December 14th, 2022 marked the introduction of the CROWN Act and its ensuing rejection from being enacted into federal law in the United States. Its dismissal in the Senate, after a bipartisan passage in the House of Representatives, can be attributed to Senate Republicans who refused to override a filibuster on the act.
The CROWN Act, which stands for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, emerged in June of 2019 as an expansion of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. This 60-year-old federal law was created under the assumption that all of these characteristics were immutable, or unchangeable, and its restrictions on exactly what is defined as an immutable characteristic is what motivated California State Senator Holly Mitchell to bring the CROWN Act to the floor of the California Legislature just four years ago.
Prior to the creation of the CROWN Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act protected a singular Black hairstyle; the quintessential Afro, a powerful symbol of resistance of the Civil Rights Movement that is now decades old. However, despite the nonconformity of this hairstyle and the freedom it gave Black people to wear their hair in its natural state, it was and still is heavily discouraged in corporate workplace environments through the use of strict and inherently discriminatory corporate code of conducts. These policies mandate that employees’ hair must be “well-kempt,” “neat” or “orderly,” simultaneously prioritizing the sleek nature of thinner, straighter hair and discouraging the exhibition of curly and kinky hair.
The CROWN Act serves as an assist to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by expanding the definition of immutable features spelled out in Title VII and thereby protecting any hairstyles that are innate to Black culture and often worn by Black people, including locs, braids, twists and cornrows. The Act has already been passed in 18 states, including Maryland, and brings the United States a step closer to eliminating an additional boundary responsible for the lack of diversity in corporate workplace environments, especially in higher positions of power.
So one must ask, if the CROWN Act has already been passed in almost half of the United States, what does the blocking of the CROWN Act in the Senate mean? Simply put, this rejection has multiple rippling effects for a community already battered by socioeconomic gaps set into place by the United States federal government. Because of the emphasis on the eurocentric beauty standard that prioritizes straight and thin hair, the curly hair that Black people bring to the table can have adverse effects on their success. As is echoed with “pretty privilege” and the belief that physical attractiveness is reflective of one’s value, success is directly related to appearance. This idea combined with the inferiority associated with Black hair brings a lower success rate in job security and perceived professionalism for Black people, and particularly Black women, who are more likely to exhibit a wider range of hairstyles.
In short, the rejection of the CROWN Act serves as an unyielding message that while beauty companies and media outlets pursue an external image of diversity and uninhibited inclusion, Black people in millions of local offices nationwide will continue to be denied their right to showcase their natural hair and fall peril to a system carefully designated to regulate the expression of Black joy.
Written by Margarita Williams of Thomas S. Wootton High School
Graphic courtesy of Katherine Hua of Thomas S. Wootton High School