & Tharps, L. L. (2014). Hair Story ❉ Untangling the Roots of Black Hair in America. St. Martin’s Griffin.
• Dabiri, E. (2020). Twisted ❉ The Tangled History of Black Hair Culture. Harper Perennial.
• Ellington, T. (2024). Textures ❉ The History and Art of Black Hair. Bloomsbury Academic.
• Mercer, K. (1987). Black hair/style politics. New Formations, 3, 33-54.
• Mbilishaka, A. Johnson, C. A. Godsil, R. D. MacFarlane, S. Tropp, L. R. & Atiba Goff, P. (2020). The CROWN Research Study ❉ Hair Bias in the Workplace. Dove.
• Omotoso, S. A. (2018). Gender and Hair Politics ❉ An African Philosophical Analysis. Journal of Pan African Studies, 11(3), 1-17.
• Rosado, S. (2003). “Look at her hair” ❉ The body politics of black womanhood in Brazil. Transforming Anthropology, 11(2), 18-29.
• Rooks, N. M. (1996). Hair Raising ❉ Beauty, Culture, and African American Women. Rutgers University Press.
• Tate, S. A. (2019). Black beauty ❉ Shade, hair, and anti-racist aesthetics. In Black Beauty ❉ Shade, Hair, and Anti-Racist Aesthetics. Routledge.
• White-Jolivette, T. (2022). African American Women’s Experience of Wearing Natural Textured Hair (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
• Wilcox, A. (2017). Femininity, Hair Relaxers, and the Impact of Beauty Standards on Black Women’s Health. Inquiries Journal, 9(10).