The CROWN Act in the Classroom:

What Schools Should Know About Hairstyle Anti-Discrimination Laws

With school back in session, one of the many topics for schools and school districts to keep top of mind is the expanding reach of the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (“CROWN”) Act.

The CROWN Act recognizes that hair texture and hairstyle have racial, ethnic and cultural significance.  While efforts to pass the CROWN Act on a federal level have stalled, more and more states are passing laws to ban hairstyle discrimination in school, work and public settings.  As a result of these state legislative efforts, a growing number of schools must abide legal restrictions designed to ensure that a student’s hairstyle choice does not impede their educational experience. 

Among the states with laws already in effect banning hairstyle discrimination in schools are California (2019), New Jersey (2019), Colorado (2020), Washington (2020), New York (2021), New Mexico (2021), Illinois (2022), Massachusetts (2022), Texas (2023), Michigan (2023), Minnesota (2023) and New Hampshire (2024).

Although each state’s law shares a common purpose, the scope of protections, remedies and penalties for violations vary in important ways from state to state.  For example, the laws in Texas and Massachusetts explicitly prohibit hairstyle discrimination in school dress codes, whereas the laws in other states, including California, Colorado and Minnesota, are silent on the topic of school policies.  Also, whereas some states, like Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New Hampshire, give students a right to sue schools for violations of their state’s CROWN Act, other states vest enforcement authority with the state’s board of education.  The Illinois State Board of Education, for example, has the power to withdraw recognition of a school that violates the CROWN Act.

The momentum behind the CROWN Act shows no signs of slowing.  In June 2024, Colorado amended its version of the CROWN Act to add hair length associated with race to the protections set forth in the statute.  In the same month, with strong bipartisan support, Ohio’s House of Representatives passed a bill that would add Ohio to the list of states with CROWN Act protections.  The bill now sits in committee in the Ohio Senate.  If enacted, the bill would make it unlawful for Ohio public preschools and K-12 schools, as well as charter schools, to discriminate against students with respect to hair texture and protective hair styles, such as braids, dreadlocks and twists.  Taking effect in September 2024, New Hampshire’s CROWN Act prohibits covered schools and school districts from discriminating based on immutable traits associated with race, including hair texture and protective hairstyles.

Lawmakers often cite real-world incidents of school discipline as the impetus for legislative action.  For instance, an Illinois school’s decision to send home a preschooler for wearing braids in violation of the dress code prompted Illinois to pass its version of the CROWN Act and name it after the student, Jett Hawkins.  A New Jersey referee’s demand that a high school wrestler cut his dreadlocks as a condition of competing in a match spurred state lawmakers to pass the CROWN Act in New Jersey.  A Massachusetts charter school’s discipline of teen sisters for wearing box braids in violation of a dress code led to the Massachusetts CROWN Act.

Studies show that restrictive dress codes disproportionately affect students of color.  The Dove 2021 CROWN Research Study for Girls revealed that 45% of Black girls had experienced hair bias at school and that such experiences contributed to absences.  A 2020 study showed that in K-12 schools, girls of color most often received discipline for hair-related violations of school rules.

With this background in mind, school districts ought to consider taking the following steps to minimize legal risk and foster an inclusive learning environment for students of all backgrounds:

  1. Remove prohibitions on natural hairstyles and protective hairstyles from school dress codes, uniform rules, standards of conduct and other school rules.
  2. Assess whether to modify or eliminate rules about students’ hair texture, hair length or appearance generally.
  3. Ensure that any restrictions on appearance are communicated clearly, avoiding subjective terms like “distracting,” “unprofessional” or “inappropriate.”
  4. Evaluate appearance protocols used at on-campus and off-campus events sponsored by the school, including athletic and scholastic competitions.
  5. Consider designating a point person to vet any proposed discipline under the school dress code to ensure that enforcement of the rules does not disproportionately affect students of particular racial, ethnic or cultural backgrounds.
  6. Refrain from suspensions and other forms of discipline for violations of appearance rules that disrupt students’ learning time.
  7. Track violations of school appearance rules to identify trends and foster consistency in enforcement.
  8. Maintain written procedures for students to report concerns of potential discrimination in the enforcement of appearance policies, with assurances of no retaliation for doing so.
  9. Include discussion of the CROWN Act in anti-discrimination training presented to teachers, counselors, coaches and other members of the school community who interact directly with students.
  10. Solicit feedback from students, teachers, parents and guardians about school appearance policies to identify concerns and address areas of improvement in policy content or implementation.

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress