State Bans on Natural Hair Discrimination a Step in the Right Direction
By Adetiloro Ibitoye (2019 Mohbat Prize Winner)

“I only ever wanted my hair straight. I didn’t think curly hair was beautiful,” 18-year-old Tiffany Nantista confesses.
It wasn’t until middle school that Nantista, who lives in New York City, began to accept her naturally curly hair. But still, she always wore her hair straight for special occasions. That was until the end of middle school.
“One day in eighth grade for my graduation photos my mom wanted me to straighten my hair and for a second I thought to myself, ‘Why is my natural hair not special enough for special occasions?’ So at the beginning of ninth grade in high school, I swore that I would never straighten my hair,” she says. “It is your hair, it is created for you, by you.”
Nantista, who plans to become an art teacher, is one of the many women of color in the United States who goes to school or the workplace with natural hair. However, for many women, making this choice can result in real consequences, as Eurocentric beauty standards can lead to discrimination.
Black women in the United States were 80 percent more likely to alter their natural hair to meet work or social norm expectations than other groups, according to research by Dove, and black women were 50 percent more likely to be sent home or know of a black woman sent home from the workplace because of their natural hair.
While social norms can take time to change, some states are using legislation to fight back against this hair discrimination. California and New York have passed or amended laws that aim to end discrimination based on hair style and hair textures in the workplace and schools, and cities and other states across the country, such as Wisconsin, Michigan and New Jersey, are also considering such legislation.
2019 Legislation
In June of this year California, where the law is known as the CROWN Act, became the first state to pass such legislation. In New York, a version of the CROWN Act was introduced and signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo in July as an amendment to New York’s Human Rights Law and Dignity for All Students Act. It dictates that hair discrimination is a form of racial discrimination.
“The CROWN Act specifically expands the definition of the word race in [New York’s] human rights laws,” says New York Assemblywoman Tremaine Wright, a key supporter of the CROWN Act along with the CROWN coalition, which includes Dove, the National Urban League, the Color of Change and the Western Center on Law and Poverty. “It expands race to include natural hair and hairstyles and traits commonly associated with race. Therefore, it will capture braids, dreadlocks, Bantu knots and puffs.”
For Angela Onwuachi-Willig, dean of Boston University School of Law, natural hair discrimination and racial discrimination are essentially the same thing. “In practice the people getting discriminated against because of their natural hair tend to be African American,” she says. “Race is not simply a skin color or eyeshade…Race is a social construct, it is defined physical markers…One of the features that has been prominent in defining race…has been hair.”
Despite the intimate connection between natural hair and racial discrimination, natural hairstyles have not had the same legal protection as what is defined as “race” in discrimination laws.
“What courts have said is there is a distinction between mutable and immutable characteristics. An immutable characteristic is a trait traditionally associated with an identity that cannot be changed, while mutable characteristics are alterable and therefore not traditionally protected from discrimination,” Onwuachi-Willig explains.
In the past, courts have usually said race is an immutable characteristic in regard to skin color but hair has been considered a mutable characteristic.
“The only protected hairstyle previously included under the law’s definition of race was the afro,” says Onwuachi-Willig. “[This] is because they understand an afro is someone’s hair and it grows that way.” But, she adds, telling a black woman that she will only be protected if she wears an afro and not if her hair in another natural state is essentially “treating African Americans differently from whites.”
Discrimination Remains
However, even with legislation many still face criticism for their natural hair, not just from employers but also from friends and family. Seventeen-year-old Eghosa Idahor, a New York City native, cut off her relaxed and treated hair in order to go natural, known as big chopped, before starting high school. The move resulted in some strong reactions from those close to her.
In her family “being natural is not the norm. Sometimes I would get weird looks from my aunts and comments about my hair,” she says. “My hair texture is kinkier than most. [Often when] people say natural hair, they mean loose curls and I don’t fit in.”
Idahor doesn’t feel pressure to straighten or relax her hair at her predominantly black high school, but job interviews can cause anxiety. “For a job interview, the only thing I could remember was ‘Oh my gosh is my hair okay?’ because sometimes with natural hair, you don’t know what a presentable and professional hairstyle is,” she says.
For Nantista, being natural brought ridicule from her peers. “In school, other children would either [want] me to tie back my hair or straighten it…They were always complaining about the smell of it or it being ‘in the way.’”
Even Onwuachi-Willig recalls the criticism her dreadlocks received about 10 years ago. “The people who warned me the most about doing it were African Americans,” she says. “For many of the white people in the workplace, it didn’t matter how I wore my hair as long as I was presentable. I’m sure some white [people] thought my hairstyle was unprofessional but they weren’t going to say it to me in the workplace,” she says. “When African Americans said stuff to me it was never like ‘Oh I don’t like your hair,’ it was like ‘Don’t you think that’s risky?’ More out of protection.”
Cultural Progress
However, cultural strides have been made to embrace natural hair and cultural norms may be shifting among younger generations. Self-described millennial “naturalistas” have more positive attitudes toward textured hair than all other women, including black women, nationally, according to a 2016 study by the Perception Institute, a group of scientists and researchers who translate mind science research into solutions that reduce bias and discrimination.
Idahor, for example, was inspired to go natural by YouTube. “When I was in eighth grade I would watch YouTube a lot and I would see all these beautiful black women with kinky curly hair so eventually I started transitioning.”
She dreams of becoming a doctor, and doesn’t think her natural hair will impact her professional goals. “I don’t think it matters, I hope not,” she says. “Embrace your hair.”
While legislation alone won’t change a culture that discriminates against natural hair, it may help create an environment where this change is more likely to occur.
“I think there are a lot of barriers in our society,” says Assemblywoman Wright. “There are some things that we can legislate and there’s going to be some work that people have to do. I think this [legislation] is a great first step to make sure people feel welcome in the workplace as well as in their school environment and public places generally.” After all, she says, “there must be space for all of us.”
