A Journey Towards Cultural Competence: Examining The Crown Act Through A DEI Lens
Don't touch my hair/
When it's the feelings I wear/
Don't touch my soul/
When it's the rhythm I know/
Don't touch my crown/
They say the vision I've found/
Don't touch what's there/
When it's the feelings I wear/[1]
Tame Your Mane: A Case Study
Winter was in its last throes, impersonating a spring day, when Macey[2] got that feeling. It is the scent of change that smells like fresh sun. It is that twinkle in the mind’s eye where new ideas spring forth and beckon women, the crown of creation, to reintroduce themselves. It is that touch of newness that wafts through the air and settles like dew on the imagination.
And this calling, this newly watered imagination for Macey – as is the case for many women – found its expression in a new hairdo.
She arose and decided to go au naturel. This moment was in the making for two years. That’s when she had stopped applying a chemical relaxer to her hair. Since that time, she wore protective hairstyles to work, including wigs and weaves. But on this day, she decided to wash and go, allowing her curls to cascade around her face and form a textured halo around her head.
Out the door she went as her hair billowed about in all its glory. She sashayed towards the front door of the athletic department, where she worked for a private university. Each step was perfectly cued up to her favorite soundtrack playing in her head. Yet, strangely, it was as if the birds were in tune with the rhythm. It was as if the trees swayed to the beat. It was as if all of creation could see her and applauded her appearing.
Except when Macey walked through the doors of her workplace, she was confronted with a very different reception. The gaze from her disapproving colleagues, both white and black, drowned out the soundtrack. Their disapproving gazes had a sound, and it was loud, even if at the time it found no expression in their words. She disappeared. And that’s when she learned that it is possible to disappear even when all eyes are on you – especially, when all eyes are on you.
The next day, she gathered her tresses and pulled them back in a ponytail. Sadly, that spark of creativity from the previous day was wrangled into submission. The othering had an effect – no soundtrack played the next day.
The next day, their disapproving gaze found its voice. Macey’s white, male colleague approached her and offered his unsolicited opinion, “Hey, you tamed your hair. You look better with it pulled back.”
Before she could even muster up a response, he continued, “You were looking pretty wild there. Kind of like an animal.” He concluded, “I’m glad you put it up.”
Both infuriated and embarrassed, she laughed uncomfortably. She retorted in the presence of silent onlookers, “Nothing about the natural state of my hair is wild. It just defies gravity.”
As she walked to the breakroom, she felt a brief hint of shame. But then she encouraged herself with words of affirmation. Shortly thereafter, Macey decided to report the incident to her supervisor. Macey’s supervisor responded, “I’m sure it was a joke. Perhaps you should explore more professional hairstyles to avoid judgment.”
But who are the arbiters of professional hairstyles?
Texturism Masquerading As Professionalism
This notion of what constitutes professionalism, as it pertains to hairstyles, is often rooted in a Eurocentric gaze. The Eurocentric perception is the dominant culture, and perception is power. Since power has often been wielded by those whose hairstyling products have always been readily available on supermarket shelves, the ideas that characterize professional hairstyles have been largely defined by Eurocentric ideals. Oftentimes, these ideals do not take into consideration naturally textured, tightly coiled hair. The devaluation of naturally textured, tightly coiled hair is called texturism. Texturism is found in all communities, even communities of color, where racism is far too often internalized, and harmful, negative messaging is parroted.
For decades, there’s been increasing push back against texturism. Countless women of color have embarked on the natural-hair journey, spurring entrepreneurialism as hair-care products are invented in kitchen labs, causing retail stores to acknowledge the consumer-buying power of black women, and creating language in the natural-hair community to change the narrative and redefine what represents “good” hair. In this natural-hair space, women of color – especially black women – are educating and reeducating themselves and others outside of their communities about the inherent beauty in all hair patterns. And this work – this necessary work – is a work in progress.
But as with any undertaking, education and reeducation does not come off without a glitch. This reeducation process was illustrated during a 2013 New York hair-touching exhibit, where three black women held signs that read: “You Can Touch My Hair.”
This invitation was in essence an effort to “start a larger conversation” with people outside of the community in hopes of demystifying and exposing them to natural hair. However, for many onlookers this hair-touching exhibit was Saartjie “Sara” Baartmanesque,[3] and it triggered protest against what many viewed as a petting zoo.
It should not be lost on anyone that this education and reeducation process was and is only necessary because media images and advertising have catered to and promoted the Eurocentric ideal of beauty. Thus, most communities are aware of Eurocentric hairstyling techniques and products. Meanwhile, the dominant culture has been largely insulated from the positive imagery and promotion of the black aesthetic, unless it is appropriated by those outside of communities of color.
Nevertheless, women of color have taken up this mantle to reacquaint their community and reeducate the dominant culture because they have no choice. Without reeducation, decisions made by the arbiters of professional hairstyles continue to exclude naturally textured hairstyles. We have all seen the viral images of the young, black high-school wrestler who was forced to choose between cutting his locs[4] or else forfeiting the match. This happened in 2019.
However, these indignities were occurring long before viral videos, and the cost is both demoralization and loss of opportunities. Take for example Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance, an early case of racial discrimination in the workplace. In 1976, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the workplace discrimination lawsuit against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, holding that employees were allowed to wear afros.[5] In 1981, however, a New York district judge in the Rogers v. American Airlines case ruled that braided cornrows violated the company’s grooming policy.
Of note, in 2010, an Alabama company rescinded a job offer to a black woman, Chastity Jones, because she refused to cut her locs. During the interview process, the white human resources manager informed the applicant that she would have to cut her locs because “they tend to get messy.” The company’s policy at the time read as follows:
“All personnel are expected to be dressed and groomed in a manner that projects a professional and businesslike image while adhering to company and industry standards and/or guidelines . . . [H]airstyle should reflect a business/professional image. No excessive hairstyles or unusual colors are acceptable[.]”
Apparently, her locs were deemed unprofessional.
In 2013, the EEOC filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Alabama company, arguing that Jones was denied a job based on the racial stereotype that black hair is naturally unprofessional. The federal district court of Alabama dismissed the claim, holding that racial discrimination must be based on an immutable characteristic, such as skin color, and one’s hairstyle does not fit into that category because it can be changed. In 2018, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene for the purposes of filing a Writ of Petition of Certiorari. The Supreme Court of the United States denied the motion.
In the minds of people of color, this decision essentially codified racial bias. Black women and men jonesing to live fully as themselves are confronted with the stereotype threat[6] that their naturally textured hair is unprofessional, and thus they are inherently unprofessional. As a consequence, if people of color want to be employed or maximize opportunities, they have to conform to the Eurocentric ideal of professional hairstyles or else convince the arbiters of professionalism that their hair in its natural state is not unprofessional.
A young lawyer in Nashville who has been growing his locs since 2002, Marcus Shute, Jr., took a different route altogether. He opened his own firm, opting to be authentically himself instead of conforming to society’s “mold of who he should be.” But that can be a costly path, and it is not always a viable option for employees of color.
The central issue in navigating this long, exhausting walk towards normalizing naturally textured hairstyles is to tackle the implicit and explicit biases towards naturally textured hair. According to the “Good Hair” Study conducted in 2016 by the Perception Institute, the first-ever Hair Implicit Association Test illustrated that white women show the strongest bias, rating it as less beautiful and less professional, which is problematic since they are also often in a position to make hiring decisions as gatekeepers of human resources departments. This perception of natural hairstyles persists. In 2019, the Dove Study revealed the following statistics: 80% of black women surveyed believed they had to change the natural state of their hair to fit in at the office; black women’s hair is 3.4 times more likely to be perceived as unprofessional; and, black women are 30% more likely to be made aware of formal workplace grooming policies.
As previously stated, education and reeducation efforts are ongoing, but there is a real cost to communities of color – in the most literal sense since career development and advancement are at stake – as they wait until society fully embraces natural hairstyles. Nevertheless, these efforts have had some impact on mainstream views of natural hairstyles. To illustrate, in 2017 the United States Army changed its grooming policy to allow locs (with specifications). In 2018, the United States Navy followed suit and changed its grooming policy to include braids and locs. In 2019, a year after the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Jones case, the New York Commission on Human Rights enacted a legal enforcement guidance to eradicate race discrimination on the basis of hair, providing protections for natural hairstyles including: locs, afros, braids, and other natural hairstyles. Notably, the Commission declared that “[a]nti-black bias also includes discrimination based on characteristics and cultural practices associated with being Black, including prohibitions on natural hair or hair styles most closely associated with Black people.”
Examining The Crown Act Through A DEI Lens
Five months after the New York Commission released its guidance, California’s Governor, Gavin Newsom, signed into law Senate Bill 188 known as the Creating a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act on July 3, 2019. The Bill was introduced by Democratic State Senator Holly J. Mitchell. When presenting the Bill, Senator Mitchell, sporting locs, stated two goals: “1) to educate her colleagues about the uniqueness of black hair and the uniqueness of [its] texture; and 2) to challenge some common-held myths about what constitutes professionalism in the workplace.”
The legislation amends the Education Code and the Fair Employment and Housing Act to broaden the historical definition of race to include characteristics closely associated with race such as natural hairstyles not limited to braids, locs, and twists. The Crown Act went into effect on January 1, 2020.
After California’s passage of the Crown Act, an official campaign of the Crown Act led by Dove and the Crown Coalition[7] was launched. So far, five additional States, excluding New York, have passed the Crown Act, including Washington, Colorado, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey.
To loosely quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love my naturally textured hair, but it can keep him from discriminating against me based on my natural hair, and I think that is pretty important also.”[8]
The Crown Act as conceived and promulgated by various State legislatures is a significant step towards ending discrimination, and in a real sense promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion. Yet, microaggressions and microassaults,[9]like the kind that Macey experienced, persist.
Let us examine Macey’s experience through a DEI lens.
You may recall that Macey’s white, male colleague used derogatory and demeaning terms to describe her appearance (“wild,” “untamed,” and “animal”). The language that Macey’s white, male colleague used to describe her appearance was demeaning; hence, a microassault on her person. In turn, Macey’s supervisor’s response, “Perhaps you should explore more professional hairstyles to avoid judgment,” was a microinsult. It served to dismiss, ignore, or excuse the pain of being otherized and altogether excluded from the concept of being a professional based on her natural hair. Again, the notion of who determines what passes as a professional hairstyle is based on historical and structural inequities; namely, texturism.
When naturally textured hairstyle stereotypes are sanctioned by those in power or with authority, i.e., Macey’s supervisor and society writ large, then those that are faced with a situational predicament – person of color’s natural hairstyle – are at risk of conforming to the stereotype that naturally textured hairstyles are unprofessional. This is what is known as a stereotype threat. If you are wondering why Macey’s black colleagues reacted to her natural hair in the same manner as her white colleagues, the answer is: they were likely experiencing a stereotype threat. Stereotype threats can produce in the target social group feelings of shame and inferiority. The targeted social group’s reaction to such stereotype threats ranges from disapproval to exclusion. This reaction may further isolate or marginalize the person who triggered the stereotype threat, who ironically is also a part of the targeted social group.
As illustrated, although expanding immutable characteristics to include naturally textured hairstyles may prevent discrimination, fostering a diverse, equitable, and inclusive work environment requires cultural competence.
In Pursuit Of Cultural Competence
Cultural competence has been defined as a set of congruent behaviors, attitudes, and policies that come together in a system, agency, organization, corporation, or among professionals; enabling those entities or professionals to work effectively in cross-cultural situations.[10] The first step on a journey towards cultural competence begins with cultural humility. Cultural humility is the “ability to maintain an interpersonal stance that is other-oriented in relation to aspects of cultural identity that are most important to that [person or social group].”[11] Cultural humility is illustrated by: 1) a commitment to self-evaluation and self-critique; 2) a desire to fix power imbalances that exist based solely on social identity; and, 3) the development of partnerships and collaborations with organizations and groups that advocate for a healthy cross-cultural society.[12]
The next step in this journey requires evaluating cultural competence – both on an individual and structural level – through an assessment tool. DEI Consulting Firms, well-versed in cultural competence, should be able to provide the assessment tools necessary to evaluate and improve cultural competence.
After evaluating cultural competence, the organization or corporation is now primed to develop a framework to improve cultural competence, which includes definition and performance standards and procedures, organizational values and goals, governance structure, staff development and education, organizational infrastructure, ongoing planning, monitoring, and evaluation tools, etc.
But why is cultural competence important?
A Cross-Cultural Gaze: Seeing Macey
Developing a culturally competent framework improves DEI outcomes, including retention, career development, pay equity, and career advancement.
For example, a culturally competent workplace would have improved Macey’s experience, and it would have redounded to the company’s benefit. From the case study, we can see that Macey left her home fully present and brimming over with creativity. Indeed, the same reservoir of creativity that inspired a new hairdo is the same well from whence she will need to draw upon and bring to projects and assignments. But when an environment is teeming with microaggressions and microassaults, the reservoir of creativity is tapped dry. One cannot be expected to navigate such an atmosphere effectively and creatively, although this has been the norm and expectation for people of color. Unfortunately, working in environments with very low or non-existent cultural competence results in low retention, lack of mentorship, pay disparity, and abysmal promotion rates. This does not bode well for DEI outcomes.
Organizations and corporations can instead embark on a journey towards cultural competence where someone like Macey, naturally textured hair and all, can walk into the workplace – perhaps even to a different beat and rhythm – and be seen. Seen as professional, seen as worthy of inclusion, and seen as a valued employee irrespective of her hairstyle.
In other words, employers can choose to abandon the glare of exclusion and realign their management and governance structures to view employees through the perspective of a cross-cultural gaze. There is a colloquialism that organizations and corporations would do well to harness as an animating force to foster a culturally competent workplace environment. Simply stated, employers can adopt attitudes, behaviors, and structural systems that convey to their employees a microaffirmation[13] that has been frequently used by urban philosophers far and wide: I SEE YOU.
Tiangay Kemokai is the founder of Tiangay Kemokai Law, P.C., a boutique law firm that offers DEI Consulting, and whose practice areas include: complex civil litigation, appellate advocacy, administrative law, and legal ghostwriting.
[1] Excerpt of lyrics from “Don’t Touch My Hair” by Solange Knowles.
[2] This is a true story. In order to protect the identities of the participant and all parties, her name has been changed.
[3] Saartjie “Sara” Baartman was taken from Cape Town, South Africa (under false pretenses) in 1810 and brought to London where she was exhibited in freak shows across Britain. She was given the staged name “Hottentot Venus” and objectified and exploited due to her figure and large buttocks. In 1814, Ms. Baartman “was taken to France and became the object of scientific and medical research that formed the bedrock of European ideas about black female sexuality.” http://icarusfilms.com/if-sara
[4] The term “locs” is used here to describe a hair-grooming technique that binds strands of hair by twisting it together. There is an ongoing debate as to the difference between dreadlocks and locs. It is widely understood that dreadlocks are a lifestyle popularized by Rastafaranism and distinguishable from locs because dreadlocks are freely formed by allowing the hair to lock on its own, whereas locs are cultivated.
[5] Generally speaking, afros, prior to the passage of the Crown Act and change in grooming policies, are the only naturally textured hairstyles that are considered to be a characteristic of race. However, it is still subject to biased grooming policies.
[6] A stereotype threat is “a socially premised psychological threat that arises when one is in a situation or doing something for which a negative stereotype about one’s [social] group applies.” CM Steele et al., Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African Americans, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1995), https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.69.5.797
[7] https://www.thecrownact.com
[8] Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s quote reads as follows: “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important also.”
[9] There are many academic and working definitions used to describe the concept of microaggressions. The most cogent definition that I have synthesized from hours of study is the following: Microaggression is an umbrella term used to describe unintentional acts, communications, and/or indignities that trigger or cause a sense of exclusion, inferiority, and invalidation based on one’s social identity. Forms of microaggressions include microinvalidations and microinsults. Microinvalidations are acts, communications, and/or indignities that dismiss a person’s contribution, relevance, or experience. Microinsults are acts, communications, and/or indignities that ignore or dismiss structural inequities and opportunities as relevant to the issues or explanations for deficits that marginalized groups experience. Microassaults, on the other hand, are explicit and overt acts, communications, and/or indignities intended to exclude or demean.
[10] Terry L. Cross et al., Towards a Culturally Competent System of Care: A Monograph on Effective Services for Minority Children Who are Severely Emotionally Disturbed, ERIC (1989), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED330171
[11] Joshua N. Hook et al., Cultural Humility: Measuring Openness to Culturally Diverse Clients, Journal of Counseling Psychology (2013), https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0032595
[12] M. Tervalon et al., Cultural Humility Versus Cultural Competence: A Critical Distinction in Defining Physician Training Outcomes in Multicultural Education, Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved (1998), https://muse.jhu.edu/article/268076/pdf
[13] Communication(s) that intentionally or unintentionally trigger in the receiver a sense of inclusion and validation.
