New Jersey Takes Huge First Step to Join List of States That Ban Hair-Based Discrimination

In a unanimous vote Monday, a New Jersey Assembly committee voted 8-0 for amendment to a state anti-discrimination law, clearing a hurdle to enact legislation that would effectively ban hair-based discrimination.

The amendment, which aims to “protect people of color facing discrimination based on their hairstyle” or hair, was approved by the New Jersey Assembly Labor Committee and next must clear the Democratic-controlled state Senate and full Assembly before it would head to Gov. Phil Murphy‘s desk, where he would he take the final step of signing it to make it law.

New Jersey Hair Discrimination

New Jersey gets closer to joining New York and California as states outlawing hair-based discrimination. (Photo: Getty Images)

In doing this, the Garden State becomes the third state, alongside neighbor New York and California, to introduce legislative measures protecting natural hair and the people who wear it. The proposed amendment is backed by Democratic Reps. Angela McKnight, Verlina Reynolds-Jackson, Shanique Speight and Britnee Timberlake.

“If a person of color wants to embrace their cultural identity by wearing their hair in a certain style, they should be free to do so without fear [of] prejudice,” Reynolds-Jackson said in a statement. “No one should be told to straighten, cut or change their hair in any way to meet certain norms.”

“It’s time we enshrine these values into our law,” she added.

The issue of hair discrimination gained national attention last year when Andrew Johnson, a wrestler at Buena Regional High School in New Jersey was told by a referee that his dreads weren’t in regulation. He was given an ultimatum: cut his hair or forfeit his high-stakes match.

Johnson opted to cut his hair and went on win the match. However, video of a school official taking a pair of shears to his head sparked immediate backlash and calls for the ref to be fired.

The referee, Alan Maloney, was punished with a two-year suspension and later filed a lawsuit alleging defamation and emotional distress.

McKnight said the troubling incident served as inspiration for the bill.

“Unfortunately, it is all too common for African-Americans and people of color to be subjected to discrimination at work or school for wearing their hair in braids, twists, and dreadlocks or embracing their natural curls,” she said. “With this legislation, [Johnson] would have been protected from this kind of discrimination under the law.”

The proposed statutory changes, which are modeled after California’s “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair” Act (CROWN), would amend New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination so that the term “race” in that act’s language would now include traits historically associated with race, including hair texture, hair type and protective hairstyles, according to a news release.

New Jersey Senator and Democratic presidential hopeful Cory Booker, alongside Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richardson, this month introduced the first federal legislation that would outlaw discrimination based on natural textures and hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race.

“Discrimination against black hair is discrimination against black people,” Booker said, adding that the CROWN Act would make clear that prejudice “based on natural and protective hairstyles … including hair that is tightly coiled or tightly curled, locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros, is a prohibited form of racial or national origin discrimination.”

Independent journalism doesn't fund itself.

We hope this story was worth your time. For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed Black-owned and independently run. We didn't get here by waiting on ad budgets that were never built to prioritize us. Our readers did that.

Corporate support for Black media has always been thin. Outlets like ours get roughly 1% of the $170 billion spent on U.S. advertising each year, and that margin is shrinking further as advertisers walk back the DEI-linked commitments they made in 2020. That's the backdrop. It's not why we're asking.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top