The NCHSAA needs to provide guidance on the "natural state" hair rule

[Longdayrunner]

In the past several years the NCHSAA has been asked about the definition of the "natural state" as stated in Rule 4.2.1 of the NFHS Rule Book regarding hair.  There has been no response from the NCHSAA.  We all have read the article about the wrestler and referee from New Jersey.

The NFHS has only produced two interpretations of the hair covering requirement.  Both are attached.  And now the state of California has produced a law making it discriminatory to make any reference to the "hair style" of people.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/07/03/california-first-state-ban-hair-discrimination-crown-act/1643833001/

Dreadlocks, cornrows and other natural hairstyles protected under California law

SAN FRANCISCO – California on Wednesday became the first state to protect citizens from discrimination based on hairstyle, a law greeted with both enthusiasm and a touch of dismay by people of color.

“I’m not going to say we shouldn’t have a law that allows us to wear our hair the way it naturally is, but it’s also sad that in 2019, we have to have one in the first place,” said Tiffany Dena Loftin, youth and college director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

“It’s a step in the right direction,” she said, noting that the NAACP has monitored cases in which there was discrimination based on a natural hairstyle. “But a piece of paper doesn’t change things overnight. There’s a stigma often associated with the natural hair of black and brown people that needs to change.”

In signing Senate Bill 188 before the Fourth of July, California Gov. Gavin Newsom created the nation’s first law to make it more difficult for employers and schools to penalize individuals for wearing their hair in a non-European style, which includes cornrows, Afros or dreadlocks.

SB188, also known as The Crown Act: Creating a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair, becomes law in the wake of a variety of incidents nationwide that put a spotlight on the issue.

Last summer, a 6-year-old boy in Florida was denied entry to his school because of his dreadlocks, and in December,  New Jersey high school wrestler Andrew Johnson had to cut his dreadlocks ringside before being allowed to compete.

An Alabama woman asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on a long-running case resulting from her being fired from a call center job in 2010 because she refused to cut her dreadlocks.

“When is enough going to be enough,” Clinton Stanley Sr., the father of the Florida 6-year-old, wrote in an email to USA TODAY. “What all do we have to go through for people to know that we have a right to human rights? It’s crazy that in 2019 that children cannot get an education because of their hair.”

California law could set national precedent
Patricia Okonta, a lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, has been working on Stanley’s case. She said the school, A Book’s Christian Academy in Apopka, Florida, has yet to change its policies. Stanley’s son changed schools.

“Bills like the one in California send an important message that hair policing shouldn’t be tolerated and can be a model for other states,” Okonta said. “There’s a long history here, one that associates our natural style with being unkempt or unclean or unprofessional, and that needs to be tackled. Allowing someone to grow their hair out of their head the way they want to should be fine.”

California State Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, the author of SB 188, said she was cleaning her house when she stumbled across photos of herself during her high school graduation in the early 1980s.

“I had my hair in natural braids, and it dawned on me that that’s the way I had my hair all throughout high school, without any issues,” Mitchell said. “Now, had I been made to feel badly about the way I had my hair, that could have easily impacted my school experience in a negative way.”

Mitchell, who continues to wear her hair in braids, said the law is simply meant to prevent people of color from being “victims of a Eurocentric view of beauty and professionalism.”

Celebrities from the worlds of sports and entertainment opt for such styles.

It is time for the NCHSAA to put it's "big boy pants" on and provide some leadership and direction regarding rule Rule 4.2.1.

[Coach Atwood]

The problem here is not the North Carolina High School Athletic Association giving directions. The problem is the lack of directions given by the National Federation of High Schools. The NCHSAA is a member of the NFHS. The only way for them to give directions would be to break away from the NFHS.  THE OFFICIAL IN NEW JERSEY WAS FOLLOWING NFHS POLICY ON HAIR COVERS NOT NCHSAA POLICY.  I have a simple solution for this. Each host school should provide a headcover for every table at a tournament in case there is a kid that needs to have their hair covered and that's the end of the discussion. Or better yet how about each coach provide a hair cover for all kids on the team that may need a hair cover. The inaction of one coach created this entire controversy and that's that.

[dwilliams7]

The inconsistency is frustrating. I do provide a hair cover for all of my wrestlers that might need one, and we always bring them, but it's a tossup as to whether the official mentions it or makes them wear it... Sometimes they ask to see it at weigh-ins, sometimes they say "you're fine. I'm not worried about it," and sometimes they don't mention it and then threaten forfeiture if they report without it... And I don't blame the individual officials - it's a gray-area rule without specific guidance from the top-down, IMO.

More importantly, I'd like to see the NFHS follow the NCAA's lead (https://www.teamusa.org/USA-Wrestling/Features/2019/June/27/NCAA-rules-on-shorts-and-hair) and end up eliminating the hair length rule, consider dreadlocks and cornrows to be "natural," and only require that hair "be free of oils and/or greasy substances."

[Longdayrunner]

It looks like the NFHS is going to provide guidance on the hair rule.  An article that I missed back in May 2019:

After dreadlock debacle, new wrestling rules address hair, but do they clarify anything?

http://highschoolsports.nj.com/news/article/1807333131577330863/hair-addressed-in-new-wrestling-rules-but-does-it-clarify-anything-fleeing-the-mat-change-coming/

By Bill Evans | NJ Advance Media
on April 30, 2019 11:16 PM, updated May 02, 2019 12:06 PM

The National Federation of State High School Associations released changes for the upcoming wrestling season late last week, the most prominent being a change to stalling and fleeing the mat rules.

But the federation also released an update on hair compliance that somewhat addresses issues that led to an African-American wrestler having his dreadlocks cut at the referee’s discretion in December. The incident became a national story sparked by outrage over racial implications.

The situation sent state officials scrambling for clarification on the hair rule and how to apply it.

The NCAA announced on Monday a proposed change to the hair regulation that would completely remove any language related to hair length, but the NFHS did not go that far.

In NFHS Rule 4-2-1, new language removes wording saying hair must be well trimmed and groomed, as well as reference to the hair being "in its natural state."

It adds that hair-treatment items that are hard and/or abrasive, "such as beads, bobby pins, barrettes, pins and hair clips, etc." are not permitted. A legal hair-control device, such as a rubber band, has to be secured so as not to come out readily during wrestling.

The rule also removes reference to a hair being braided or rolled needing to be contained in a hair cover. Instead the rule now reads if an individual has hair longer than allowed by rule, it shall be contained in a cover so that the hair rule is satisfied.

The changes are as follows (new wording in bold, old wording struck through):

"During competition all wrestlers shall be clean shaven, with sideburns trimmed no lower than earlobe level. Hair trimmed and well groomed.  The hair in its natural state,shall not extend below the top of an ordinary shirt collar in the back; and on the sides, the hair shall not extend below earlobe level; in the front, the hair shall not extend below the eyebrows. (Photos 2-3) A neatly trimmed mustache that does not extend below the line of the lower lip shall be permissible. If an individual has hair longer than allowed by rule, it may be braided, or rolled if it is it shall be contained in a cover so that the hair rule is satisfied. (Photo 4) Physical hair treatment items that are hard and /or abrasive such as (beads, bobby pins, barrettes, pins, hair clips, etc. or any other hair control device) shall not be permitted. A legal hair-controlled device such as rubber band(s) shall be secured so as not to come out readily during wrestling. The legal cover shall be attached to the ear guards...at the site. If an individual has facial hair, it must shall be covered with a face mask. All legal hair covers and face masks will be considered as special equipment. If an individual’s hair is as abrasive as an unshaved face, the individual shall be required to shave the head as smooth as a face is required, or wear a legal hair cover."

On the NFHS website, Elliot Hopkins, director of sports and student services and liaison to the Wrestling Rules Committee offered in a statement, “Hair that is manipulated poses no threat to either wrestler. It is neither abrasive nor cumbersome. However, physical hair treatments do present a risk to either wrestler due to the hardness, texture or abrasiveness, and should not be allowed.”

There were also several changes designed to promote more aggressive wrestling, including one that says “when the referee feels that either wrestler has failed to make every effort to stay inbounds during an imminent scoring situation, the offending wrestler shall be penalized for fleeing the mat. . .”

Fleeing the mat would give a point to the attacking wrestler and would potentially keep wrestlers from going out-of-bounds as the easiest form to avoid a takedown. A call of fleeing the mat will not be made if near-fall points have been scored.

“This change allows the referee to only apply the technical violation call of fleeing when the action is related specifically to a scoring situation,” Hopkins said in the statement. “All other types of leaving the wrestling area as a means of avoiding wrestling would fall under the rule of stalling.”

Also stalling has been removed from the progressive penalty chart and will be penalized separately. An untied shoelace will immediately be assessed as a stall.

Another prominent change is that head and neck injuries that involve the cervical column or nervous system will be allocated an extra five minutes of evaluation time beyond the normal injury time.

Bill Evans can be reached at bevans@njadvancemedia.com or by leaving a note in the comments below. Follow him on Twitter @BEvansSports. Like our NJ.com High School Wrestling Facebook Page.

Based on the way the new California law is written, this new interpretation by the NFHS may not comply with the new California law.  This new interpretation does not address an individual who is required to wear a head cover and due to the length of the hair, the head cover extends below the shirt collar.