The author supports the central idea that the CROWN Act is necessary to provide legal protection from discrimination against hairstyles and textures tied to racial identity by explaining why the courts have not always protected hairstyles. This is done through the quote from D. Wendy Greene, which discusses how civil rights statutes have been narrowly interpreted, limiting racial discrimination to "immutable" characteristics and thus clarifying that natural hair discrimination constitutes race discrimination. This explanation highlights the gap in legal protection that the CROWN Act aims to fill.
"Ban Hair
Discrimination
Gaining Momentum"
by Candice Norwood
What is the CROWN Act?
Final legislation can vary slightly from state to state, but most CROWN Act bills forbid discrimination against certain hairstyles and textures within workplaces and schools.
The bill builds off existing state laws, which generally prohibit workplace or school discrimination based on religion, gender, sexual orientation and race. But the CROWN Act expands the definition of "race" to include "traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles," like braids, locs and twists. These and other styles known as
"natural" looks do not involve processing to straighten the hair.
Some bills also seek to end discrimination against adornments related to certain religious and indigenous communities.
"Our civil rights statutes have been narrowly interpreted by federal courts, among other enforcement bodies, in such a way that it limits racial discrimination to what is known as
'immutable' or unchangeable characteristics," said
D. Wendy Greene, a law professor with Drexel University who has played a lead role working with legislators to draft and testify on the CROWN Act.
"[The bill] clarifies that natural hair discrimination in all forms constitutes race discrimination."
In 2019, California became the first state to pass the CROWN Act. Since then, a handful of cities, including New Orleans, Cincinnati and Albuquerque, have passed similar bills, as have New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Colorado, Washington and, this month,
Connecticut. Both chambers of the New Mexico legislature have also passed the CROWN Act. this year; the bill awaits the governor's signature.
A federal bill passed the House last year, but died in the Senate. A group of five Black Democratic congresswomen reintroduced the federal bill this month in the House and issued a letter to Vice President Kamala Harris calling for her support.
Sen. Cory Booker, D-NJ, re-introduced the legislation in the Senate last week.
Anthony first introduced the CROWN Act in the Michigan legislature in 2019, but after it went to a committee informally known as the "legislative graveyard," she reintroduced the bill in late February. It is currently awaiting a hearing in the state House Judiciary Committee.
Use the passage to answer the question.
How does the author support this central idea of the passage: The CROWN ACT is necessary to provide legal protection from discrimination against hairstyles and textures tied to racial identity?
(1 point)
By mentioning that the Vice President of the United States supports the law.
By listing the different states that have passed a version of the CROWN Act.
By detailing how few laws protect workplace discrimination of any kind.
By explaining why the courts have not always protected hairstyles.
2 months ago