By Faith Fistler for Kent State NewsLab.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan.

The first time Tyana Barton was singled out because of her hair was when she was told to straighten it before a dance recital.

"That was like the first time in maybe 10 years I've ever had to straighten my hair. So I was like, distraught about that," Barton said. "And everybody was just like, 'it's not that serious'. And I'm like, 'it is, though. It is.'"

At the predominantly white studio in Dayton, Barton's instructor wanted all the dancers to look the same for a particular performance. Barton, being the only Black dancer, was asked to straighten her afro-textured hair to comply.

"I'm looking at all of these other girls with long hair, and it's just like perfectly straight. And then I'm having to go over my hair several times with the straightener just to get it to any form. It made me super emotional," said Barton, who is now a fashion merchandising student at Kent State University.

In Ohio, there is no statewide legal protection against hair-based discrimination from employers and schools. Individuals can be told to change their afros, braids, dreadlocks and twists or denied employment opportunities if it does not align with dress code standards.

The Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, otherwise known as the CROWN Act, would provide statutory protection for individuals discriminated against for wearing protective hairstyles unique to Black culture.

Rep. Juanita Brent (D-Cleveland) has been trying to get the act off the house floor since 2020. In 2023, she reintroduced House Bill 178 for the third time, now with bipartisan support from republican Rep. Jamie Callender (R-Concord).

"This is my life story. My hair may be straight now, but most times my hair is in braids," Brent said. "And I just think it's crazy that there are people who are being removed from classrooms, who are not allowed to participate in sports events and are being removed from job opportunities because they're choosing to have their hair in braids and afros."

The legislation has already passed in cities such as Columbus, Akron, Cincinnati and Cleveland Heights.

"There are so many places where discrimination is occurring. So sometimes it takes a lot longer to do it in every city, and every community," she said. "Sometimes people don't realize the need for it until it happens to your neighbor, your grandchild, it happens to yourself."

The Ohio Chamber of Commerce has testified against H.B. 178, arguing that it "increases civil liability for employers, limits at-will employment in our state, and hampers the ability for businesses to set their own workplace policies."

Kevin Shimp, who testified on behalf of the Chamber, did not respond to interview requests.

The legislation is currently with the House Civil Justice Committee and has until December 2024 to pass.

"Controlling people's hair is almost like putting people in their place and saying you don't belong here," Brent said.

The history of what is considered an acceptable presentation of Black hair in the United States dates back to slavery when European aesthetics became the standard, said Mwatabu Okantah, department chair and professor of Africana Studies at Kent State University.

"On the one hand, many of our people have just ignored it and have lived according to our own aesthetic values, even within the context of being here in the United States," Okantah said. "Then, others of our people have internalized it and have struggled with extremely negative perceptions of ourselves, seeing ourselves the way white society sees us."

Black people's response to the European aesthetic has gone through cycles of assimilating to the social norm to embracing natural hairstyles in spite of it. Okantah said the cultural shift in recent years could be attributed to changing attitudes and Black people holding more positions of power.

"Enough of us now are scholars, mental health professionals, lawyers, and politicians. And so we have more tools to take that back. So I think the CROWN Act came out of that," he said.

The CROWN Act was introduced in California in 2019. It is now law in around two dozen states. The House of Representatives approved the CROWN Act in 2022, but the Senate did not.

Wendy Greene, a professor at Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law and founder of #FreetheHair, has served as an advisor since the CROWN Act was conceived and has found the experience "rewarding".

"It's been really great to be able to see how this legislation is empowering young people to be advocates, young people to express their racial and cultural identities freely in their schools and their workplaces," Greene said. "And to see in turn, how people are using this legislation to educate and enrich others who may not really be familiar with this kind of discrimination because it's not their experience."

While the legislation will not end racial discrimination, the CROWN Act means employers could be found financially responsible for an individual's loss of job opportunity and emotional or psychological damage, Greene said.

"The major legal obligation is to just to stop engaging in the discrimination in and of itself," she said.


Faith Fistler wrote this article for Kent State News Lab. This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

A man who once faced the harsh realities of Alabama's criminal justice system is now working to ensure others in Mobile County do not have to endure the same struggles.

Chris "Champ" Napier, client advocate for the Mobile County Public Defender's Office, said before becoming an advocate he experienced firsthand the inequities between those who have money and those who do not. He pointed out in the legal system, a lack of financial resources significantly affected the outcome of his case.

"It's based on socioeconomic background," Napier explained. "I'm from a poverty-stricken area; I couldn't afford an attorney. So, the person that was sentenced the same day I was sentenced, because his family had money, he had a similar crime ... I was sentenced to life. He was sentenced to 20 years."

Napier said his personal journey fuels his commitment to leveling the playing field for people who cannot afford a private attorney. In Alabama, 59 of the state's 67 counties rely on court-appointed private attorneys or flat-fee contract lawyers to represent those who cannot pay for legal counsel, rather than having a public defender's office. Napier argued the system leaves many low-income defendants at a disadvantage.

While incarcerated, Napier noted he witnessed how systemic inequalities continued behind bars. He explained one example is the exploitation of prison labor.

"They have factories in prison where they pay the inmates 30 cents an hour but once those inmates are released, they can't get a job at those facilities," Napier observed. "It's really another form of economic exploitation."

Napier emphasized the disparities only deepened his resolve to educate himself while incarcerated. After 14 years in prison, he was paroled. Now, he works to build trust between the office and the community it serves.

"I get to go to the jails and talk to our clients on a one-on-one basis and use my experience -- my pain and my expertise -- to show them that change is possible," Napier stressed. "To show them that they can trust the attorneys in our office."

The Mobile County Public Defenders Office was created four years ago, in response to calls from organizations like Faith in Action Alabama, which recognized the urgent need for a public defender system to serve the most vulnerable in the community.

A new report found Muslim students in New York City public schools face high levels of discrimination in school.

The report from the Council on American Islamic Relations-New York showed close to 60% of students surveyed were bullied by another student for being Muslim. Almost half reported having their hijab tugged, pulled or offensively touched by another student. Most felt reporting such incidents will not make a difference.

Sarah Shahlan, research project coordinator for the council, said it has only escalated since the war in Gaza began last year.

"A lot of incidents were being reported to CAIR New York from students in schools about repression and being suspended and having disciplinary action against themselves," Shahlan reported. "It's simply because of expressing their views."

She added students also face bullying because they physically look Muslim. The report's recommendations included creating anti-bullying policies and developing a task force for Islamophobia to understand the challenges Muslim students face. Shalan acknowledged some challenges to put them into action are if schools are willing to take them seriously and if schools have resources to do them.

Muslim students are not just facing bullying from their peers, as 29% of students reported a school faculty member made offensive comments or acted offensively toward Muslims.

Shahlan noted the report outlined why the incidents often go unreported.

"A lot of the students don't feel that it's necessary to report these incidents or that they don't feel comfortable reporting to an adult at school," Shahlan outlined. "One of the key findings was that over 70% of the students didn't report to adults at school."

She wants state policymakers to understand the takeaways in the report are a small part of a much broader issue Muslims face. During the previous legislative session, New York state lawmakers introduced legislation designed to curb discrimination and harassment in schools. One bill called for creating an educational program to prevent discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression but it failed in committee.


get more stories like this via email

A year-old U.S. Supreme Court case means relief for two Nebraskans who faced losing their homes and all the equity they had built, when investment firms bought their property for unpaid property taxes.

Legal Aid of Nebraska, with Pacific Legal Foundation as lead counsel, appealed a Nebraska State Supreme Court ruling saying the homeowners were not entitled to the equity in their homes.

In Pacific Legal's landmark 2023 case, Tyler v. Hennepin, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled homeowners in such a situation must be paid for any surplus equity, after taxes and fees. It vacated the decision of the Nebraska Supreme Court, which, upon revisiting the case, concluded the Nebraska homeowners must receive "just compensation" for their equity.

Christina Martin, senior attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said the Tyler decision could open doors for others similarly affected.

"The bottom line is, people who think they have a claim should reach out to Legal Aid of Nebraska," Martin urged. "They could also reach out to property rights attorneys, eminent domain attorneys. And ultimately, this decision is going to protect Nebraska's weakest population the most."

Martin explained, subject to states' statutes of limitations, the Tyler decision is fully retroactive. She added tax foreclosures disproportionately affect older or low-income homeowners, or those with medical conditions.

Caitlin Cedfeldt, staff attorney of the Housing Justice Project for Legal Aid of Nebraska, said it's a victory for the two homeowners and all Nebraskans.

"It is still possible for someone to lose their home, but if they are going to lose the home, they are going to at least get the equity out of it," Cedfeldt explained. "It's kind of incredible that both of these elderly clients will have a chance maybe at keeping their homes."

Cedfeldt pointed out it was the first case Legal Aid of Nebraska filed before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2023, several years after these homeowners' cases were initiated, Nebraska law was changed to require that homeowners receive any surplus equity in property tax foreclosures.


get more stories like this via email