Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race by expanding the definition of race to include traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protected hairstyles.
H5841 amends Rhode Island’s school anti-discrimination law, the Fair Employment Practices Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1990 to clarify that discrimination based on race includes discrimination based on traits historically associated with race. The bill specifically defines “race” to include hair texture and “protective hairstyles,” such as braids, twists, locks, cornrows, Bantu knots, and Afros. In the school context, it bars race discrimination in public elementary and secondary schools and school functions, including employment, admissions, curriculum, extracurricular activities, counseling, and athletics.
The bill also updates the state’s employment and civil rights statutes so that the expanded definition of race applies in employment discrimination and in civil rights protections involving contracts, property, and equal access to laws and legal proceedings. By embedding these definitions across multiple chapters of state law, the measure would make hairstyle-based discrimination a form of race discrimination under Rhode Island law and strengthen enforcement against race-based bias in schools, workplaces, and other covered settings.
The bill would amend three areas of Rhode Island law: school discrimination provisions in Title 16, the Fair Employment Practices Act in Title 28, and the Civil Rights Act of 1990 in Title 42. Its practical effect is to broaden the legal meaning of race so that hair texture and protective hairstyles are expressly protected characteristics, giving affected individuals a clearer basis to challenge discriminatory school or employment policies and civil rights violations. It would also align state law with emerging “CROWN Act” style protections against race-based hair discrimination.
The available voting history shows strong support for the bill, with passage by a 65-1 vote in the House. No committee transcript is available, but the overwhelming vote suggests broad agreement with the bill’s anti-discrimination purpose and its effort to clarify protections for historically associated racial traits. The near-unanimous outcome indicates the measure was generally viewed favorably across the chamber.
The main point of contention would likely be whether expanding the definition of race to include hair texture and protective hairstyles is necessary or whether existing anti-discrimination law already covers such conduct. Any concerns would center on how the new definitions might affect school grooming policies, workplace standards, or enforcement burdens for employers and schools. However, the recorded vote suggests little organized opposition, with only one dissenting vote.