Prohibited Discrimination Based on Hairstyle:
HB 387, the “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act” or CROWN Act, would expand Florida’s education nondiscrimination laws to prohibit discrimination based on “protected hairstyles” in the K-20 public education system. The bill defines protected hairstyles as hair characteristics historically associated with race, including hair texture and styles such as afros, braids, locks, and twists. It would make clear that students may not be excluded from participation in, denied benefits of, or otherwise discriminated against in public education programs or activities because of these hair traits.
The bill also amends Florida’s K-12 student and parent rights law to state that “race” includes traits historically associated with race, including hair texture, hair type, and protected hairstyles. In addition, it would require private schools participating in state scholarship programs to comply with federal antidiscrimination law as interpreted to include those same hair traits and styles. If a participating private school knowingly fails to comply, the Department of Education would be required to suspend funding and bar new scholarship enrollments for a period, with possible longer-term ineligibility for repeated noncompliance.
HB 387 would change Florida law by expressly adding hairstyle-based protections to existing education nondiscrimination statutes, affecting public K-20 institutions, K-12 parent/student rights provisions, and private schools that participate in state school choice scholarship programs. It would broaden the legal understanding of race-related discrimination in education to include hair texture, hair type, and specific natural hairstyles, and it would create enforcement consequences for private scholarship schools that fail to comply with these requirements.
The bill’s overall policy direction appears supportive of anti-discrimination protections and aligned with the national CROWN Act movement, but the available record shows limited formal debate or recorded votes. Its introduction suggests interest in expanding civil rights protections for students, especially those affected by hair-based bias, yet the bill ultimately died in the Education Administration Subcommittee, indicating it did not advance through the committee process.
The main point of contention is likely the scope of the bill’s definition of race and protected hairstyles, particularly how far those protections should extend into school dress and appearance policies and private school scholarship participation. Another potential issue is the compliance burden on private schools in state scholarship programs, since the bill would tie funding eligibility to adherence to these nondiscrimination standards. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes in the record, specific arguments for or against the bill are not documented here.