Creating A Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2022
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 979, I call up the bill (H.R. 2116) to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's texture or style of hair, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. 2116.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, or the CROWN Act, is a critically important civil rights bill that would explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of hair texture or hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race or national origin. It would do so in areas of the law where discrimination on the basis of race or national origin is already prohibited, such as employment, education, and housing.
Although Republicans blocked passage of this bill a few weeks ago, their arguments have just as little merit now as they did then. That is why we are here again, to advance this important legislation.
Among the arguments that we heard previously was that this bill was not needed because the law already protects people from hair-based discrimination. While I agree that existing civil rights statutes, if properly read, already make such discrimination unlawful, several Federal courts have erroneously rejected this interpretation, leaving the state of the law unclear at best.
Far from being duplicative, this legislation is absolutely essential to remove any ambiguity from the law and to fix these courts' misinterpretation of Federal civil rights law.
Republicans also argued that this legislation could somehow undermine the ability of employers to maintain workplace safety standards. But nothing could be further from the truth. This bill does nothing to prohibit employers from addressing safety concerns, and the longstanding provisions under the civil rights laws that enable employers to ensure workplace safety would remain firmly in place.
Since neither of these arguments holds up to scrutiny, it is important to step back and understand why the CROWN Act is so urgently needed. According to a 2019 study conducted by the JOY Collective, Black people are ``disproportionately burdened by policies and practices in public places, including the workplace, that target, profile, or single them out for natural hairstyles,'' and other hairstyles traditionally associated with their race, like braids, locs, and twists.
This has real consequences for real people. Students have been sent home from school or told they could not walk at graduation. Employees have been told to change their hair because it violated their employer's dress code. Some people have even been denied jobs altogether because of their hairstyles.
In view of these disturbing facts, 14 States have enacted statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of an individual's natural hairstyle, in every case with bipartisan support and sometimes even with the unanimous support of both parties.
I am disappointed that we did not see such bipartisan support when we brought this bill up a few weeks ago, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have another chance today to do the right thing. This is a matter of basic justice that demands a national solution by Congress. That is why I strongly support the CROWN Act and urge all my colleagues, including my Republican colleagues, to do so as well.
I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) for her leadership and for introducing this important bill this Congress. I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I said that this was covered by the law, but several Federal circuit courts disagree. Therefore, it is not covered in those circuits, and that is why we need this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), the sponsor of the bill.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman who is the chairman of our Judiciary Committee for recognizing me.
I really do wish we could concentrate on other issues as well, and I think that we are. I think that creation of 6.5 million jobs, of unity around the world, of restoring dignity and respect among our people, trying to put our attention onto things as important as Build Back Better and taking care of the economy, recognizes that Joe Biden, this administration, this Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, can chew gum and walk at the same time.
If my colleagues don't think this is worthy of debate, then they should have gone on and done what they did 2 years ago and vote for the bill a couple weeks ago.
But here we are today. Here we are today standing on behalf of those individuals, whether my colleagues on the other side recognize it or not, who are discriminated against as children in school, as adults who are trying to get jobs, as individuals who are trying to get housing, as individuals who simply want access to public accommodations and to be beneficiaries of federally funded programs.
Why are they denied these opportunities? Because there are folks in this society who get to make those decisions who think that because your hair is kinky, it is braided, it is in knots, or it is not straightened blond and light brown, that you somehow are not worthy of access to those issues. That is discrimination.
There is no logical reason that anyone should be discriminated against on any level because of the texture of their hair or the style of their hair.
I understand that my colleagues on the Republican side don't get the vast array of discriminatory practices because they spend so much time trying to perpetuate an all-White society here in the most diverse country in the world.
Nonetheless, this bill is vitally important. It is important to the young girls and the young boys who have to cut their hair in the middle of a wrestling match in front of everyone because some White referee says that your hair is inappropriate to engage in your match. That young man engaged in his match and he won it.
It is inappropriate for our girls to be sent home disciplined or pushed out simply because they have got braids in their hair. And it is doggone sure discriminatory to deny someone employment, housing, or public accommodations because of the way they are wearing their hair.
That is why we are standing here today. It is unfortunate that we have to, but we do.
With that in mind, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of a bill that I think is vitally important, that represents movement and understanding in the 21st century, what discrimination can look like and what it can do to people.
I urge all of my colleagues, including those on the Republican side that voted for it a couple weeks ago, to vote for it today.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House of Representatives.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would point out again, because some of my Republican colleagues seem not to hear it, that this is the law, as they say, but that several circuit courts say it isn't the law, so all this bill is doing is reaffirming what the law is, despite several circuit courts. And we see that the law in those States where the circuit courts have upheld it properly has not resulted in any of the catastrophes we just heard.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Yes, I will. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Yes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I just want to point out that we don't need new drilling legislation. There are 6,000 leases which have been granted by the Federal Government which the oil companies are not drilling. They can drill.
Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, some many years ago, with a bush as big as a bush on my head, an Afro, of which I was enormously proud, young, fragile ego, probably not that strong in my frame, some would say, skinny legs and high heels, an early teen, trying to express the pain that I felt, living in a segregated world, trying to assert the prominence of my community, my race of people, trying to associate belatedly with the foot soldiers and the battering and the insults that they received, trying to come to grips with the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, Malcolm X, I wore this bush, which I had to do extreme things; for the original style, as was done to young girls, is processed. It burned beyond recognition.
And I went out with my grandmother, a woman of tradition and, fearful for me, she asked me to go back because she couldn't walk with me with an Afro. The reason, of course, was her fear what an Afro signified, what it would do, how I would be harmed. Those were the conflicts and strife that Black people went through trying to come to grips with their identity.
Madam Speaker, I say to my good friend, Mr. Jordan, we never encounter each other because we have mutual respect, as I do for him, and he does for Sheila Jackson Lee. We don't really get into it because we know we are the kind of folk that stand down from each other. But I enjoy engaging with the gentleman. I enjoy his leadership. And his constituents have every right to be concerned about gas prices.
My constituents are concerned about eating, being able to pay their rent. And I believe we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Let's get together about gas prices, and paying rent, and people eating, and having jobs, and ending discrimination. Why can't we do that together?
Because the gentleman has not walked in my skin. He has got to understand what it means when we are talking about a report that has been given. In 2019, the Joy Collective, the CROWN Act coalition: 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 hairstyle.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. The CROWN Study found that Black women's hair is more policed in the workplace, thereby contributing to the climate of group control.
Black women are more likely to receive formal grooming policies; and 80 percent of Black women believe that they had to change their hair to be in the workplace.
Just imagine, just imagine the beauty of these hairstyles, Mr. Jordan, the beauty of these hairstyles. This is what we are talking about; people who are severely discriminated against, young boys, young girls. A little girl in a Catholic school could not wear her hair, had to go home.
Or the fabulous Serena, who gives joy to all of us and, yet, these are the locs that she is wearing.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. And this young boy, who, like me, felt diminished because someone thought it was wrong for me, an Afro, for him, his braided hair.
Mr. Jordan, we have engaged in a lot, but I will not stand down on the CROWN Act. We must pass the CROWN Act to give dignity and reaffirm the rights of all people. Wear your hair as you desire.
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 2116, the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2021.
This legislation prohibits discrimination based on hair texture or hairstyles if that style or texture is commonly associated with particular race or national origin.
The bill also prohibits this type of discrimination against those participating in federally assisted programs, housing programs, and employment.
I have long believed that discrimination based on hair texture and hairstyle is an impermissible form of 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,'' and that they were 83 percent more likely to be judged harshly because of their looks.
The study indicated that Black women were one and a half times more likely to be sent home from the workplace because of their hair, and that they were over three times more likely to be perceived as unprofessional compared to non-African American women.
Eight years ago, the United States Army removed a grooming regulation preventing women servicemembers from wearing their hair in dreadlocks, a regulation that had a disproportionately adverse impact on Black women.
The decision was a result of the 2014 order by the Secretary of Defense at the time, Chuck Hagel, who was reviewing the military's policies regarding hairstyles popular to African American women.
This decision to review these policies came after complaints from members of Congress, including myself, saying that these polices unfairly targeted black women.
Hair discrimination is common, and the CROWN Study demonstrates that, but I would also like to take the time to share numerous stories from many Americans across the country in order to put faces and names to these statistics.
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.
Again in 2018, 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.
In 2019, 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.
In the following year of 2020 there were news reports of a Texas student who would not be allowed to walk at graduation because his dreadlocks were too long.
Finally, I'd like to share the story of a young man from my district, who was suspended from school just last year for his natural dreadlocks.
DeAndre Arnold was a senior at Barbers Hill High School in Houston, Texas.
Arnold had his dreadlocks for years and this hairstyle had become a part of his identity and allowed him to embrace his culture.
Arnold's family is from Trinidad and the men in his family often grow their locks near or below their waist.
Arnold had complied with the dress code throughout high school by keeping his hair up.
His high school routinely inspected his hair for violating a hair length school policy; upon inspection they ultimately decided to suspend him for violating the policy.
Arnold was not allowed to return to school, attend his senior prom, or his graduation ceremony unless he cut his hair.
Thankfully Arnold was able to take this decision to court, where the judge ruled that he could return to school without fear of recrimination.
However, Arnold's high school failed him, as students in our society should not have to undergo litigation just to peacefully obtain an education.
Students like DeAndre 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.
People of color, especially Black people, have long felt pressure to alter their natural hair to conform to what society has deemed ``acceptable.''
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, dreadlocks, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros.''
The legislation also provides that the prohibition will be enforced as part of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on 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.
The CROWN Act would end the demeaning practice of forcing conformity onto people of color.
It would make it illegal for employers and educators to deny an individual employment or educational opportunities due to the length, texture or style of their hair.
To be frank, it is a tragedy that we need federal legislation to end these discriminatory practices and give people of color the dignity that is their inherent right.
The CROWN Act says to Americans facing discrimination that the Congress of the United States hears them, sees them, and affirms their beauty and dignity and pride in their culture.
I rise in strong support of this bill so that men and women of color no longer feel that they cannot or should not enter certain spaces because they wish to wear the hair that they are born with.
I strongly urge all Members to join me in voting for the passage of H.R. 2116, the CROWN Act.
I include in the Record a May 20, 2021 article entitled: ``Opinion: Stop policing people of color's hair and pass the CROWN Act.'' [From Chron.com, May 20, 2021]
Opinion: Stop Policing People of Color's Hair and Pass the CROWN Act
Texas seems to be hell bent on policing Black peoples' hair--and it needs to stop. Immediately.
In Troy, an 11-year-old Native and African-American student spent more than a week in in-school suspension after administrators said his braided hairstyle violated the dress code, per 25 News KXXV's Jarell Baker.
Barbers Hill Independent School District voted unanimously in July of 2020 to uphold a school policy that allowed the district to suspend DeAndre Arnold and his cousin Kaden Bradford for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, even barring Arnold from his senior prom and high school graduation.
Such incidents are far from isolated in the Lone Star state, which begs the question: Why are Texas schools so determined to uphold dated rules that seemingly exist only to police the appearance of Black and brown students?
People of color, especially Black people, have long felt pressure to alter their natural hair to conform to what society has deemed ``acceptable.'' It's demeaning, and--quite frankly--sad. And it's time we proudly rocked all of our kinks and curls without being punished for it.
That's why the CROWN Act is important.
``Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair,'' or CROWN, is an act that would prohibit race-based hair discrimination in Texas schools and workplaces. The CROWN Act would make it illegal for employers and educators to deny an individual employment or educational opportunities due to the length, texture or style of their hair.
It's sad that there even has to be a law in place, considering no other race has to deal with their hair being a Civil Rights issue. But here we are.
The law hasn't passed in Texas (yet), but with April 27 being Texas' CROWN Act Day, Texas Legislative Black Caucus members are working around the clock to see that it happens.
As a Black woman, I am tired of feeling like I can't or shouldn't enter certain spaces because my hair ``isn't done'' or straightened. I am tired of being asked if my hair is real or if someone can touch it. It's the hair I was born with, not a science experiment.
This is also the reason people of color get so upset about outside races wearing braids or other protective hairstyles. The issue is not the style itself, but the fact that you have an entire group of people who are seen as ``less professional'' in the workplace and even denied jobs for rocking styles they created while others are allowed to copy it and receive compliments? It's disgusting.
The CROWN Act is necessary for the culture, and the fact that Texas isn't moving quicker to pass it is quite telling.
Whether anyone wants to admit it, hair discrimination is race discrimination. And we've had enough.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, while racism and discrimination sometimes appear in overt forms, they can also manifest themselves in more subtle ways.
One way is through discrimination based on natural hairstyles and hair textures associated with people of a particular race or national origin.
This CROWN Act would make explicit that civil rights laws prohibit such discrimination. This is a matter of basic fairness and justice.
This bill passed the House last Congress unanimously, and I hope we will do so again today.
All the arguments we have heard about everything else are interesting and important but not relevant to this bill. This bill is purely about discrimination, purely about protecting people from discrimination, and we ought to pass it.
Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source