Skip to main content

American Ignorance and the Discourse of Manageability Concerning the Care and Presentation of Black Hair

Journal of Medical Humanities volume 43, pages 283–302 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

A culturally cultivated ignorance with regard to the care and presentation of tightly-curled hair pervades American society. This ignorance masquerades as a discourse of manageability, which supports institutional prohibitions of historically Black American hairstyles. In other words, rather than acknowledging our knowledge deficits, we attribute the medical and aesthetic consequences of our ignorance to the hair itself. The insidious implication is that the display of tightly curled hair is not a matter of taste but indicative of a lack of self-care. I conclude that this trend is racially prejudicial and that laws and education are possible mechanisms of redress.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the many individuals who contributed to my research on this project: Abena Asare, Eric Davidson, R. Rama Jaima, Gregory Winter, Monica Drake, Lily Ann Youman, and Maria Alvarez.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Amir R. A. Jaima

Authors
  1. Amir R. A. Jaima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amir R. A. Jaima.

Ethics declarations

Endnotes

1 Consistent with Johnson’s presumption, a recent study suggests that one’s apparent “minority sexual orientation” can mitigate racial stereotypes about both Black and white men (Petsko and Bodenhausen 2019).2 In a recent article, Raewyn Connell, the scholar who coined the term “hegemonic masculinity,” radically rethinks the scope and meaning of her initial coinage. Contrary to her Connell argues that not all men are capable of achieving, or even aspire to attain, hegemonic forms of masculinity as a function of their maleness. She says, “forms of masculinity have to be re-thought in contexts of informal settlement, mass poverty, or social violence” (Connell 2014, 228). Scholar Tommy Curry extends this insight to argue that Black men in the United States are quintessential non-hegemonic males (Curry 2017).3 There are many examples: in 2013, Vanessa VanDyke, then twelve years old, was threatened with expulsion from her school, Faith Christian Academy in Orlando Florida, when her afro was deemed a “distraction” in violation of the school dress code (Hobdy 2013). Similarly in 2017, the North Florida Christian School, a private school, told Jenesis Johnson, a junior at the time, that her afro was “inappropriate” for school; the student handbook notes, simply, that “faddish or extreme hairstyles” are prohibited and that the administration will adjudicate any “questionable styles” (Cerón 2017; “NFCS 2016-2017 Student Handbook” 2016, 42). In 2018, a referee forced Andrew Johnson—a wrestler and a junior at Buena Regional High School in New Jersey—to cut his locs or forfeit his match; the referee determined that Johnson’s hair needed to be either covered or cut, since his “natural” hair—meaning, “un-styled” hair, i.e. un-loc’d—would allegedly “extends below the earlobe on the sides or touches the top of a normal shirt” and thus violate the hair length policy prescribed by the National Federation of State High School Associations (Press, Associated 2018). Absent an appropriate cover, the wrestler chose to have his hair cut; he subsequently won the match. Following an investigation into the matter, the Division of Civil Rights identified a pattern of interpreting “the [hair length] rule to apply to various traditionally black hair styles regardless of length” (Press, Associated 2019). Various antidiscrimination efforts are being implemented as a result, and the referee, Alan Maloney, now faces a two year suspension (Evans 2019; Stanmyre 2019). In 2019, at Berry Miller Junior High School, in Pearland, Texas, Juelz Trice, a seventh grader, was compelled to use a sharpie to fill in a “design line” that a barber had cut into his low cut hair, allegedly because it violated the school dress code, requiring hair to be “clean, neat, and well-groomed” (“PISD 2019-2020 list. Handbook” 2019, 86); his parents are suing the school district for racial discrimination and other harms (Fieldstadt 2019; Scott and Benito 2019).4 Two anecdotes: in 2016, managers at a Zara Clothing store in Toronto characterized an employee’s hairstyle—arranged of box braids and gathered into a ponytail—as unclean and unprofessional. Zara claims that while employees are expected to present a professional appearance, this manager’s specific characterization of this particular hairstyle does not necessarily reflect company policy (Lee-Shanok 2016). Also a woman in the UK told BCC News that her manager claimed that her afro was unprofessional and advised her to wear a weave to work instead (Sini 2016).5 Justice Sloviter dissented: “[T]he court made the critical finding that the ‘no beard policy, while racially neutral on the surface, in fact has a discriminatory impact on Black employees. Black males who are otherwise qualified, are barred from higher paying positions solely because of the condition peculiar to their race’” (Equal Employment Opportunity v. Greyhound Lines 1980, 635:196) Sloviter concludes, “In my view, the evidence introduced by plaintiff in this case was sufficient to support the finding that plaintiff established a prima facie case under Title VII because the evidence showed (1) that Ferguson has a condition which disproportionately affects a protected class of which he is a member; and (2) that this condition precludes him from meeting the employer's facially neutral employment policy […] Because I am concerned that the majority's opinion imposes unwarranted obstacles to the effective use of the discriminatory impact method of proving a Title VII case, I dissent” (1980, 635:200).6 Justice Sloviter dissented: “[T]he court made the critical finding that the ‘no beard policy, while racially neutral on the surface, in fact has a discriminatory impact on Black employees. Black males who are otherwise qualified, are barred from higher paying positions solely because of the condition peculiar to their race’” (Equal Employment Opportunity v. Greyhound Lines 1980, 635:196) Sloviter concludes, “In my view, the evidence introduced by plaintiff in this case was sufficient to support the finding that plaintiff established a prima facie case under Title VII because the evidence showed (1) that Ferguson has a condition which disproportionately affects a protected class of which he is a member; and (2) that this condition precludes him from meeting the employer's facially neutral employment policy […] Because I am concerned that the majority's opinion imposes unwarranted obstacles to the effective use of the discriminatory impact method of proving a Title VII case, I dissent” (1980, 635:200).

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jaima, A.R.A. American Ignorance and the Discourse of Manageability Concerning the Care and Presentation of Black Hair. J Med Humanit 43, 283–302 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-020-09663-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-020-09663-1

Keywords

  • Black hair
  • Ignorance
  • Racism
  • Education