Missouri could soon join 27 states with laws protecting natural hair textures, though the anti-discrimination provisions only apply to educational settings.
The legislation, dubbed the CROWN Act, has been proposed in Missouri since 2020 and is part of a national movement to enshrine protections for curls and coils. The cities of St. Louis and Kansas City have local ordinances banning hair discrimination.
Missouri lawmakers passed a version of the CROWN Act in May as part of a larger bill, and it awaits Gov. Mike Kehoe’s decision on whether to sign it or issue a veto.
California was the first state to enact a prohibition on hair discrimination in 2019. According to Google Trends, this was around the time when the public became aware of the CROWN Act. In the year prior, instances of hair discrimination circulated national media, like reports of a young wrestler who was forced to shave his locks to compete.
Democratic state Sen. Barbara Washington of Kansas City, who sponsored the Senate version of the CROWN Act, called out this story during the Senate’s debate of the bill in February. Children should not lose part of their educational and extracurricular experience, she said, “simply because they chose to wear their hair in braids or an afro or dreadlocks.”
The legislation applies to any preschool, K-12 and higher education institution that receives state funds.
The issue is personal to her, Washington said. As a reporter and lawyer earlier in her career, she was told to straighten her hair, and she was turned down from a job because of her curls.
The only opposition in the chamber came from state Sen. Mike Moon, a Republican from Ash Grove, who thought it was unnecessary to enshrine the protections.
Other versions of the CROWN Act have faced larger criticism in the state Legislature because they extend beyond education. State Rep. LaKeySha Bosley, a St. Louis Democrat, filed two bills this year seeking to expand the state’s definition of employment discrimination to include “traits historically associated with race including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles.”
Neither bill was even referred to a House committee until the final days of session, when there was no time left for a hearing.
In prior years, state lawmakers worried that the employment provision would spur lawsuits for employers. They also discussed safety concerns, with some professions requiring hair nets or other measures.
The bill passed this year allows for classes to require protective headgear, like hairnets, for classes like home economics and woodworking.
The legislation did not pass as a standalone bill but was added as an amendment on a package with anti-discrimination and anti-hazing provisions.
