Creates provisions relating to educational institutions and establishes the "Missouri Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (Missouri CROWN) Act" governing discrimination against protective hairstyles in educational institutions
If enacted, SB38 would have significant implications for existing state laws concerning discrimination in education. It seeks to repeal and replace portions of current statutes that allow for discrimination based on physical attributes associated with race or ethnic background. By establishing protections specifically for hair texture and styles, the bill aligns with broader civil rights goals and responds to growing recognition of the importance of cultural identity in educational settings. This change may also compel schools to review and revise their dress codes and policies to prevent potential discriminatory practices.
Senate Bill 38 introduces the Missouri Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (Missouri CROWN) Act, which aims to prohibit discrimination against individuals in educational institutions based on hair texture or protective hairstyles, such as braids, locks, twists, and afros. The bill specifically addresses schools receiving state financial assistance or enrolling students utilizing state financial aid, ensuring they cannot discriminate based on these criteria. The intent is to foster an inclusive educational environment that respects cultural expression related to hair.
The sentiment surrounding SB38 appears to be largely positive among advocates for civil rights and inclusion, including organizations stressing the importance of cultural identity in schools. Supporters believe the proposed protections could significantly enhance the atmosphere in educational institutions by reducing instances of discrimination that stem from cultural differences. However, there may be some lingering concerns from certain stakeholders about the implications of enforcing such provisions and whether they might conflict with existing school regulations regarding appearance and safety.
Notable points of contention surrounding SB38 could include debates over the definitions of protective hairstyles and how they might intersect with safety regulations in schools. Additionally, concerns regarding the scope of the bill, such as its application to private educational institutions and how it interfaces with other state and federal anti-discrimination laws, may arise. Furthermore, discussions are likely to include the potential backlash from groups advocating for traditional values in educational settings, who may perceive this as an infringement on their rights to establish personal dress codes or guidelines.