If you can’t draw a direct line between a bill to protect people — mostly women, mostly women of color — from discrimination based on their natural hair and the television series “Duck Dynasty,” then you haven’t been around the Minnesota state Senate.
The bill is known nationally as the “CROWN Act,” which stands for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. House File 37 signed by Gov. Tim Walz last week added one sentence to the Minnesota Human Rights Act that protects against discrimination in employment, housing and education. In addition to current protections against bias based on race, national origin, age, marital status, disability and religion, it adds that the definition of race “is inclusive of traits associated with race, including but not limited to hair texture and hair styles such as braids, locs, and twists.”
Sponsored by Sen. Bobby Joe Champion and Rep. Esther Agbaje, both DFLers from Minneapolis, the bill comes in response to complaints that people with hair and hairstyles associated with people of color face discrimination. During the Senate floor debate last month, co-sponsor Sen. Erin Maye Quade, DFL-Apple Valley, described her first job performance review included only one critique, that her curly hair was unprofessional and that she should do something about it.
It wasn’t especially controversial, passing the House 111-19 and the Senate 45-19. But the Senate vote came after an attempt was made to include the word “beards.”
“In the three weeks that I have been here I’ve gotten emails, I’m guessing from the opposite party, saying I look ugly and I should shave my face. That I should go back to Hicksville,” said first-term Sen. Nathan Wesenberg. The Little Falls Republican sports a long beard.
“I have a beard. It’s my natural hair,” Wesenberg said. “We should let people of all colors and all races know that we shouldn’t be racist against hair.”
Champion opposed the amendment, saying he wanted to keep the bill simple and narrow. He hadn’t heard from people who were discriminated against due to their beards.
“Black women are 1.5 times more likely to be sent home from a workplace because of their hair,” Champion said. “I don’t think as many women would be wrestling with the issue of a beard.”
But doesn’t the bill apply to all genders? Sen. Howe asked.
Yes, it does, Champion said.
“And by the way, I do like Sen. Wesenberg’s beard,” Champion said. “It is just that beards are not the issue before the body.”
That amendment failed on a nearly party line vote — though Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson voted with the DFL. But that wasn’t the end of the beard debate, partly because Champion tried to clarify his position.
“Beards are not attached to culture,” he said. “I love a beard. I can’t grow a beard but I certainly appreciate those who have the ability to grow a beard. Now when I say a beard is not a part of culture, that is not stated with any disrespect. I’m trying to be as narrow as possible based on what has been seen.”
That led Sen. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, to ask if Champion would yield to a question.
“Senator Champion, have you ever seen the movie, er the TV series ‘Duck Dynasty?’” Drazkowski asked.
Responded Champion: “Senator Drawkowski, I have seen ‘Duck Dynasty’ as well as listened to the music of ZZ Top as well.” (For those who haven’t watched or haven’t listened, both the stars of the reality program and the members of the rock band favor long beards, not unlike that worn by Wesenberg.)
Drazkowski said he was encouraged by that response, to a point.
[image_credit]Senate Media Services screenshot[/image_credit][image_caption]State Sen. Steve Drazkowski speaking during the floor debate. At lower left is state Sen. Nathan Wesenberg.[/image_caption]
It went on. Sen. Eric Lucero, R-St. Michael, said many Jews and Muslims grow beards for religious reasons.
“I was struck by the, and I don’t mean this derogatorily, but the ignorance,” Lucero said. “Because there are many cultures where beards are clearly part and integral.”
Drazkowski then asked Champion if he knew who the Amish are? He said he did.
Finally, Champion said that he would be open to someone coming back with another bill to address discrimination against people with certain styles of beards. But he said wanted his bill to move forward without amendment. It did, and was sent to Walz with all DFL members in favor and 11 Republicans voting yes.
Are mullets protected?
Oh the struggles white men face! How do they even get out of bed in the morning and face society? /s
Conservatives have truly become nothing more than real-life internet trolls.
I dunno. I am very supportive of the CROWN Act for the reasons Sen. Champion presented, but I think the Republicans have a good point that beards can also be a basis for cultural stereotyping and discrimination. Especially in the interests of bipartisanship, I think “beards” could have fairly easily been added to this legislation. I remember the days of backlashes against men of all cultures who wore beards and mustaches (i.e., the military, schools, many businesses) which still may persist today.
I don’t disagree that there is no reason to exclude beards from the measure. Of course, everyone knows that the GOP was being completely insincere since even if beards were included, they wouldn’t have supported the bill. I actually think it would have been great for Chapion to have taken the opportunity to expand the bill and then watch Republicans vote against it anyway.
I disagree that beards could have easily been incorporated into this bill.
As Champion mentioned, beards are a separate issue that could be addressed with a separate bill. About half the population is unable to grow a beard.
As other commenters have mentioned, facial hair related to religious beliefs is already covered under antidiscrimination laws.
It is a distinct issue.
Repub senator Wesenberg displays the usual rightwing tit-for-tat silliness regarding the painful “discrimination” he has endured over his beard style. Whatever Black people have suffered, so have today’s whites, All Lives Matter, blah, blah, blah…
Whatever Wesenberg has suffered for his “culture”, it most certainly isn’t “racist” behavior; which causes me to wonder if he knows what the word means. Sort of like our DC Repubs and “socialism”…
If you want feedback on a bill, talk to the author long before it is ready to be passed. This bill is being passed to prevent discrimination. There is such a thing as white hillbilly culture and evidence it is held in contempt. Young Black urban legislators in this part of the country may not be aware of it. It can be explained, but not without time. Black people have waited too long for justice to expect them to wait.
Relevant to point out that discrimination against people with facial hair due to religious beliefs is illegal under discrimination laws related to religion. A Sikh man for example could not be ordered to shave their beard for a job, and the same would apply for Muslim and Jewish employees. An Amish person presumably, considering their religious beliefs, would also be covered under that.
It’s amusing that the democrats didn’t seem to recognize that they and their superfluous bill were being mocked. Well played.
The beliefs of the GQP and what was meant to be the obviously ridiculous ideas of the people in the movie Iodocrocy are completely indistinguishable from one another. But even with that, what the representative was doing was completely obvious to everyone since grandstanding for any and all aspects white supremecist ideology is basically their whole thing.
Since they aren’t brave enough to do it directly they simply mock anyone who follow their views and “ask questions” to which they don’t want answers. When that doesn’t work, they directly threaten people with violence (Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, MTG, Bobert, Gosar) or indirectly by showcasing their guns at protests or in communication about all political topics.
Yes, no doubt the R legislative highlight and greatest public policy contribution of the session. Bravo!!!
None of these guys have the wit required to engage in clever “mockery”. Not to mention that their statements and demeanor seem quite serious. And if they thought the bill “superfluous” and unnecessary, that should have been their argument.
The stunt these guys pulled was just another appeal to the concept of pervasive “discrimination” against the poor downtrodden whites, which has been cynically manufactured as a way to fire up the Rightwing base. So to that extent their objections were offered quite seriously.
Exactly, but you obviously do.
Billy Gibbons is a Texan, reminding us all that we shouldn’t judge that horrible state too harshly. Dusty died in 2021, but both of them were beloved for their beards, also their rhythm and deuce coupe videos. Duck Dynasty made a fortune faking backwoods mentality. Is this a legislative debate? Seriously?
Drazkowski represents our own version of Ohio’s loud mouth Jim Jordan.
His pugnacious caucus is a little smaller this year. I wonder why no one wants to run for his seat. Many folks would support anybody but him.
He might be, but here’s what I have in Montana – a bill was introduced that would ban the teaching of scientific theory in public schools. “The legislation’s sponsor says by banning scientific theories, the policy aims to prevent kids from being taught things that aren’t true.”
You read that right, no typos or anything.
I think this guy wins.
https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2023-02-07/bill-would-ban-the-teaching-of-scientific-theories-in-montana-schools
My first thought was that the Montana bill was performative, showing the incredible stupidity of right-wing educational policy. I thought it might be political theater, like those petitions to ban the Bible from libraries because of its scandalous content (Incest! Pimping out your children! Marriage fraud! And that’s just the first book). Then I looked at the sponsor’s record, and it looks like I was wrong. This yokel is dead serious.
How does hair naturally grow into “braids, locs, and twists?” Straight, curly, wavy, long, seem like that they could occur naturally. Is a beehive considered natural? A mohawk?