The Long History of Policing Black Hair
In the previous articles, we have traced the biological story of human hair: its origins as a thermoregulatory shield, the genetic machinery that produces different curl patterns, and how long hair evolved from a survival trait into a social signal.
But the social meaning of hair is not neutral. For centuries, societies have used hair as a tool of oppression — particularly against people of African descent. Natural Black hair textures have been called “unprofessional,” “unruly,” “dirty,” and worse. Laws have been passed to regulate it. Courts have ruled that discriminating against it is legal. And millions of people have been forced to choose between their natural hair and their jobs, their education, their freedom.
This article explores the long, painful history of hair discrimination — from 18th-century colonial edicts to 21st-century courtrooms — and the movement that is finally fighting back.
The Tignon Laws: Policing Hair in Colonial Louisiana
The story of hair discrimination in America begins not in the 20th century, but in the 18th.
In the late 1700s, free Africans in New Orleans were able to buy their freedom from slavery, resulting in an increase of interracial marriage in Louisiana . Louisiana women of African descent wore hairstyles that incorporated feathers and jewels, which caught the attention of white men .
In response, Charles III of Spain demanded Louisiana colonial governor Esteban Rodríguez Miró to “establish public order and proper standards of morality,” with specific reference to a “large class” of ‘mulattos’ and particularly ‘mulatto’ women . To comply with Charles III’s demand, Miró issued an edict in 1786 that required Creole women to wear a tignon — a scarf or headwrap — to conceal their hair .
The Tignon Law was explicitly designed to identify Black women as part of the slave class . It was not about safety or hygiene. It was about control. It was about ensuring that Black women, no matter how wealthy or free, could not “compete” with white women in public. Their hair — their visible Blackness — had to be hidden .
That law set a precedent that would echo for centuries: natural Black hair is something to be covered, controlled, or changed.
The Invention of “Good Hair”
By the late 1800s, African American women were straightening their hair to meet a Eurocentric vision of society with the use of hot combs and other products improved by Madam C. J. Walker .
But the pressure to straighten did not emerge from nowhere. It emerged from the transatlantic slave trade and the ideology of white supremacy that justified it.
In the fifteenth century, the transatlantic slave trade robbed individuals of their freedom, rich cultures, traditions, and values. With this came the emphasis around European characteristics, such as light skin and straight or wavy hair that took away from the beauty of darker skin and tightly coiled hair textures . Slave masters contributed to the assimilation of Eurocentric beauty standards by ridiculing Black features and imposing a hierarchy as slave masters only privileged those with lighter skin and straight hair .
Black hair in particular was viewed as “dirty” and “unkempt,” while white people during this era would degrade the texture of Black hair and describe it to be as “rough as wool” .
The 1770s would go on to birth the term “good hair,” which was associated with white hair and highlighted that Caucasian hair textures were softer, longer, and more “kept” — whereas Black hair textures were the antithesis of this .
This term would resurface centuries later, most notably in Beyoncé’s 2016 album Lemonade: “You better call Becky with the good hair.” Becky, as the song suggests, is a white woman with soft, long, sleek hair that is viewed as more “desirable.” The concept of “good hair” contributes to the struggle that many Black women face: the damaging effects of colorism that places Eurocentric features on a pedestal .
The Hot Comb and the Straightening Era
The 1800s saw the invention of tools designed to make Black hair appear more European.
In 1872, French hair stylist Francois Marcel Grateau invented the first “hot comb” — a device that would allow Black women to straighten their hair, removing coarse hair texture . This texture was seen as keeping the idea of “good hair” alive — hair that elevates your social and economic status but takes away your identity .
In the early 1900s, Annie Malone, an African American woman, witnessed how the impact of slavery, the lack of Black hair care products, weather conditions, and the increasing pressure to condition hair to appear softer and straighter was causing Black women to have unhealthy hair . Malone experimented with different chemicals to create a formula that helped with scalp health and promoted hair growth, including her famous product, the “Hair Grower” . After the success of this product, Malone opened a cosmetic school centered around nurturing and styling Black hair, providing hundreds of employment opportunities for Black Americans .
One of Malone’s former students — Madam C. J. Walker — became America’s first Black woman millionaire after she created her own company centered around nurturing Black hair and making Black hair straighter .
While this was a victory in terms of Black economic empowerment, it is important to note that many hairstyles during this time period were influenced by Eurocentric standards of beauty: pompadours, sleek tresses, and smooth waves that were only possible through pressing combs and relaxers . Many of these products contained sodium hydroxide-based chemicals which change one’s hair texture forever. Additionally, the use of the hot comb paired with these chemicals caused further damage and even contributed to hair loss and lack of hair growth . Not only was Black hair being altered, but centuries-old hairstyles and traditions of nurturing Black hair were being erased due to the forced imposition of Eurocentric features .
The Natural Hair Movement
The Civil Rights Movement and the Black Power Movement of the 1960s and 1970s brought a seismic shift.
The Black Power Movement was influenced by the teachings of Malcolm X and rooted a new era that was focused on reclaiming erased heritage and celebrating Black identities and beauty . Malcolm X would later go on to describe his own hair journey in his autobiography, reflecting on his decision to change his hair to appear more like the hair of a white man. He described his fixation with achieving the perfect “conk” — a hairstyle achieved through using multiple products that contained numerous damaging chemicals that would make one’s hair appear more smooth, sleek, and even change its color to red. He wrote:
“This was my first real big step toward self-degradation: when I endured all of that pain, literally burning my flesh to have it look like a white man’s hair. I had joined the multitude of Negro men and women in America who are brainwashed into believing that the Black people are ‘inferior’ — and white people ‘superior’ — they will even violate and mutilate their God-created bodies to try to look ‘pretty’ by white standards.”
Stemming away from this ideology for the first time in centuries, many members of the Black Power Movement wore their natural hair and embraced their natural textures that symbolized racial pride and autonomy. Activists such as Angela Davis, Nina Simone, and Nikki Giovanni proudly wore their afros as a symbol of pride and Black power .
The natural hair movement, as it came to be known, encourages people of African descent to embrace their natural, afro-textured hair — especially in the workplace . It originated in the United States during the 1960s and resurged in popularity in the 2000s . The movement is centered around Black people who wear afro-textured hair in its natural, coiled, or tight, curly state, choosing not to relax their hair and allowing it to grow in its natural texture .
The Legal Battlefield: Afros, Braids, and Dreadlocks in Court
Despite the cultural shift of the 1960s and 1970s, the legal system has been slow to protect natural hair.
In 1970, Beverly Jenkins was denied a promotion at Blue Cross by her white supervisor because of her afro . In 1976, the federal court case Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance determined that afros were protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, the case did not extend protections to other natural hairstyles .
In 1981, an African American woman claimed that her employer discriminated against her by not permitting her to wear cornrows to work. A federal district court held that “an all-braided hairstyle is an easily changed characteristic and, even if socioculturally associated with a particular race or nationality, it is not an impermissible basis for distinctions in the application of employment practices by an employer” . By referencing the immutability doctrine — which states that a trait is immutable if it is beyond the power of an individual to change — the court stripped away protective hairstyles from Black women’s identities and left the hair of people of color with little to no protection in the workplace .
The most notorious case came decades later. In 2010, a woman named Chastity Jones was offered a job as a customer service representative at Catastrophe Management Solutions in Alabama. When she refused to cut her dreadlocks to comply with the company’s grooming standards, the job offer was revoked . In 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit on her behalf. However, an Alabama district court ruled that refusing to hire someone because they wear dreadlocks did not violate federal civil rights law. In 2016, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, stating that “Title VII protects persons in covered categories with respect to their immutable characteristics, but not their cultural practice” .
The court effectively held that banning dreadlocks in the workplace under a race-neutral grooming policy — without more — does not constitute intentional race-based discrimination .
The CROWN Act: A Movement for Change
In response to cases like Jones’s — and decades of documented discrimination — a coalition of organizations came together to fight for legal protection.
The CROWN Coalition is an alliance of organizations, including Dove, the National Urban League, Color of Change, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty . CROWN stands for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair” .
On July 3, 2019, California became the first state to pass the CROWN Act . The law updates the definition of “race” in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Education Code to be “inclusive of traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles” . Protected hairstyles include: locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros .
After California’s enactment, dozens of other states followed. As of 2021, 11 states had passed the CROWN Act: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington . Several other states have introduced similar legislation.
The CROWN Act Coalition’s founding members include the National Urban League, Dove, Color of Change, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty. Other coalition members include the NAACP, all four historically Black sororities, the Anti-Defamation League, and the U.S. Black Chambers, Inc. .
On March 18, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a federal version of the CROWN Act . The bill has not yet passed the Senate. The White House has stated that President Biden believes “no person should be denied the ability to obtain a job, succeed in school or the workplace, secure housing, or otherwise exercise their rights based on a hair texture or hairstyle” .
The Evidence: How Widespread Is Hair Discrimination?
The CROWN Act was not created in a vacuum. It was driven by data.
A 2019 study from the CROWN Coalition found that Black women are 1.5 times more likely than non-Black women to be sent home from the workplace because of their hair and are 80 percent more likely to agree with the statement, “I have to change my hair from its natural state to fit in at the office” .
A 2023 study found that over 20 percent of Black women indicated that they had been sent home from work because of their hair. Moreover, Black women’s hair was 2.5 times more likely to be perceived as unprofessional than White women’s hair, and candidates with earlier hair were less likely to be recommended for jobs and scored lower in work professionalism and competence metrics .
Perhaps most disturbingly, a study of girls aged 5 to 18 found that 100 percent of elementary school-aged Black girls in majority White schools had experienced hair discrimination by the age of 10. In total, 66 percent of Black girls in majority White schools face hair discrimination. 53 percent of Black mothers whose daughters had experienced hair discrimination noted that this had happened to their children as early as age 5. And 81 percent of Black girls in majority White schools say they sometimes wish their hair was straight .
Hair Discrimination Beyond the United States
The policing of Black hair is not unique to the United States.
In 2012, a French flight attendant of African origin began wearing his hair in braids, which he attached in a bun. His employer refused to give him access to the plane, arguing that his hairstyle did not respect the company’s image and presentation code — a detailed manual describing haircuts, make-up, and all aspects of flight personnel’s appearance .
The employee was required to wear a wig to cover his braids. In 2012, women of African origin were authorized to wear braids, but men were not. The employee refused to continue wearing the wig, was suspended, and eventually declared unfit to work — diagnosed with depression recognized as a professional illness .
In 2022, France’s Court of Cassation ruled in his favor, finding that refusing him access to boarding when women wearing the same braids were granted such access constituted direct discrimination. The court dismissed the company’s justification based on “genuine and determining occupational requirement,” stating that “society’s norms and standards alone, cannot in themselves be invoked by an employer to justify restrictions imposed on persons, and men in particular, regarding their hairdressing” .
The case shows that the fight against hair discrimination is global.
What This Means for Understanding Hair
The hair on your head is not just a biological structure. It is a political statement — whether you intend it to be or not.
For centuries, natural Black hair has been treated as a problem to be solved, an “unprofessional” trait to be hidden or altered. Laws have been passed to regulate it. Courts have ruled that discriminating against it is legal. Children have been sent home from school. Adults have been fired from jobs. People have been denied promotions, suspended from sports, and even arrested — all because of how their hair grows out of their head.
The natural hair movement and the CROWN Act are not about vanity. They are about dignity, autonomy, and the right to exist in public without being forced to change your appearance to meet someone else’s standard of “professionalism” or “beauty.”
No one should have to choose between their natural hair and their job. No child should be sent home from school because of how their hair grows. And no court should ever rule that discriminating against dreadlocks, braids, or Afros is legal.
The hierarchy of hair was invented. It was not discovered. It was not given by nature. It was created by colonialism, slavery, and racism.
And like all human inventions, it can be dismantled.
References
Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, LLP. (2022). Hair Discrimination – U.S. Senate Voting On Federal Ban. Martindale-Hubbell.
Business Law Today. (2020, April 16). Is Hair Discrimination Race Discrimination? American Bar Association.
Gill, D. (2023, April 24). Don’t Touch My Hair: How Hair Discrimination Contributes to the Policing of Black and Brown Identities While Upholding White Supremacy. Golden Gate University Race, Gender, Sexuality and Social Justice Law Journal.
Harris County Commissioners Court. (n.d.). Resolution Supporting the CROWN Act.
The CROWN Coalition & University of North Carolina. (2023). CROWN Workplace Study.
Wikipedia. (2025). Natural hair movement. Wikipedia.
Wikipedia. (2021). Discrimination based on hair texture in the United States. Wikipedia.
Westlaw. (n.d.). The CROWN Act State and Local Laws Chart. Practical Law.
Equality Law. (2022, December 17). Court of cassation, social chamber, 23 November, no 21-14.060 (France).
Disclaimer: This article was researched and drafted with the assistance of AI. All sources are real and verifiable. Readers are encouraged to check the references themselves and draw their own conclusions.
Previous: Long Hair: From Cooling to Communication
Next: The Psychology of Hair
angelexe 
Leave a comment