When Chris Rock made the G.i. Jane 2 joke that launched a thousand op-eds, one issue that arose was that men to 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 man 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 was 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 very aspect of engagement?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply.
No comments:
Post a Comment