California Leads the Nation in Stopping Hair Discrimination
By: Shyam Rajan
Alexandra Sepolen vividly remembers being told at work that her hair looked “extremely unprofessional” and that she needed to “keep up certain appearances.” The statements were made by a member of management while she was working as a research assistant at a New York hospital in 2016.
Sepolen at the time had a “teeny weeny afro, or TWA,” hairstyle, which she described as a transitional natural hairstyle worn by some black women when curly hair is cut short.
Photo by Eye for Ebony on Unsplash
“Anyone, regardless of their race or ethnicity or aspect of their identity, would be offended if they were reduced to a certain feature,” said Sepolen, a second-year student at the Santa Clara University School of Law, and board member of the Black Law Students Association. “Being able to have hair that doesn’t necessarily conform to this Western standard of beauty, but makes you unique, is something that is so special and is held dearly to a lot of women, including myself.”
She filed a complaint with the human resources department on the basis of racial workplace discrimination. They responded that based on their current policies and existing state laws, they didn’t believe it rose to an actionable level because it was related to her hair as opposed to her skin tone.
Beginning this year, the CROWN, or Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair, Act went into effect in California, making it the first state to ban discrimination based on hair texture and style. The bill prohibits discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the state Education Code. The law has been paving the way for other states to follow, with New York and New Jersey already adopting similar laws.
The CROWN Act, which was passed unanimously by California lawmakers, reads, “despite the great strides American society and laws have made to reverse the racist ideology that Black traits are inferior, hair remains a rampant source of racial discrimination,” and “physical traits [like] dark skin, kinky and curly hair [are equated with] a badge of inferiority.”
Kelli Richardson Lawson, CEO of the marketing company Joy Collective, said they have been supporting CROWN Acts across the country by working with organizations including Dove and the National Urban League, Color of Change and the Western Center of Law and Poverty. These groups co-founded the CROWN Coalition, which petitioned for the passage of the CROWN Act to widen those standards of beauty whose constraints unfairly fall upon African American women.
“We know for sure that black women are 80 percent more likely to change their natural hair to meet social norms or expectations at work. Black women are 1.5 times more likely to be sent home or know of black women who were sent home because of their hair,” Richardson Lawson said.
According to the CROWN Act’s website, at least 20 other states are currently considering similar laws.
“Hair discrimination is a form of policing culture that is unnecessary and unkind,” said Margaret Russell, University Interim Associate Provost for Diversity and Inclusion. “Discrimination against locks and dreads and braids have fallen disproportionately on people of color.”
Jazzalyn Livingston, National Program Manager of the NAACP Youth and College Division, said there have been several high-profile incidents of hair discrimination that have helped bring the issue into the spotlight. For example, in 2018, a high school wrestler in New Jersey was forced by a referee to cut his dreadlocks before a match, not because of the length of his hair, but because his hair was “unnatural.” Incidentally, the CROWN Act protects against discrimination based on locks, which are considered natural hair, alongside “afros, braids, [and] twists.”
“He had to remove his hair and if he did not, he was going to be disqualified,” said Livingston. “The barrier preventing them from [participating] is based on a disagreement with the way their hair is arranged and growing out of their scalp.”
U.S. Senator Cory Booker, of New Jersey, is the lead sponsor of the federal version of the Act. Richardson Lawson hopes for a vote in the House of Representatives in 2020.
“The goal is ultimately to end hair discrimination in the U.S., and that means all 50 states and also at the federal level,” said Richardson Lawson.
Livingston said the CROWN Act extends beyond protecting only natural hair, and wigs also may be protected. “They could be struggling with health issues, such as cancer and they have lost their natural hair, and wigs are a way for them to reclaim a sense of power,” Livingston said.
However, Richardson Lawson believes otherwise.
“[The CROWN Act] does not include wigs,” said Richard Lawson. “It includes protective hairstyles, including locks, braids, and twists.”
However, Russell said legal protections exist for people to express themselves in many different ways, even if the CROWN Act does not explicitly cover them.
“There has already been a stronger legal basis for protecting wearing a hijab or wearing anything that does not fit the mainstream culture. It could be a hijab, it could be a bindi, it could be skin markings,” said Russell.
Russell said these laws are simply recognizing that society is diverse.
“There is no such thing as the typical worker, or the typical student, in terms of looks,” Russell said.
(Editor's Note: This article was originally published in the March 2020 [Volume 50, Issue 3] version of The Advocate.)