When Chris Rock made the G.I. Jane 2 joke that launched a thousand op-eds, one issue that arose was that men do not make fun of black women’s hair. Not women in general. Black women. They are, apparently, particularly sensitive about the issue of hair. I recall one of the women of The View explaining that she had a room in her mansion just for her wigs. She was black. This was a source of some hilarity, but likely only because she raised it.
This sensitivity gave rise to the New York City Human Rights Commission holding it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of black hairstyles. But that was New York City, where silliness abounds and they get what they deserve. Except what of the federal CROWN Act?
The Crown Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act), whose fate now rests with the Senate, seeks to provide legal protection for Black people and other minorities who face discrimination based on their hair. One of the nays, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), called the bill trivial compared with other matters facing our country: “How about a world where gas prices aren’t five dollars a gallon? … How about a world where inflation isn’t at a 40-year high?” Jordan argued. “Those are the issues we should be focused on.”
Using Jordan as the foil of the argument is obvious nutpicking, But that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. Is it too trivial an issue to be worthy of enacting a federal law to protect hairstyles? Are there too many far more important matter to address that petty grievances should be put aside? Or is it only a petty grievance to people whose hair isn’t at issue?
Jordan is wrong.
Who saw that coming?
The historical politicization of hair has created stereotypes and biases that affect Black people’s ability to thrive, and our laws do not adequately address this discrimination. Jordan and other critics have argued that the Crown Act is redundant because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already offers protections against racial discrimination. But supporters of the bill rightly point out that clearer language is necessary to guide the courts in their interpretation of the law.
The issue raised here is about hair, and while there is merit in the argument that black hairstyles have been the target of historic politicization and discrimination, the question remains whether this is where government starts down a new path of regulatory micromanagement.
If an employer has a dress code that requires all employees, regardless of race, to maintain a clean and well-groomed appearance, such that white men can’t show up for work with uncombed hair or untrimmed beards, should it be unlawful for the employer to demand the same of black men?
One of the more unpleasant realities is that patrons, customers, clients, tend to judge the people who provide services based on appearances as a reflection of their sensibilities and judgment. What if none of the clients want to work with an employee because the person’s appearance is, to the client’s mind, peculiar? It’s long been the law that customer preference does not provide a justification for discrimination, but what’s an employer to do with an employee no one will work with and who brings in no revenue to the business?
And if hairstyle is the subject of federal regulation, what of clothing, shoes, hygiene? Laws that specifically protect one race over another violate the Equal Protection Clause, but would it be any better for employers to have no ability to direct the appearance of employees regardless of race or gender?
What about the language spoken? Should an employee have a right to use African American Vernacular English rather than standard English if that’s her preference? Can an employer refuse to hire an employee whose accent makes him too difficult to understand such that he can’t perform his job?
Even the personal example given in the WaPo op-ed raises issues.
When I was in elementary school, one of my teachers interrupted class frequently to tell me my hair was too big and was disturbing the kids behind me. It wasn’t until my mom came to school and explained to the teacher that the size of my hair was a product of the way it grew out of my scalp — something I could not control — that the teacher checked her criticism.
The way hair grows is one thing, but that it’s big is a matter of it not being cut shorter. But even if that’s the sort of personal choice that teachers have no business questioning, what about the student seated behind her who can’t see the blackboard because of her big hair? This is, of course, easily fixed, but would it be acceptable to seat a black student in the back of the class because her hair impaired other students’ ability to learn? That the teacher doesn’t care for big hair is the teacher’s problem, but if there were a law protecting it, what of the student seated behind her if that was the teacher’s objection?
There might be individualized fixes that address some situations, and much of this is a matter of degree, where reasonable people can manage to find a solution that doesn’t turn everything into a federal case. But the law lacks the ability for such nuanced choices and serves as a bludgeon, all or nothing. How much should law regulate? If it starts with black hairstyles, does it end there? If not, is there any way to prevent government regulation from sliding down the slippery slope into micromanaging every aspect of engagement?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OH THE HUMANITY!!!
THERE SHOULD BE A LAW!!!!!!!!
Fucking wimps.
Definitely, it would be great if the fed. gov. would regulate more! I don’t think I should have to subject my body to various chemical treatments that are contrary to what nature and God intended, and I think there should be a federal law telling my employer he can’t make me. People should have to get used to my natural odor.
Everyone should be required to love and adore me under penalty of the law.
Eating in a restaurant the other day, my waitress had very long fingernails with all sorts of design things going on. As she put my plate down on the table, her nails were in my food and I was grossed out. I complained to her and she informed me that long elaborate nails were a black woman thing and I should check my privilege.
Nope. It had nothing to do with my privilege. It had to do with her nails being in my food.
“You’re racist if you disapprove of my fashion choices” is just the 2020s version for young women of the “You’re too fat or too poor to wear this like I do, so you’re just jealous” retort from past decades, now that the latter response is very unwoke.
Of course, there is the obvious bright side — more work for lawyers. This thing needs to be expanded even further. Major penalties for any barber who screws up a customer’s hair. And we need to make sure aiders and abettors and non-intervenors in hair-related offenses are also severely punished.
As an old, I was expecting the Cowsills.
It would have been the preferable version.
Aye aye, Admiral.
I’m genuinely puzzled by a hair-related anti-discrimination statute targeted toward employment. It is already unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race. And if an employer is using a hair-related employment condition to unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race, such conduct can already be challenged in court. A plaintiff can also challenge an employer’s non-discriminatory explanation for the practice as pretextual.
If your concern is discrimination on the basis of race, this legislation is at best a bank shot. Employers who discriminate on the basis of race already face liability, so this just extends liability to employers who do not discriminate on the basis of race, but have a nondiscriminatory grooming standard.
The CROWN Act would prohibit hair-related discrimination in federally assisted housing and public accommodations. It seems reasonable.to prohibit the government from stopping a person from accessing a housing benefit for which they are eligible just because of his or her hair.
Other than the military or other government entities, the government has no business dictating hair styles. In the private sector, it should be up to each individual corporation or company. Some allow people to “be themselves” with the long hair or beards, exposed tattoos on their arms and faces and some have a certain image they want to project which precludes exposed tats, messy hair and unkempt clothing.
Back in the mid seventies when I was in the service, the military made allowances for men, mostly African American, who had a condition called Pseudofolliculitis barbae*, to grow short beards.
* An irritating skin condition that raises bumps on the face, chin and neck when shaved real close.
I have seen one young person in the last thirty years with a real Afro. It was common as heck when I as a teenager. What happened to hair picks, too?
It’s sad that the article was written by a lawyer who should have better things to do.
It’s sadder that there is an “Initiative on Gender Justice & Opportunity at Georgetown”.
On the bright side, the more time the government spends on this BS, the less time they have to really screw things up…
I propose they immediately start work on the NAILS, PANTS and SHOES Acts.
Tuesday Talk? Maybe this won’t pass muster, but I have be served by young women so heavily and badly made up that I couldn’t eat the food they served me.
Goth make-up running everywhere. I have thought of complaining to management but my normal decision is just to never come back
To managers, a lack of complaints is not a lack of a problem.
Certain piercings gross me out.
This part: “if that hair texture or that hairstyle is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin” just seems entirely unworkable. Sure, an afro is “commonly associated” with black people, but is the kind of long, straight floppy hair that was popular in the 70s “commonly associated” with white people? Are long, swooping bangs, the kind that gets in the eyes, “commonly associated” with white people, or Brits, or South Asians, or East Asians, etc? What about words or designs written into the hair where it’s really short, like most famously Vanilla Ice had? Is that a black hairstyle? Is a blanket “no words in your hair” rule ok at a school if it applies to all students?
If the way this bill was designed was such that that “commonly associated” phrase is supposed to protect black hairstyles *and only black hairstyles*, so that non-black people can be fired for messy, greasy hair, or bad combovers, or hair dyed bright colors but black people can’t be fired unkempt or dyed hair, I have trouble seeing how the law doesn’t violate equal protection.
Jewfro?
Who has the best ‘fro?
Believe it or not, I went to high school with Bobby Hegyes, who played Juan Epstein and was neither Hispanic nor Jewish.