Having attended predominantly white schools my entire life, the majority of my peers had bone-straight hair. At a time when fitting in was paramount, straightening my hair within an inch of its life had seemed like my only plausible option. I would even do this during basketball season when my hair would turn into a big, poofy mess within the first 15 minutes of practice. At the beginning of my freshman year at Georgetown, I stopped straightening my hair and decided to “go natural.” Wearing my hair in its natural state throughout college has been extremely liberating for me and my curly hair has now become a part of my identity. So, when my sister decided to cut her hair and start fresh at the beginning of her senior year of college, I was all for it.
Even though I was excited by the prospect of my sister’s “big chop,” my father and my aunt were not so enthusiastic. They were worried about how her hair would affect her potential career. For them, natural hair in the workplace represented a serious threat to my sister’s job prospects for fear that future employers would think she did not look professional. At the time, the notion that my hair, of all things, could hold back my future seemed ridiculous, but time and time again I have been proven wrong.
In 2014, the United States Army released a set of new standards for female hairstyles. Almost immediately after the standards were released, African-American service members petitioned to have the regulations changed, citing the fact that they were especially strict for those that chose to keep their hair natural. Easy and neat hairstyles like temporary twists were forbidden and styles like cornrows and loose braids were extremely restricted. Essentially, the rules made chemical straighteners or relaxers the easier option for black army members. Aside from this burden placed on natural hair, the wording of the regulation was extremely biased, calling certain styles “matted and unkempt.” Six months after they were released, the rules were changed, but the lasting impression they made about natural hair stayed.
More recently, Butler Traditional High School in Louisville, Kentucky gained national attention when its dress code came under fire for its bias against natural hair. The guidelines banned dreadlocks, cornrows and twists because they were considered “extreme, distracting, and attention-getting.” These rules, once again, made it much easier for those with straight hair to be within the guidelines, while leaving those who preferred to keep their hair natural in a lurch. This is not just a problem in American schools. An all-girls school in South Africa drew headlines when its students protested to be able to wear their hair in afros to school. These rules are especially damaging because they affect young people who are just starting to explore their own hair and identities. Once again, these rules were changed, but once again black hair was deemed unacceptable for a working environment.
Perhaps the most troubling development in this ongoing fight came this September in a court case in the United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff, Chastity Jones, argued that her employer had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by requesting that she change her hair. Jones was initially hired by Catastrophe Management Solutions but was told that in order to receive her position she must wear her hair “in a manner that projects a professional and businesslike image.” This did not include her dreadlocks. In fact, according to court documents, her would-be employer said, “[Dreadlocks] tend to get messy, although I’m not saying yours are, but you know what I’m talking about.”
The court threw out the case, rejecting the argument that the company’s actions could be considered racial discrimination. The plaintiff argued that “dreadlocks are a method of hair styling suitable for the texture of black hair and [are] culturally associated” with black people, but the court decided that culture was not a strong enough component of race for this to qualify as discrimination. At best, the decision leaves future discrimination cases in limbo; at worst, it sets the precedent for other companies to discriminate on these same grounds.
Black hair is something passed down from our ancestors, not only genetically but also culturally. Taking care of black hair requires a degree of skill and effort that makes hair an important cultural touchstone for many black people. As I walk around Georgetown’s campus, I am filled with pride when I see box braids, dreads, twist-outs and a whole host of natural hairstyles. However, I fear entering the working world, where there is a very real possibility that wearing my hair just as it grows out of my head will be detrimental to my career.
In all of the above cases, institutions severely restricted or outright banned black hairstyles under the guise of professionalism. We cannot ignore the thinly-veiled racism behind these regulations. These policies are based on the idea that there is something inherently messy, unkempt and unprofessional about natural black hair, an idea that is not only insulting, but also wholly incorrect. There is no reason at all to think a black professional with dreads or an afro would take any less pride in their appearance, or in their work, than their peers. These rules exclude black features from the workplace, and in doing so, exclude black people from the workplace.
Danielle is a junior in the College.
