SB 174-ALLOW NATURAL HAIRSTYLES  3:17:53 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the first order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 174(EDC), "An Act relating to dress codes and natural hairstyles." 3:18:31 PM SENATOR DAVID WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, introduced CSSB 174(EDC). He noted that the committee has already heard the companion bill, HB 312 [heard on 4/4/22]. He explained that the bill would prohibit schools and workplaces from enacting a dress code that restricts someone from wearing their natural hair. He said the bill addresses an issue that most people deal with and endure in silence, and that no employee or student should be prohibited from participating in a workplace or attending school just because they are wearing their natural hair. SENATOR WILSON stated that people choose to wear their natural hair for many reasons, including cultural connectedness [and tradition], protection of hair texture and growth, and preference. Whatever the reason, hairstyle has no correlation to workplace performance. One study has shown that people of color must change their hair from its natural state just to fit in the office. Another study published last year confirmed that in job recruitment, natural hairstyle puts people of color at disadvantage for getting interviewed and subsequently hired. For both the workplace and schools, this bill clarifies that this does not apply to health or safety rules or regulations or ordinance. For example, hairnets still need to be worn in food services or someone with long hair in dreads should not be working a woodchipper or welding. The bill defines what standards are acceptable for the school districts and employers to place on hair and help end hair discrimination. SENATOR WILSON noted there is a difference between CSSB 174(EDC) and HB 312, and deferred to his staff person, Ms. Jasmin Martin, to outline those differences. 3:20:56 PM JASMIN MARTIN, Staff, Senator David Wilson, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Senator Wilson, prime sponsor of SB 174, explained the two differences between CSSB 174(EDC) and its companion bill, HB 312. She stated that Sections 1 and 2 are basically identical to each other: one deals with the school- student relationship and the other deals with the employer- employee relationship. She explained that first difference is on page 1, line 7, and page 2, line 5, which include the term headwraps, but headwraps are not included in HB 312. The second difference, she continued, is on page 1, line 10, and page 2, line 8, which include the terms afros, cornrows, and bantu knots, but these terms are not included in HB 312. She said these terms were added in a Senate committee and that this list is not exhaustive of all the natural hairstyles, but the Senate committee thought it important to include some more examples in the bill. 3:21:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN drew attention to page 1, line 11, which states, "requires a student to permanently or semi-permanently alter the student's hair". He asked what has occurred to cause that requirement to be in the bill. SENATOR WILSON recounted an event in which a young gentlemen had to cut his hair to be able to participate in a wrestling tournament. He said this would be an example of where the governing body of a school cannot say that a student's hair must be altered [to participate]. Another example, he stated, would be a place of employment that says employees cannot wear pink hair or must straighten their hair. Straightening hair requires use of a chemical relaxer, which can burn the person's head, he explained. He noted that in places where people of color make up less than five percent of the population, most local hairdressers do not work on type 4c hair. Responding further to Representative Kaufman, Senator Wilson explained that because many hairdressers do not have enough practice on 4c hair, which is a coarse texture of hair, they choose not to work on that type of hair. 3:23:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY inquired about the reason for including headwraps in CSSB 174(EDC) while HB 312 does not. SENATOR WILSON explained that the Senate Education Standing Committee made this addition because the committee thought that protective headwraps help in the maintaining of hair appearance. MS. MARTIN pointed out that this is not necessarily headwraps that are associated with religion because that is already protected in different parts of statute. In this case, she continued, the committee worried that headwraps, such as silk headwraps that protect the texture of the hair from environmental damage, was not underneath this legislation. The committee therefore [included headwraps] so there would be no ambiguity as to whether [headwraps] were included. 3:25:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked about the implications of some group of individuals claiming that this is something they are entitled to wear which symbolizes something else and they know it symbolizes something else. He recalled that many years ago schools [prohibited] wearing a certain color hat because it represented gang symbols. He inquired about what protects the intended concept regarding hair rather than extending out to someone who wants to wear a symbol. MS. MARTIN answered that she would provide members with a letter written by an invited testifier regarding headwraps as gang affiliations. She said that to her knowledge there is no evidence that there are gangs in Alaska high schools that are using headwraps to identify. A student, she added, is going to be part of a gang regardless of whether that student is wearing a certain thing on his or her head. That isn't relevant to a student's gang affiliation and does nothing to stop gangs or gang activity. [SB 174 was held over.]