Print to Online: Blueprint Responds to Issue 5 Crossword Clue

Print to Online: Blueprint Responds to Issue 5 Crossword Clue

Posted on April 19, 2024

Examining discrimination against natural, textured hair 

By Blueprint Editorial Board and contributions from Acalanes Black Student Union and the Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD) People of Color Council (POCC)

// In Issue 5 of Blueprint, there is a crossword clue that perpetuates harmful stereotypes about Black culture. What we printed in the crossword is hurtful and unacceptable. The clue states “out of control hairstyle” and corresponds to the response “afro,” a natural Black hairstyle. We are a collective; we all take responsibility, and we apologize.

   As a staff continuing to educate ourselves, we want to share what we have learned so far with the wider community regarding privilege, beauty standards, and the cultural significance of the afro, from historical examples to the present day. 

   A National Institute of Health (NIH) journal dates the early manifestations of discrimination against natural hairstyles back to slavery. Deeming natural hair “unattractive” and “unmanageable,” enslavers required Black women to cover their hair or adopt grooming practices that emulated white, Eurocentric beauty standards. NIH also explains that these were the origins of straightening natural, textured hair, as society considered only straight hair “good hair.” In contrast, society referred to natural hair without any treatment as “bad hair” or “unprofessional.” Systemic racism in the United States, which continues beyond slavery’s conclusion, leads to the negative stereotypes and biases around textured hair that persist today. 

   Although the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawed discrimination based on race, the Act did not explicitly protect against hair-based discrimination. Simultaneously, Black people reclaimed the afro as a hairstyle symbolic of Black empowerment and rebellion against the oppression of the era. According to the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the hairstyle represented Black identity and pride in the “Black is Beautiful” movement. Prominent activists such as Angela Davis and Huey P. Newton had the hairstyle while publicly fighting for equal rights. Along with its relevance as a political statement, the afro appeared as a fashion statement of the time, with popular figures such as The Jackson 5 embracing the style. 

   The afro continues to represent Black heritage and pride for many. However, according to historian Nell Irvin Painter, white beauty standards remain the norm. Many companies exploit the dominance of these standards, further perpetuating the negative stereotypes about different hair textures.

   The documentary Good Hair provides a window into how these societal views influence the hair industry today. According to the documentary, many Black children grow up hearing that their hair should conform to white beauty standards. Good Hair host Chris Rock interviewed girls as young as six years old who were using relaxers to straighten their hair. The early childhood introduction of these stereotypes drives an entire industry, which profits from altering textured hair with relaxers. 

   These stereotypes have also resulted in public examples of discrimination, spurring new legislation. In 2019, a video went viral of a teen cutting his dreadlocks so that a coach would not disqualify him from a wrestling match. This led California Governor Gavin Newsom to sign the Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act. The bill outlaws discrimination in public schools and workplaces specifically based on natural hair. 

   After California’s example, more states followed suit. According to a Society for Human Resource Management article, “As of June 2023, 23 states have enacted the CROWN Act into law, and more than half of all states have filed or pre-filed legislation for consideration.”

   While an important step forward, the Act is not a final solution. There is no federal ban on hair discrimination, allowing states to determine legislation and enforcement. For example, Texas’ version of the CROWN Act only protects hair under two inches in length, leaving loopholes for discrimination against most natural, textured hairstyles. Additionally, on Feb. 22, 2024, a Texas court affirmed this Act, deciding that school districts can regulate the length of their students’ hair. This ruling was in response to a student with locs who was punished for his hairstyle. Though the intention of the legislation was to protect natural hairstyles, this interpretation reinforces the damaging narrative that natural hairstyles are “unprofessional.”

   Schools can perpetuate negative stereotypes through dress codes. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) explicitly bans schools from making changes to their dress codes that could unevenly target a specific group of students. Unfortunately, the ban is not easily enforced, and dress codes may disproportionately impact individuals who have natural hairstyles such as afros or locs. 

   According to the ACLU, some schools discipline children with natural hairstyles, claiming the hairstyles are “distracting.” This shows that there also must be a change in societal attitudes along with larger-scale legislation. The ACLU and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People intervened in a 2018 incident that involved a first-grade student in Florida who was sent home on the first day of school because he had dreadlocks. This instance, among many others, exemplifies implicit bias still prevalent in dress codes across the country. Though the Acalanes Dress Code makes no mention of hair, it is still important to learn about how these biases affect school communities so we can work to change these standards nationwide.

   As we educate ourselves on both the history of these stereotypes and how they manifest in daily life, we commit ourselves and the rest of the Blueprint staff to the following concrete steps moving forward. We have updated our writing and ethics protocol to include how to use inclusive language when discussing race, and prohibited unacceptable slurs and derogatory phrases that have no place in our paper. We have also updated our curriculum; all journalists will learn the importance of diversity within our staff through the Associated Press Stylebook’s “Inclusive Storytelling” section, as we will examine the importance of who is telling the stories we write. Additionally, we will implement a new Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) and Ethics Editor position in our staff next year, who will work with advisers to ensure that our program remains committed to these values. These are long overdue additions to our program.

   To continue the education of our staff, Blueprint editors are looking forward to attending the AUHSD Inclusive Leadership Excellence Program Spring Summit in April and engaging with the corresponding lessons throughout the 2024-2025 school year with Dr. Lori Watson. They will use these powerful lessons to educate the larger Blueprint community. 

   We know we cannot heal all the harm that we caused. We take full ownership of the mistake we made, and once again, we are sorry. As a program, we commit to rooting out the implicit bias in ourselves and our paper so that this does not happen again, and we appreciate our readership’s patience and understanding as we lean into education as a step forward.

Randy Takahashi, on behalf of the POCC, submitted the following statement to Blueprint regarding the Issue 5 crossword clue. 

“There is no excuse for the inappropriate entry in the crossword puzzle that was placed in the Blueprint. I am thankful that [Blueprint Advisers] James Munoz and Bruno Morlan addressed the issue quickly and seriously. This unfortunate incident may provide a learning opportunity for our school, our district, and the community. This is not an isolated incident. Examples of racism are reported to the POCC far too often. The crossword puzzle angered many and stirred conversation around race and racism. If this is to be an opportunity to improve as a society, we need to prepare ourselves to be uncomfortable around this challenging dilemma and move beyond the academic understanding of race and racism.”

Originally printed in Blueprint Issue 6, page 40.