Kinky, curly, loc’d, nappy … natural.
Almost as soon as Black women and men entered corporate America, they were subjected to subtle and not-so-subtle acts of aggression. Some acts were borne out of ignorance and lack of cultural understanding. Others borne out of intolerance and hate.
One source of such aggressions has been the natural texture of Black people’s hair … what many proud individuals have affectionately called their “crown.” Workplace aggressions based on hair not only cause undue mental stress and harm, they have cost workers income and in some cases locked people out of the corporate workforce entirely.
The cases are numerous.
For example, Brittany Noble-Jones, an up-and-coming reporter, said she was fired from her job at WJTV in Jackson, Mississippi when she dared to don her natural hair instead of wearing it straightened, as she had for the first few years of her career. The former Emerging Journalist of the Year of the National Association of Black Journalists said her boss told her that her hair was “unprofessional.” WJTV and its parent company, Nexstar Broadcasting deny the allegation, in which an EEOC suit was filed on behalf of Noble-Jones.
Eradicating the worry of discrimination based on hair is a step closer with last Friday’s U.S. House passage of the CROWN Act. The act, which passed 235-189 along party lines, would prohibit discrimination based on an individual’s texture or style of hair. CROWN is an acronym for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) was one of the bill’s original sponsors. She said the House’s passage was not only for women in today’s workforce, but, more importantly, for her daughters.
“As a mom of two Black girls, I’m glad to see and co-lead this,” said Omar. “My daughters both have beautiful, natural, curly hair. This (CROWN) is part of our fight to be fully recognized as equal human beings. My youngest daughter, who is 9, when I explained what we were doing with the act, she said ‘thank you.’”
The authenticity of natural hair
Stephenetta “Isis” Harmon has a term for Noble-Jones’ initial straightened style. While many Black women prefer and enjoy wearing straightened hair, other do it out of necessity, said Harmon, a Black beauty culturalist and founder of Sadiaa Black Beauty Guide, a directory and platform for Black-owned beauty brands.
[image_credit]Supplied[/image_credit][image_caption]Stephenetta “Isis” Harmon[/image_caption]
Harmon believes she’s lost out on job opportunities due to her choice of natural hair, but she said she gained much more than a paycheck.
“I have peace,” said Harmon. “That’s what the CROWN Act means for so many Black people. It means not having to fight every day when going to school or going to work. It means peace and it means safety.”
Black hair care is a booming business.
In 2018 it was estimated that Blacks spend a whopping $473 million on hair products – nine times that of non-Blacks. Many of those products help to temporarily straighten and hold the hair that is typically naturally kinky or coarse. Harmon said there’s another, far greater, cost to straitening hair.
“The chemical process of straightening hair causes cancer and all sorts of issues,” said Harmon. “Girls are dealing with early unset puberty because of these toxic products.”
Passage in the Senate and becoming law?
In addition to addressing workplace discrimination, the CROWN Act would make it illegal to discriminate based on hair in areas of housing, education, public accommodations and federal public assistance.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the CROWN Act in the Senate yesterday. If, as in the House, the vote falls along party lines, it would pass 51-50 with Vice President Kamala Harris – a Black woman – casting the deciding vote. President Joe Biden has said he is eager to sign the bill into law.
Currently there are 12 states that have passed CROWN laws. Minnesota’s House recently passed its own CROWN bill, but it is unclear if it can make it past the GOP-controlled Senate, thus making passage of the federal act critical to protect Black people in the state from discrimination based on hair.
Why is this a partisan issue? Does the hair-straightening industry own the GOP? Or does the GOP just hate on Omar? Or is it a reflexive response to any assertion of employee rights in the workplace?
It’s mostly anti-Omar, with a strong dose of hating on the idea of employee rights to do anything but suck it up and get to work.
Umm, you have to ask?
Well, this has been going on like forever, as a kid, we took the hit for long hair when butch cuts were in. Once you get this one tied down, suspect the got-to-be-like-us folks will probably start on eye brows! Perhaps a more far reaching what business is it of yours law would be a better way to go?
I don’t get it …. from what I have read this protection and law is only for Black people? A non-Black person could be fired for wearing his/her hair ‘natural’ (whatever that means)? Is it ‘natural’ hair to wear it in corn rows, pig tails (I am sorry, but I am not ‘up’ on the correct name for styles) or other styles that are quite unusual? Is unusual ‘natural?’ Perhaps I should have used the word unique? Would a non-Black person who wore his/her hair in a spiked mohawk be considered to be wearing it naturally? Where does the authority for a business begin and end? Wouldn’t it be likely for there to be future laws to protect employees from being fired for tatoos, nose rings, lip rings, etc.? Perhaps protections from being fired for wearing any attire that they choose? Is it possible that a potential customer, who doesn’t like or is wary of or is uncomfortable with ‘natural’ hair styles, decides to not sign a contract with or make a purchase with or do business with the business represented by the person with the ‘natural’ hairstyle? I think there is a proverbial ‘can of worms’ here.
If anybody actually lost their job in 2022 over hair, they would have a slam dunk lawsuit. What a waste of legislation time!
I’m afraid the courts would disagree with your analysis of “slam dunk,” unless you mean a “slam-dunk” for the employer. EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Sols., 876 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2017)
“Eradicating the worry of discrimination based on hair is a step closer with last Friday’s U.S. House passage of the CROWN Act. The act, which passed 235-189 along party lines, would prohibit discrimination based on an individual’s texture or style of hair.”
This is the daffiest legislation I ever heard. It almost sounds made up, political theater, hilariously earnest. Courts would strike it down the moment challenged. Of course you can discriminate on hair style. And eyeglasses. And shoes. And…
Actually there have been lawsuits based on hair discrimination; a tv person was asked to not have their hair natural(afro). Many states already have this in place as legislation so it is nothing new. The point is it is one thing to be asked to change your shoes, it is another to use chemicals to straighten your hair or told if in the military that short corn row braids are not appropriate. It lessens some of the subjectivity in the area. If there is a safety issue as to why one’s hair needs to be short, that is another issue. This law is quite specific. Again the law was started some time ago by a group of people at a federal level.
You are correct. There are (rare) cases where an employer used a legitimate freedom (to employ who they like) in an illegitimate way (to discriminate against a protected class). But it must be clear this was the basis of the discrimination.
“Courts would strike it down the moment challenged.”
On what basis?
On this basis: There are protected classes, and that’s it. Employers, shop owners, you, your friends, and all Americans have the freedom to discriminate outside these protected classes. They can discriminate against fat people, tall people, dumb people or in my case, smart people : )
You are arguing against yourself, the law as proposed is being written in order to prevent discrimination against a protected class, that being African Americans. Or were you trying to suggest there is some raft of lawsuits being filed by folks NOT being discriminated against, claiming they are? Per usual, it seems your contrary opinion is put forth for little more than attention seeking.
I would oppose adding “pathological contrariety” to any list of protected classes.
And I would oppose adding rubber stamp lefties, too : )
You’re too late. The Washington DC Human Rights Code protects against discrimination based on political affiliation.
“the law as proposed is being written in order to prevent discrimination against a protected class, that being African Americans.” We already have a law.
Yup. And fun fact: There are more people in California who are members of a protected class than who are not.
Why is that a bad thing?
So “white privilege” should be enforceable?
I have no idea how that follows from anything I said.
I don’t know where you got your figures, but I suspect that the reason there are so many members of protected classes in California is that the Asian and Latino population is high, as well as the immigrant population. A quick gander at the Unruh Act (Cal Civ. Code sect. 51) sets out a list of protected classes that doesn’t look all that different from any other list.
Protected classes are set by the legislature or by Congress. There is no immutable list of protected classes floating about in the ether.
Minnesota has made marital status a protected class; the federal government and many other states have not. Cincinnati has made Appalachian heritage a protected class, but (as far as I know) no other jurisdiction has followed suit. It is strictly a legislative determination.
I suppose a legislature can add any number of protected classes. A sort of far left fever dream. I don’t know. At some point wouldn’t the courts step in and say, no?
No, it’s a purely legislative function.
You need to read up on judicial review.
What I’m saying is I imagined there was something in the Constitution that prevented employers from being compelled to employ those they didn’t want to employ. Within reason.
Hair style is not reasonable. It’s ridiculous. What’s next, shoes, music preference, quality of smile? If there is nothing in our Constitution that prevents such looniness well, that’s scary.
What I’m saying is you’re dead wrong. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL 88-352) outlawed discrimination in employment, and its constitutionality has long been settled.
I’m neither right nor wrong. I’m asking a question. Is there nothing unconstitutional in compelling employers to hire someone with poor hygiene, or a grating laugh, or a mohawk, if such a law were passed?
You weren’t asking a question, but anyway, Congress could, through its power to regulate interstate commerce, outlaw discrimination against people with Mohawks, body odor, or grating laughs. Congress has not chosen to do so.
And before you start on a tangent about interstate commerce, read Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964). Seriously, inform yourself before “asking questions.”
No one is compelling anyone to hire someone with any particular hair “style.” No one is even suggesting it. Only you, and your fellow conservatives, are going down that ridiculously slippery slope. Rather, this law is about preventing discrimination based on natural hair type. If left to its own devices, and kept clean, the hair of people of African descent becomes extremely curly. If my hair, which is just a little beyond shoulder length, had the structure of black hair, it would make an impressive Afro. But, because I’m white, it falls to my shoulders and does not generally stick out at all. Yet, if I leave my hair to its own devices, it would be extremely unlikely that I would ever be left out of a job or fired for it (barring jobs where long hair can be a safety hazard, and typically only if I refuse to tie it back). Meanwhile, women with African hair feel compelled to use chemicals to unnaturally straighten their hair, risking their health and identity, because black women HAVE been left out of jobs or fired for having natural hair. Even if they decide not to chemically alter their hair, and opt instead for chemical free modification that helps them maintain something other than an Afro (for example, using braids or dreadlocks – after all, an Afro takes up a lot of space), they still face discrimination. This isn’t about hair STYLE, it’s about the physical structure inherent to black hair.
Hair discrimination is not running rampant throughout Minnesota and the USA, this legislation is a waste of time…. It shows how out of touch elected officials truly are.
How do you know? I mean seriously, are you in the position to have any idea whether hair discrimination is running rampant? Have YOU ever been discriminated against because of your hair? Just because you don’t experience it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I have no idea if it’s running rampant, but I’m wondering why you’re so concerned about a law against it?
Are bald people protected? This is nuts.
Is it nuts, really? Women HAVE been fired for having hair that doesn’t conform to being ethnically white. That’s wrong, is it not? And depending on the cause of baldness, maybe. If they’re an avowed skin head, probably not protected. If they have male pattern baldness or are undergoing medical treatment that causes baldness, my guess is yes, they’re probably protected. What, exactly, is your concern?
Again, we have laws against racial discrimination. Obviously any attempt to skirt this law, using hair, skin color, or any of the myriad ways it might be skirted, would be punished.
My concern is freedom. If this silly legislation is passed, it opens the door to every kind of kooky restriction. It’s PC run amok. It’s dangerous.
Who’s freedom? Because people with certain hair types are being discriminated against, skirting those laws you think are good, and they’re forced to either suck it up or spend lots of money to protect their freedom not to be discriminated against because of the color of their skin. I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to sue an employer, but it’s not free to even start the process and in many cases, an employer can afford to go the distance while the discriminated-against employee can’t.
I’m still wondering about the concern over a proposed law that is supposed to be unnecessary because anyone claiming hair discrimination in 2022 has a “slam dunk” case.
I chemically alter my hair. I color it in sometimes blatantly unnatural colors. I can do lots of other things with my hair, including straightening it and curling it without chemicals because of the structure of my hair. I don’t believe I’ve been discriminated against for my unnatural hair colors (I have never been discriminated against for my natural hair color, for sure). However, if I should be forced to chemically alter my hair, as a white person it would be uncomfortable, but I would totally put up a stink about it. But also, as a white person, the chemicals used on my hair have been developed specifically to be as safe as possible. My scalp still itches like mad for several days after coloring my hair (I’m still gonna do it because I’m a red head born in a brunette’s body). And studies indicate that white women increase their risk of breast cancer by 7% by coloring their hair. The chemicals used to process, color, and straighten black hair on the other hand, tend to be stronger and/or applied for longer periods of time, and thus increase the risk of adverse effects. Compare the increased risk for breast cancer in white women who color their hair (7%) to the increased risk for black women. It’s 45%. FORTY-FIVE PERCENT. And if they color their hair frequently, it’s a 60% increase in breast cancer risk. Hair straighteners increase the risk of breast cancer by 31%, and more than 70% of black women have gotten their hair chemically straightened. Oh, and black women who get breast cancer are 40% more likely to die of it than white women. We are literally asking black women to kill themselves for “professional” hair.
While it’s likely technically true that discriminating against natural black hair is probably illegal, it DOES happen (see, the article and comments above with case law) and there’s apparently little the victim of such discrimination can do about it without the time, money, and potential reputation damage of a lawsuit. So a law specifically spelling it out appears to be appropriate. Furthermore, even if a law is not absolutely necessary to win a lawsuit against a discriminatory act, having a law in place might prevent such acts from happening and bypass the need for litigation (which is expensive and a poor use of the judicial system). Finally, even if black women are relatively unlikely to be discriminated based on natural hair now (though it still happens, clearly), they absolutely have been in the past. A law saying that it’s not legal to do so might encourage more black women to wear their hair naturally so as to reduce their exposure to hair chemicals which increase their risk of breast cancer by so much, if they so choose. As a person who prefers an unnatural look to my hair, I can understand choosing to do so. But being pressured into it as a condition of societal expectations, especially when it is literally killing people, is wrong. Period.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/09/black-women-hair-products-chemicals-risks
Agreed. I really don’t understand how the slippery slope arguments get started for pretty much everything. My goodness, I’m surprised that they’re not howling about the law of gravity. First, yeah, it keeps you on the planet’s surface, but next thing you know, you’re at the bottom of the ocean being crushed by the water column. Plus, the law of gravity will surely restrict our freedom to float away if we so wish. After all, we don’t need gravity, we just need to tie ourselves down to Earth with our bootstraps!