Democrats reintroduce CROWN Act to ban hair discrimination
Democrats have reintroduced federal legislation to ban hair discrimination.
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) reintroduced the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, or CROWN Act, on Tuesday.
The legislation institutes federal protections against discrimination of natural hairstyles, such as curly and kinky hair, as well as protective styles like Bantu knots, locs and twists.
'There are women, there are girls, there are boys and there are men who have been treated negatively, either in job situations or school situations or even beyond, simply because of the way they wear their hair,' Watson Coleman told The Hill.
She continued, 'People assume that they're less than, that they're unprofessional, that they're not, not clean and tidy and things of that nature, and they use the texture of the hair or the style of the hair to make impressions and decisions as to whether or not to entertain an interview with them, whether or not they could stay in school that day, whether or not they can receive a promotion, or whether or not they can even represent their companies, simply because the way they wear their hair.'
Concerns around hair discrimination have increased in the last several years, particularly as high-profile cases have made headlines.
One of the most recent incidents in Texas involved an 18-year-old student who served several months of in-school suspension for his locs, a type of protective hairstyle. That student, Darryl George, won the support of advocates around the nation, and the Congressional Black Caucus invited him to former President Biden's State of the Union in 2024.
A similar incident occurred in 2020, when two Texas students of Black and Trinidadian descent were assigned to in-school suspension and excluded from extracurricular activities and graduation for refusing to cut their locs, which they had been growing for years in homage to their heritage.
But disciplining students or employees over their hair 'just doesn't make any sense,' said Watson Coleman.
'It is not connected to whether or not you have the ability to do the job or to get the education or to do whatever it is that you're being asked to do,' she said. 'So it's an affront to everyone. It's an extension of what we saw in the Civil Rights Movement that dealt with the color of your skin. It's just an extension of that, and it's 2025. … We need to have a national standard, because people are treated differentially depending upon where they are.'
Though multiple states have a CROWN Act, the federal legislation has failed to pass.
The House passed the CROWN Act in 2022, but it stalled in the Senate. This time, Watson Coleman has the support of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), and she hopes that can push the legislation forward in the upper chamber.
'This is not controversial legislation. This is very simplistic,' Watson Coleman said. 'Wearing Bantu knots and curly cues and other kinds of hairstyles that are typically found associated with Africans and African Americans, that's nothing other than an expression of how you see yourself. There's no disrespect intended.'
But Watson Coleman admits she's unsure if the House will pass the act this time around, as Republicans have set their sights on ending any legislation and programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion.
'I am worried about Republicans on every level. I have seen Republicans remove some of the most brilliant people who happen to be women, who happen to be minorities, and replace them with the most mediocre people,' Watson Coleman said.
'This House right now is very dysfunctional, evil and crazy,' she said. 'So I don't know what to expect from them, but if they had any sense, they'd let some of the easier things go through so they don't look like they're against everything.'
Watson Coleman added that if exceptions are made for individuals to change the color of their hair and continue to be allowed in class or at work, then that same acceptance should be shown for the texture of an individual's hair.
'I know that this is a very difficult time, because I know that white supremacy has really reared its ugly head in a way that is hard for people to embrace and to respond to,' she said. 'But at the end of the day, this is the government of, by and for the people, and collectively, we are more powerful than those who choose to be racist and misogynistic and Islamophobic.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats slam Trump org for releasing mobile phone service
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss Democrats blasting President Trump's family business who launched a mobile phone and cellular service, Trump Mobile. #TrumpMobile #Smartphones #TrumpBusiness
Boston Globe
17 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Warren, Markey join Bernie Sanders and five other senators to urge Democrats to break with billionaire donors
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Sanders and the seven other senators - Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts), Chris Murphy (Connecticut), Jeff Merkley (Oregon), Peter Welch (Vermont), Tina Smith (Minnesota), Edward J. Markey (Massachusetts) and Chris Van Hollen (Maryland) - argue that many voters have lost faith in the political system because wealthy donors like Musk have played an outsize role shaping the outcome of elections. Advertisement That has included the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which brands itself as 'America's pro-Israel lobby' and has poured millions of dollars into defeating progressive candidates. Advertisement The senators acknowledge that their long-term goal of passing comprehensive campaign finance reform to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision - which ushered in the current era of dark money, a term that refers to anonymous outside spending in political campaigns - will be difficult at a time when the party is in the minority. But they argue that the Democratic Party must start taking steps now to limit the influence of wealthy donors. 'Right-wing billionaires have spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding super PACs to dominate in our primaries,' the senators wrote. 'In addition to intervening in Democratic primaries, it is not uncommon for these same super PACS and dark money groups to fund general election campaigns where they work overtime to defeat Democrats. The result: they have defeated a number of excellent members in the House and Senate. That is unacceptable.' Sanders remains popular at a time when the Democratic brand has hit historic lows, and he is recruiting both Democratic and independent candidates to run across the country, including in red states, as he tries to build a populist 'working-class movement' to push back against Trump and his allies. Continuing his effort to fan an uprising against Trump and the GOP in red states, Sanders is taking his tour to Texas this week. This spring, many Democrats were angry that their leaders were not doing more to fight against the government-slashing policies of Trump and Musk. Frustration with Schumer's leadership came to a head in March when he and eight other Democratic senators voted to pass Republican spending legislation to avoid a government shutdown. Schumer defended that decision as the best way to fight Trump's plan to downsize the government, arguing that Trump and Musk's US DOGE Service would take advantage of a government shutdown to make even deeper cuts. Advertisement
The Intercept
23 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Under GOP Budget Bill, You'd Have to Be Rich to Sue the Trump Administration
Federal judges around the country have blocked the Trump administration's executive orders, policies, and dictates dozens of times as unlawful and even unconstitutional. Now Republicans are trying to use the massive budget bill, which is currently being overhauled in the Senate, to limit the judiciary's power to curb presidential abuses. The bill passed by the House of Representatives last month along party lines included a provision that would limit judges' ability to hold government officials in contempt for violating court orders. Some Republicans who voted to approve the bill later expressed regret over the contempt provision, and Senate Democrats vowed to fight it. Draft bill text released last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee shows Republicans in the upper chamber are taking a slightly different approach. Instead of focusing on courts' contempt power, Senate Republicans revised the provision to limit judges' authority to issue injunctions and restraining orders against the U.S. government in the first place. 'At a time when the President is violating the Constitution as never before seen in American history, it makes no sense to make it harder for courts to issue injunctions,' said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, by email. Last month, Chemerinsky decried the House provision as unconstitutional. 'Republicans are targeting nationwide injunctions because they're beholden to a President who is breaking the law — but the courts are not,' said Josh Sorbe, spokesperson for Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., by email. Durbin, who spoke against the House contempt provision on the Senate floor last week, is the Democratic whip and ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'Their newfound frustration is ironic, given they cheered and even asked for nationwide injunctions themselves during the Biden Administration.' 'This would preclude many asserting constitutional violations from getting injunctions.' The Senate version would prohibit judges from blocking the White House via a preliminary injunction or restraining order unless the plaintiffs can put down money as a security bond in case the court order is later reversed as 'wrongful.' Plaintiffs would have to put down 'an amount proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by the Federal Government' under the proposed provision, and courts could not consider if the plaintiff — whether an individual challenging their unlawful deportation or a civil liberty group challenging a broader policy — has sufficient funds. 'This would preclude many asserting constitutional violations from getting injunctions,' Chemerinsky wrote. Chemerinsky noted that the Senate bill was a slight improvement over the House contempt provision, which was retroactive and would have affected an untold number of court cases. The Senate Republicans' proposal would only apply prospectively and to cases involving the federal government. But Chemerinsky and other legal scholars across the ideological spectrum warned against restricting courts' discretion to block executive abuses and tying legal remedies to plaintiffs' financial means, particularly under the current administration. 'If this provision passes, the government could impose even blatantly illegal and unconstitutional policies for long periods of time, unless and until litigation reaches a final conclusion,' explained George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. 'That could inflict grave harm on the victims of illegality. Consider media subject to illegal censorship during a crucial news cycle, illegally deported immigrants, people imprisoned without due process, and more.' Like many provisions floated by Republicans, the Senate budget bill's proposed restriction on federal courts is vulnerable to procedural challenge because of its tenuous link to fiscal matters. Under the so-called Byrd rule, named for the late Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and applied by the Senate's parliamentarian, Congress cannot use the budget reconciliation mechanism to legislate about matters that are 'extraneous' to the budget. In text released Monday evening, the Senate Finance Committee advanced another budget bill provision with likely Byrd issues, which would drastically increase the maximum fines and prison sentence for those who leak tax return data. Bobby Kogan, the senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress who has studied reconciliation and the Byrd rule, told The Intercept that both provisions face long odds under the Senate parliamentarian's review. 'I would be deeply surprised if this makes it past Byrd,' Kogan wrote in an emailed statement about the draft provision to limit judicial authority. 'I don't see how this has anything to do with revenue, so it would not be a proper provision in a budget reconciliation bill,' wrote Chemerinsky. Following passage of the House bill last month, a spokesperson for Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, implicitly conceded there were Byrd rule issues with its contempt provision. Grassley's office did not respond to questions about how the Senate version fares any better. Senate Democrats vowed to 'work to remove these unnecessary provisions from the Big, Ugly Bill,' as Durbin's spokesperson put it. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., who is also on the Judiciary Committee, also has 'serious concerns on the substance of the bill, particularly the provision that strips courts' power inappropriately, disrupts the separation of powers, and tries to put the administration above the law,' according to an emailed statement from Padilla's office to The Intercept. 'The Senator strongly believes that the updated bill text released by the Senate Judiciary Committee does not follow the Byrd rule and will get removed,' Padilla's spokesperson wrote.
