[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 164 (Tuesday, September 22, 2020)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E868-E869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CREATING A RESPECTFUL AND OPEN WORLD FOR NATURAL HAIR ACT OF 2020

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 21, 2020

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on 
the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, and the Congressional Black 
Caucus, and as a cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5309, the 
``Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2019'' 
or the ``CROWN Act of 2019,'' introduced by Congressman Richmond, which 
explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of hair texture or 
hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race or national 
origin in areas of the law where discrimination on the basis of race or 
national origin is already prohibited.
  It has long been my position that discrimination based on hair 
texture and hairstyle is a form of impermissible race discrimination.
  According to a 2019 report, known as the CROWN Study, which was 
conducted by the JOY Collective (CROWN Act Coalition, Dove/Unilever, 
National Urban League, Color of Change), Black people are 
``disproportionately burdened by policies and practices in public 
places, including the workplace, that target, profile, or single them 
out for their natural hair styles--referring to the texture of hair 
that is not permed, dyed, relaxed, or chemically altered.''
  The CROWN Study found that Black women's hair is ``more policed in 
the workplace, thereby contributing to a climate of group control in 
the company culture and perceived professional barriers'' compared to 
non-Black women.
  The study also found that ``Black women are more likely to have 
received formal grooming policies in the workplace, and to believe that 
there is a dissonance from her hair and other race's hair'' and that 
``Black women's hairstyles were consistently rated lower or `less 
ready' for job performance.''
  Among the study's other findings are that 80 percent of Black women 
believed that they had to change their hair from its natural state to 
``fit in at the office,'' that they were 83 percent more likely to be 
judged harshly because of their looks.
  The study indicated that Black women were 1.5 times more likely to I 
be sent home from the workplace because of their hair, and that they 
were 3.4 times more likely to be perceived as unprofessional compared 
to non-African-American women.
  Three years ago, the United States Army removed a grooming I 
regulation prohibiting women servicemembers from wearing their hair in 
dreadlocks, a regulation that had a disproportionately adverse impact 
on Black women.
  This decision was the result of a 2014 order by then-Secretary of 
Defense Chuck Hagel to review the military's policies regarding 
hairstyles popular with African-American women after complaints from 
members of Congress, myself included, that the policies unfairly 
targeted black women.
  In 2015, the Marine Corps followed suit and issued regulations to 
permit lock and twist hairstyles.
  The CROWN Study illustrates the prevalence of hair discrimination but 
numerous stories across the country put names and faces to the people 
behind those numbers.
  In 2017, a Banana Republic employee was told by a manager that she 
was violating the company's dress code because her box braids were too 
``urban'' and ``unkempt.''
  A year later, in 2018, Andrew Johnson, a New Jersey high school 
student, was forced by a white referee to either have his dreadlocks 
cut or forfeit a wrestling match, leading him to have his hair cut in 
public by an athletic trainer immediately before the match.
  That same year, an 11-year-old Black girl in Louisiana was asked to 
leave class at a private Roman Catholic school near New Orleans because 
her braided hair extensions violated the school's policies.
  The next year, two African-American men in Texas alleged being denied 
employment by Six Flags because of their hairstyles--one had long 
braids and the other had dreadlocks.
  And earlier this year, there were news reports of a Texas student who 
would not be allowed to walk at graduation because his dreadlocks were 
too long.
  The CROWN Act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs 
and activities based on an individual's hair texture or hairstyle if it 
is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin, 
including ``a hairstyle in which hair is tightly coiled or tightly 
curled, locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros.''
  The legislation also provides that the prohibition will be enforced 
as if it was incorporated into Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or 
national origin in federally-funded programs, and that violations of 
Section 3(a) will be treated as if they were violations of Section 601 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  Mr. Speaker, allow me to give another example of why this legislation 
is necessary and why I support it so strongly.
  In July of this year, Barbers Hill Independent School District, just 
east of my home city of Houston, Texas school district reaffirmed its 
discriminatory grooming policy that led to the suspension of two Black 
students earlier this year.
  The students--cousins Kaden Bradford and De'Andre Arnold--wear their 
hair in long dreadlocks.
  But the school district forbids male students from keeping their hair 
at a length ``below the top of a t-shirt collar, below the eyebrows, or 
below the ear lobes.''
  De'Andre Arnold had complied with the dress code throughout high 
school by keeping his hair up.
  But in 2019 the school board made the code more stringent, requiring 
that students' hair meet the district's length requirement even if not 
worn let down, which meant that De'Andre Arnold would have been 
required to cut his dreadlocks and in the process, destroy them, all in 
contravention of West Indian cultural traditions that specifically 
prohibit cutting or trimming locs.
  De'Andre Arnold, a senior who had been in the school district since 
pre-kindergarten, was told by school officials that he would not be 
able to go to the senior prom or walk in his high school graduation 
until he cut his dreadlocks.
  Mr. Speaker, Black students are and have been disproportionately 
targeted and penalized for violating facially race-neutral grooming 
policies that are designed to, and have the effect of, profiling, 
singling out, and burdening Black children for wearing their hair in 
its natural state.
  Students like De'Andre Arnold should not be faced with the impossible 
choice of either suppressing their cultural heritage and Black identity 
by cutting their natural hair or forfeiting their right to equal 
educational and extracurricular opportunities.
  The CROWN Act says to students like De'Andre Arnold and others 
similarly situated that the Congress of the United States hears him, 
sees him, and affirms his beauty and dignity and pride in his culture.
  I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me 
in voting for its passage.

[[Page E869]]

  

                          ____________________