To amend sections 3314.03, 3326.11, 3328.24, and 4112.01 and to enact section 3313.6612 of the Revised Code to enact the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act to prohibit discrimination against an individual based on hair texture and protective hair styles.
SB 73 would enact Ohio’s CROWN Act, which is designed to prohibit discrimination based on hair texture and protective hairstyles. The bill defines race to include traits associated with race, specifically hair texture and styles such as braids, locks, and twists, and it bars public and private primary and secondary schools from discriminating against individuals on that basis in any program or activity. It also creates a private right of action, allowing an individual who believes a school has violated the section to bring a civil lawsuit in a court of competent jurisdiction.
In addition to the new anti-discrimination provision for schools, the bill amends Ohio’s civil rights law definition of “race” in section 4112.01 to include hair texture and protective hair styles. That change would affect the interpretation and enforcement of state anti-discrimination law more broadly, not just in education. The bill also makes conforming changes to statutes governing community schools, STEM schools, and college-preparatory boarding schools so those entities are required to comply with the new hair-discrimination protections as part of their existing legal obligations.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to expand protected characteristics under Ohio anti-discrimination law and explicitly cover natural hair and protective styles in school settings. It would add a new section to the Revised Code, require schools to avoid discriminatory treatment tied to race-associated traits, and expose schools to civil litigation if they violate the new standard. Because the bill also amends school-contract and compliance provisions, chartered nonpublic schools, community schools, STEM schools, and boarding schools would need to align policies and practices with the new requirements.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill materials is supportive and reform-oriented, with the measure framed as a civil rights and equity initiative. The bill has multiple Democratic sponsors and cosponsors, and its title and structure indicate an intent to modernize Ohio law to address hair-based discrimination, especially in educational environments. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate opposition or support beyond the bill’s sponsorship.
The main point of contention likely concerns the scope and enforceability of the new protections. The bill applies to both public and private primary and secondary schools and creates a civil cause of action, which could raise questions about litigation exposure, compliance burdens, and how broadly “traits associated with race” should be interpreted. Another possible issue is the interaction between the new anti-discrimination rule and existing school governance, admissions, and discipline policies, especially for charter, STEM, and nonpublic schools.
The bill would amend Ohio’s civil rights and education statutes to expressly protect hair texture and protective hairstyles as traits associated with race. It would add a new anti-discrimination section for primary and secondary schools, create a private right of action for alleged violations, and require community schools, STEM schools, and college-preparatory boarding schools to comply with the new protections through their governing and contract provisions. It would also update the definition of “race” in Ohio’s anti-discrimination law, potentially affecting enforcement under Chapter 4112 beyond schools.
The bill appears to be generally favorable in tone and purpose, presented as a civil rights measure intended to prevent race-based hair discrimination. The sponsorship pattern suggests support from lawmakers aligned with anti-discrimination and equity reforms. Because no committee testimony or votes were provided, there is no documented formal opposition or recorded vote sentiment in the supplied materials.
The most notable potential contention is the bill’s reach: it applies to both public and private schools and allows individuals to sue, which may concern schools about liability and administrative burden. Another possible point of debate is whether expanding the statutory definition of race to include hair texture and protective styles could create ambiguity in enforcement or overlap with existing school dress and grooming policies. Any opposition would likely come from entities worried about compliance costs, litigation risk, or limits on school discretion.