A judge issued an order on January 24th for a trial next month to determine whether Darryl George, an 18-year-old junior at Barbers Hill High School in Mont Belvieu, Texas, can be continuously penalized by his district for refusing to alter a hairstyle that he and his family argue is protected by a recent state law. George has not attended his regular classroom since August 31, instead, he has either been in in-school suspension or placed in an off-site disciplinary program.
Barbers Hill, the Houston-area school district, asserts that George’s long hair, styled in neatly tied and twisted locs on top of his head, violates the district’s dress code restricting hair length for boys. The district claims that other students with locs comply with the length policy. George expressed stress and frustration over what he perceives as unfair punishment but is relieved to have his day in court. State District Judge Chap Cain III in Anahuac set a trial date for February 22 in the lawsuit filed by the school district challenging whether its dress code restrictions on boys’ hair length violate the CROWN Act.
Effective in Texas since September, the CROWN Act prohibits race-based discrimination against hairstyles, preventing employers and schools from penalizing individuals based on hair texture or protective styles, including Afros, braids, locs, twists, or Bantu knots. George’s family, dissatisfied that the judge did not consider a temporary restraining order, has filed a formal complaint with the Texas Education Agency and a federal civil rights lawsuit against Gov. Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton, and the school district, alleging a failure to enforce the CROWN Act. This federal lawsuit is before a judge in Galveston, Texas.
In a paid ad in the Houston Chronicle, Barbers Hill Superintendent Greg Poole defended the district’s policy, denying a violation of the CROWN Act. Poole argued that traditional dress codes contribute to safety and higher academic performance, asserting the importance of conformity in being an American.
Two Texas lawmakers who co-wrote the state’s CROWN Act, state Reps. Rhetta Bowers and Ron Reynolds, attended the January 24th hearing, asserting that the law protects Darryl George’s hairstyle. Bowers accused the district of punishing George for his choice of a protective hairstyle, which she claims harms no one and causes no distraction in the classroom.
This legal battle has become a focal point in the broader debate over the enforcement of the CROWN Act in Texas. Darryl George’s resistance to altering his hairstyle, deemed a violation of the district’s dress code, has triggered a legal dispute with far-reaching implications. It highlights the ongoing struggle to protect natural hair textures and protective hairstyles in educational institutions and questions the efficacy of state laws like the CROWN Act in preventing race-based hair discrimination in schools. The clash revolves around Darryl’s right to express his cultural identity through his hairstyle and raises important questions about the balance between personal expression and school dress code policies.
The legal battle has sparked significant controversy within the community, with previous challenges against the school district’s hair policies setting the stage for the current dispute. The involvement of Texas lawmakers emphasizes the broader implications of the case in the context of the new Texas law and the CROWN Act. The CROWN Act itself plays a crucial role in protecting individuals from race-based discrimination against hairstyles, including the right to maintain natural hairstyles reflective of cultural heritage.
If the trial rules in favor of Darryl George, it could set a precedent for addressing race-based hair discrimination in schools and workplaces. The outcome may influence the enforcement of the CROWN Act not only in Texas but potentially nationwide. The support for Darryl George’s hairstyle under the CROWN Act has ignited a renewed call for the legislation’s implementation at a national level, ensuring protection against discrimination for individuals, especially those from marginalized communities.
Advocates, natural hair activists, and Texas lawmakers have championed the protection of Darryl George’s hairstyle under the CROWN Act, emphasizing its significance in addressing discrimination in schools and workplaces. The historical context of discrimination against protective hairstyles, dating back to slavery, has been highlighted in discussions surrounding this legal battle, underscoring the cultural and personal significance of these hairstyles. The ongoing legal battle serves as a powerful example of the need for legal protection against discrimination based on natural hair textures and protective hairstyles.
