Recently, I was taking a late night walk in Owenton, Kentucky. Owenton is a little town of maybe six hundred people in rural north central Kentucky. I had just finished watching the sad Biden-Trump debate and decided that a walk and some ice cream sounded good.
I walked to our local convenience store which is about a half mile from where I was staying in Owenton. It was a beautiful summer night and I only saw two cars on the road in route to the store. I bought an ice cream bar and had it eaten within twenty steps of the store when the only car I saw on the way home pulled up beside me and someone asked, “Sir, are you alright?”
It was the local city police. I responded, “Yes sir, I’m doing fine.”
He asked, “Would you like a ride home?” To which I replied, “No sir, I’m just out for a walk.”
He then asked, “Have you been drinking?”
I replied, “No sir, just been eating a Snicker’s Ice Cream Bar.”
He continued, “Are you sure?”
“Yes sir, I’m sure.”
He then asked, “Where are you going?” I told him the street which was only about five more minutes of walking time.
I thought all was well as he and another policeman drove off but they made a U-turn and pulled right back up in front of me. The cop got out of the car and told me he wanted to do a breathalyzer test.
I’ve never had one in my life. I agreed to it. He was right in the middle of the street. I walked out to meet him and he told me to
blow into the straw. I complied. He shook his head because, of course, the test was negative.
The officer told me his name and I responded by telling him mine and we shook hands. He told me to be safe walking home. He then wanted to know exactly where I lived and I gave him the street name and house number.
As I walked up the street and neared home, I looked up. Once again, he and the other officer passed by. I suppose they were checking to see if I went where I said I was going.
This was really dramatic and over the top. I was simply taking a walk.
I wasn’t falling into the street or staggering from one side to the other. I was walking. He had no cause to stop and embarrass me but called me out into the middle of the street for a breathalyzer. Fortunately, not one car drove by while he was doing that. It’s a small town and no one was out at 11:10 at night.
Almost no one gets out and walks in this town. If anybody has to go to the local convenience store, they drive their car even it’s just a block or two. Thus, maybe the police thought if someone was out walking then surely the person had to be up to no good or intoxicated.
I’m, very supportive of the police. I’m appreciative of all who work to keep us safe. We need good police officers protecting us. However, this was ridiculous.
Don’t harass people just because you are bored and have nothing else to do.
I feel sorry for the many people in this nation who have been racially profiled for years. They are often pulled over because they are Black or a different nationality. Sometimes people are pulled over if they are driving a red sports car or if they are someone who is an “outsider.”
Often small towns can be very cliquish. If they don’t know who you are or if you are not “one” of the community residents then you are immediately profiled as an outsider and outsiders are often disliked, shunned or just treated badly.
Freedom to move about the country is a wonderful privilege. Let us be appreciative of our freedom this fourth of July week.
He is the author of 13 books including UncommSense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
by Jyoti Madhusoodana
In a now-classic series of experiments, researchers teased out the deep-rooted nature of human bias simply by distributing red shirts and blue shirts to groups of 3- to 5-year-olds at a day care center. In one classroom, teachers were asked to divide children into groups based on the color of their shirts. In another, teachers were instructed to overlook the shirt colors. After three weeks, children in both classrooms tended to prefer being with classmates who wore the same color as themselves—no matter what the teachers did.
Photo: Markus Winkler/Pixabay
This preference for people who seem to belong to our own tribe forms early and drives our choices throughout life. There appears to be no avoiding it: We are all biased. Even as we learn to sort shapes and colors and distinguish puppies from kittens, we also learn to categorize people on the basis of traits they seem to share. We might associate women who resemble our nannies, mothers, or grandmothers with nurturing or doing domestic labor. Or following centuries of racism, segregation, and entrenched cultural stereotypes, we might perceive dark-skinned men as more dangerous than others.
The biases we form quickly and early in life are surprisingly immutable. Biases are “sticky,” says Kristin Pauker, a psychology researcher at the University of Hawaii, “because they rely on this very fundamental thing that we all do. We naturally categorize things, and we want to have a positivity associated with the groups we’re in.” These associations are logical shortcuts that help us make quick decisions when navigating the world. But they also form the roots of often illogical attractions and revulsions, like red shirts versus blue shirts.
Our reflexive, implicit biases wreak devastating social harm. When we stereotype individuals based on gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or race, our mental stereotypes begin to drive our behavior and decisions, such as whom to hire, who we perceive as incompetent, delinquent, or worse. Earlier this year, for instance, an appeals court overturned a Black man’s conviction for heroin distribution and the 10-year prison sentence he received in part because the Detroit federal judge who handed down the original verdict admitted, “This guy looks like a criminal to me.”
People who live in racially homogeneous environments may struggle to distinguish faces of a different race from one another.
Correcting for the biases buried in our brains is difficult, but it is also hugely important. Because women are stereotyped as domestic, they are also generally seen as less professional. That attitude has reinforced a decades-long wage gap. Even today, women still earn only 82 cents for every dollar that men earn. Black men are perceived as more violent than white men, and thus are subjected to discriminatory policing and harsher prison sentences, as in the Detroit case. Clinicians’ implicit preferences for cisgender, heterosexual patients cause widespread inequities in health care for LGBTQ+ individuals.
“These biases are operating on huge numbers of people repetitively over time,” says Anthony Greenwald, a social psychologist at the University of Washington. “The effects of implicit biases accumulate to have great impact.”
Greenwald was one of the first researchers to recognize the scope of the problems created by our implicit biases. In the mid-1990s, he created early tests to study and understand implicit association. Along with colleagues Mahzarin Banaji, Brian Nosek, and others, he hoped that shining a light on the issue might quickly identify the tools needed to fix it. Being aware that our distorted thinking was hurting other people should be enough to give pause and force us to do better, they thought.
They were wrong. Although implicit bias training programs help people become aware of their biases, both anecdotal reports and controlled studies
have shown that the programs do little to reduce discriminatory behaviors spurred by those prejudices. “They fail in the most important respect,” Greenwald says. When he, Banaji, and Nosek developed the Implicit Association Test, he took it himself. He was distressed to discover that he automatically associated more positive words with the faces of white people, and more unfavorable words with people who were Black. “I didn't regard myself as a prejudiced person,” Greenwald says. “But I had this association nevertheless.”
His experience is not unusual. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures the speed of subjects’ responses as they match descriptors of people (such as Hispanic or gay) to qualities (such as attractiveness, athleticism, or being professional). It’s based on the idea that people react more quickly when they are matching qualities that are already strongly associated in their minds. Implicit bias exists separately from explicit opinion, so someone who honestly believes they don’t have anything against gay people, for instance, may still reveal a bias against them on the test. “A lot of people are surprised by their results,” Greenwald says. “This is very hard for people to come to grips with intuitively.”
People’s beliefs may not matter as much if they can be persuaded not to act on them.
One reason we are so often unaware of our implicit biases is that we begin to form these mental associations even before we can express a thought. Brain-imaging studies have found that six-month-old babies can identify individual monkey faces as well as individual humans. Just a dozen weeks later, nine-month-old babies retain the ability to identify human faces but begin to group all the monkey faces together generically as just “monkey,” losing the ability to spot individual features. Shortly after, babies begin to group human faces by race and ethnicity. Our adult brains echo these early learning patterns. People who live in racially homogeneous environments may struggle to distinguish faces of a different race from one another.
As it became clear how deeply ingrained these biases are—and how they might be unfathomable even to ourselves—researchers began to design new types of strategies to mitigate bias and its impact in society. By 2017, companies in the United States were spending $8 billion annually on diversity training efforts, including those
aimed at reducing unconscious stereotyping, according to management consulting firm McKinsey & Company. These trainings range from online educational videos to workshops lasting a few hours or days in which participants engage in activities such as word-association tests that help identify their internalized biases.
Recent data suggest that these efforts have been failing too. In 2019 researchers evaluatedthe effectiveness of 18 methods that aimed to reduce implicit bias, particularly pro-white and anti-Black bias. Only half the methods proved even temporarily effective, and they shared a common theme: They worked by giving study participants experiences that contradicted stereotypes. Reading a story with an evil white man and a dashing young Black hero, for example, reduced people’s association of Black men with criminality. Most of these strategies had fleeting effects that lasted only hours. The most effective ones reduced bias for only a few days at best.
Even when training reduced bias, it did little to reduce discriminatory outcomes. Beginning in early 2018, the New York City
Police Department began implicit bias training for its 36,000 personnel to reduce racial inequities in policing. When researchers evaluated the project in 2020, they found that most officers were aware of the problems created by implicit bias and were keen to address these harms, but their behaviors contradicted these intentions. Data on arrests, stops, and stop-and-frisk actions showed that officers who had completed the training were still more likely to take these actions against Black and Hispanic people. In fact, the training program hardly had any effect on the numbers.
This and similar studies have “thrown some cold water on just targeting implicit bias as a focus of intervention,” says Calvin Lai, a social psychologist at Washington University in St. Louis. Even if you are successful in changing implicit bias or making people more aware of it, “you can’t easily assume that people will be less discriminatory.”
But researchers are finding reason for hope.
Although the dozens of interventions tested so far have demonstrated limited long-term effects, some still show that people can be made more aware of implicit bias and can be moved to act more equitably, at least temporarily. In 2016, Lai and his colleagues tested eight ways of reducing unconscious bias in studies with college students. One of the interventions they tested involved participants reading a vividly portrayed scenario in which a white person assaulted them and a Black person came to their rescue. The story reinforced the connection between heroism and Black identity.
Other interventions were designed to heighten similar connections. For instance, one offered examples of famous Black individuals, such as Oprah Winfrey, and contrasted them with examples of infamous white people, including Adolf Hitler. Participants’ biases were gauged using the IAT both before and after these interventions. While the experiments tamped down bias temporarily, none of them made a difference just a few days later. “People go into the lab and do an intervention and there’s that immediate effect,” Pauker says.
From such small but significant successes, an insight began to emerge: Perhaps the reason implicit bias is stable is because we inhabit an environment that’s giving us the same messages again and again. Instead of trying to chip away at implicit bias merely by changing our minds, perhaps success depended on changing our environment.
The implicit associations we form—whether about classmates who wear the same color shirt or about people who look like us—are a product of our mental filing cabinets. But a lot of what’s in those filing cabinets is drawn from our culture and environment. Revise the cultural and social inputs, researchers like Kristin Pauker theorize, and you have a much greater likelihood of influencing implicit bias than you do by sending someone to a one-off class or training program.
Babies who start to blur monkey faces together do so because they learn, early on, that distinguishing human faces is more critical than telling other animals apart. Similarly, adults categorize individuals by race, gender, or disability status because these details serve as markers of something we’ve deemed important as a society. “We use certain categories because our environment says those are the ones that we should be paying attention to,” Pauker says.
Just as we are oblivious to many of the biases in our heads, we typically don’t notice the environmental cues that seed those biases. In a 2009 study, Pauker and her colleagues examined the cultural patterns depicted in 11 highly popular TV shows, including Grey’s Anatomy, Scrubs, and CSI Miami. The researchers tracked nonverbal interactions among characters on these shows and found that even when white and Black characters were equal in status and jobs and spoke for about the same amount of time, their nonverbal interactions differed. For instance, on-screen characters were less likely to smile at Black characters, and the latter were more often portrayed as stern or unfriendly.
Thinking of implicit bias as malleable allows us to constantly reframe our judgments about people we meet.
In a series of tests, Pauker and her colleagues found that regular viewers of such shows were more likely to have stronger anti-Black implicit biases on the IAT. But when the researchers asked viewers multiple-choice questions about bias in the video clips they saw, viewers’ responses about whether they’d witnessed pro-Black or pro-white bias were no better than random. They were being influenced by the bias embedded in the show, “but they were not able to explicitly detect it,” Pauker says.
Perhaps the most definitive proof that the outside world shapes our biases emerged from a recent study of attitudes toward homosexuality and race over decades. In 2019 Harvard University experimental psychologist Tessa Charlesworth and her colleagues analyzed the results of 4.4 million IATs taken by people between 2007 and 2016. The researchers found that anti-gay implicit bias had dropped about 33 percent over the years, while negative racial attitudes against people of color declined by about 17 percent.
The data were the first to definitively show that implicit attitudes can change in response to a shifting zeitgeist. The changes in attitudes weren’t due to any class or training program. Rather, they reflected societal changes, including marriage equality laws and protections against racial discrimination. Reducing explicit discrimination altered the implicit
attitudes instilled by cultures and communities—and thus helped people rearrange their mental associations and biases.
Until societal shifts occur, however, researchers are finding alternate ways to reduce the harms caused by implicit bias. People’s beliefs may not matter as much if they can be persuaded not to act on them. According to the new way of thinking, managers wouldn’t just enter training to reduce their bias. Instead, they could be trained to remove implicit bias from hiring decisions by setting clear criteria before they begin the hiring process.
Faced with a stack of resumes that reveal people’s names, ethnicities, or gender, an employer’s brain automatically starts
slotting them based on preconceived notions of who is more professional or worthy of a job. Then bias supersedes logic.
When we implicitly favor someone, we are more likely to regard their strengths as important. Consider, for example, a hiring manager who perceives men as more suited to a role than women. Meeting a male candidate with a low GPA but considerable work experience may lead the manager to think that real-world experience is what really matters. But if the man has a higher GPA and less experience, the manager might instead reason that the latter isn’t important because experience can be gained on the job.
To avoid this all-too-common scenario, employers could define specific criteria necessary for a role, then create a detailed list of
questions needed to evaluate those criteria and use these to create a structured interview. Deciding in advance whether education or work experience matters more can reduce this problem and lead to more equitable decisions. “You essentially sever the link between the bias and the behavior,” explains Benedek Kurdi, a psychologist at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign. “What you’re saying is the bias can remain, but you deprive it of the opportunity to influence decision making.”
In the long run, reducing the biases and injustices built into our environment is the only surefire path toward taming the harmful implicit biases in our heads. If we see a world with greater equity, our internal attitudes seem to adjust to interpret that as normal. There’s no magical way to make the whole world fair and equitable all at once. But it may be possible to help people envision a better world from the start so that their brains form fewer flawed associations in the first place.
To Pauker, achieving that goal means teaching children to be flexible in their thinking from an early age. Children gravitate toward same-race interactions by about the age of 10. In one study, Pauker and her colleagues found that offering stories to children that nudged them to think about racial bias as flexible made them more likely to explore mixed-race friendships. In another study, Pauker and team found that children who thought about prejudice as fixed had more uncomfortable interactions with friends of other races and eventually avoided them. But those who thought about prejudice as malleable—believing they could change their minds about people of other races—were less likely to avoid friends of other races.
The key, Pauker suggests, is not to rethink rigid mental categories but to encourage mental flexibility. Her approach, which encourages children to consider social categories as fluid constructs, appears to be more effective. The data are preliminary, but they offer a powerful route to change: simply being open to updating the traits we associate with different groups of people.
Thinking of implicit bias as malleable allows us to constantly reframe our judgments about people we meet—evaluating each unique individual for what they are, rather than reducing them to a few preconceived traits we associate with their race, gender, or other social category. Rather than trying to fight against our wariness toward out-groups, reconsidering our mental classifications in this manner allows us to embrace the complexity of human nature and experience, making more of the world feel like our in-group.
Blurring the implicit lines in our minds might be the first step to reducing disparities in the world we make.
This story is part of a series of OpenMind essays, podcasts, and videos supported by a generous grant from the Pulitzer Center's Truth Decay initiative.
StatePoint Media - While many Americans have financial concerns about the future, these anxieties are far more prominent among the LGBTQ+ community.
LGBTQ+ adults 60 and older earn less money and have more trouble paying their rent, mortgage, and other expenses than their non-LGBTQ+ peers, according to research from the Leading Age LTSS Center @UMass Boston and the National Council on Aging. SAGE, the world’s largest and oldest organization dedicated to improving the lives of LGBTQ+ elders, reports that 51% of LGBTQ+ elders are very or extremely concerned about simply having enough money to live on, compared to 36% of their non-LGBTQ+ peers.
Economic experts say that this financial security gap is a direct legacy of past governmental policies that put LGBTQ+ adults at a financial disadvantage, as well as ongoing discrimination that makes it harder for members of this community to secure employment, inclusive healthcare, family support and other fundamentals many take for granted throughout their lives and as they age.
Recent efforts are helping improve outcomes for the most vulnerable members of the community. For example, SAGECents is a digital financial wellness tool created specifically for the estimated 3 million LGBTQ+ Americans currently over 50, to help increase financial stability and reduce economic stress.
Launched in 2020, SAGECents is a collaboration between SAGE and LifeCents, a financial wellness technology and consulting firm, with the tool fully funded by the Wells Fargo Foundation.
This groundbreaking program is putting financial wellness into the palm of people’s hands. By creating a free account, SAGECents assesses each participant’s financial health, giving them much needed insights into their financial lives and a starting point to help them make financial decisions that improve their financial wellbeing. This includes information such as what benefits are available through Medicare, how to create a health proxy and a living will, and tips for increasing credit scores.
The app can also pair users with certified, LGBTQ-proficient financial counselors. Nearly 50% of SAGECents participants report saving an average of $571, more than 38% have reduced their debt an average of $591, and 39% have raised their credit score an average of 26 points. To learn more, visit sageusa.org.
“This is the generation that fought at Stonewall, and beyond, for the rights that so many of us enjoy. But sadly, this also is a generation that faced years of discrimination and underemployment and they are struggling financially in their later years,” says Christina DaCosta, SAGE chief experience officer. “Through the comprehensive resources and tools offered by SAGECents, we aim to empower and support these elders to achieve financial prosperity.”
In addition to widening access to financial tools for individuals, the Wells Fargo Foundation also supports SAGE’s efforts to break down the barriers responsible for this financial security gap, such as advocating against housing discrimination.
“At the root of the financial security gap is systemic discrimination. Tackling those issues is at the heart of our company’s efforts to create a stable financial future for members of the LGBTQ+ community,” says Ben-James Brown, Financial Health Philanthropy, Wells Fargo Foundation.
Imagine you sit on the admissions committee of a major medical school where only one slot remains available for the 2023 entering class. You must select between two candidates: one Latino, one white—both qualified.
Liam, the white student, is the son of an affluent lawyer. He scored 507 out of a possible 528 points on the MCAT; his GPA is 3.76. The son of a poor immigrant from Mexico, Jesse has the same MCAT score and GPA. Liam graduated from UCLA in four years with a pre-med major and a minor in business. Jesse graduated from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo in five and a half years with a biology major.
Whom do you choose? Do you expand the opportunities for minorities to compensate for previous discrimination?
“Affirmative action is reverse discrimination,” one person opines. “We should select the most qualified person. We should not discriminate against an applicant simply because he’s affluent.”
“I’m disgusted with these social programs that liberals are shoving down our throats,“ remarks another. “The government has no right fiddling in the business of private schools. Liam graduated from one of the nation’s most prestigious universities while Jesse matriculated through an obscure school and took much longer to graduate. ”
“But Jesse has had fewer opportunities than Liam,” another remarks. “Given the same entitlements, he would have scored higher than Liam. I’m sure Jesse took longer to graduate simply because he had to work to help support his family.”
“Since there are fewer minorities in the healthcare field,” someone states, “We must give Jesse this opportunity.”
“It bothered me to hear stereotypes about minorities.”
Someone who had yet to speak finally chimes in, “Let’s use a mile footrace as example: Two runners, one white, one black. The race begins. The white runner dashes out for an early lead. The black runner, as it turns out, has a 20-lb. iron ball attached to a chain around his ankle. He can barely move; yet he perseveres. Someone yells, “That’s not fair!”
“The official unlocks the ball and chain but even so the black runner remains far behind. It’s still not fair even though both runners now are unfettered. Equal treatment is not enough. We must compensate for previous inequality.”
The argument continues, the dialogue full of passion, adamancy and outrage. No consensus emerges.
The “committee members” are actually SMU students role-taking in my “Minority-Dominant Relations” class offered through the Sociology Department and Ethnic Studies program. We examine ethnic groups with unequal power in the US. In order to delve into social inequality, students scrutinize their own assumptions, stereotypes and prejudices.
“It was a tense and painful discussion,” says a Black female. “Some of us carried on our debate after class and into the next day at the student center. Some began to recognize attitudes in themselves that they didn’t know existed. “
“It bothered me to hear stereotypes about minorities,” states a Latino on the football team. “But that’s part of the learning process in this course.”
As students debate, I remain in the background, walking quietly among discussion groups, watching, listening, taking mental notes. I have engaged in such observation all my life, as the son a Mexican American mother whose family is from San Miguel de Alto, Jalisco and a father who had immigrated to the US from Sicily and had never graduated high school.
Democracy is more than majority rule— more than a mama puma, her cub and a white-tailed deer voting on what to have for lunch. It is also the protection of minority rights to prevent dominion of the minority by the majority. Diversity ensures respect for distinctive identities and protects those at greatest risk of being displaced and alienated internally within the US. On September 17, 1787, the Constitution's framers codified minority rights by structuring equality between states in the Senate (and representation of state populations in the House).
Apparently, SCOTUS never seemed to mind that affirmative action for white males has traditionally prevailed in society’s economic, political, military, educational, law enforcement and criminal justice institutions. Legacy admissions continue affirmative action for white males. Large, pervasive and disproportionately high rates of student loan debts perpetuate social stratification.
Diversity is not a zero-sum game. Society suffers when diverse elements are excluded from decision-making processes and leadership positions.
Lack of diversity harms both individual victims of exclusion and society at large. The harm to individuals, especially children, includes damage to psyches (depression, internalized anger, lowered self-esteem). There are also physical harms (high blood pressure, rapid shallow breathing, insomnia). Finally, lowered monetary and social opportunities pressure minorities to recoil from exclusive and discriminatory settings and become guarded and vigilant. If you do not have a seat at the table, you are probably on the menu.
Diversity is not a zero-sum game. Society suffers when diverse elements are excluded from decision-making processes and leadership positions. The most serious harm is at the macro societal level. Societies have used affirmative action for white males to stereotype categories of people as unintelligent, dangerous, or menacing. Such labels have been used to justify slavery, segregation, removal of indigenous people and genocide. Lack of diversity is perhaps most treacherous when its effects are slow-developing, largely unnoticed and toxic like carbon monoxide.
The lack of diversity is dysfunctional; it silences and marginalizes minorities depriving communities of their voices and contributions. The goal of the First Amendment is to energize speech and dialogue. A society without diversity curtails the spirit of the debate of ideas. It reveals to minorities nothing of which they are not already aware. It censors minorities and emboldens the majority with entitlement. Lack of diversity has damaging consequences, conveys exclusive uncertainty for youth, and desensitizes a society with ramifications that can extend from crucial injustice to outright atrocity. If we fail to take affirmative steps, the social unrest and violence proceeding the murder of George Floyd while in police custody will inescapably pale in terms of what lies ahead.
Anthony J. Cortese is Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences, SMU, Dallas Texas and sits on the Board of Directors of SMU’s Retired Faculty Association. Cortese has served as Director of Chicano Studies, Colorado State University and Director of Ethnic Studies and Director of Mexican American Studies at SMU.
Other opinions worth noting:
Fining kids by the Illinois criminal justice system needs to end
by Officer Dave Franco (Ret.)
From my perspective, after 31 years in law enforcement and now as an adjunct professor teaching Juvenile Justice Administration at Wright College in Chicago, failure is when people involved in the justice system are left without the means to create a better future for themselves and their families. Across communities, those means can take many shapes.
...
No doubt life is always changing. If you don’t like the weather it will change, eventually. It’s been hot most all over but cooler weather will come. In most of the country, cooler weather will be welcomed sooner rather than later.
...
"In times of war, the enemy gets a vote." Those words are particularly relevant today, as tensions build between the U.S. and Russia.
But this all seems eerily familiar.
As Americans, we need to ask ourselves how we would feel if Russia ...
Starting Jan. 1, a new law goes into effect banning hair discrimination in Illinois schools.
Studies have shown one in five Black women working in office or sales settings said they had to alter their natural hair at work to feel accepted, and Black students are far more likely to be suspended for dress-code or hair violations.
Sen. Mike Simmons, D-Chicago, introduced the legislation and noted it will be against the law to tell any kid in any Illinois school they cannot wear their hair in the ways traditionally associated with race and ethnicity.
"This is especially relevant for Black youth, Black children," Simmons explained. "You're not going to be able to send Black kids home and say you can't have dreadlocks, you can't have braids, you can't have twists. All of that is over in Illinois."
The bill is known as the Jett Hawkins Act, after a four-year-old boy whose mother was spurred to action when he was asked to take out his braids when he went to school. Illinois joins 13 other states which have passed similar bills, some also extending protections to the workplace as well.
Simmons hopes more states and the federal government will take up legislation to protect against hair discrimination.
"Something as natural as one's hair has absolutely nothing to do with learning," Simmons asserted. "And so we want to make sure that schools are completely focused on learning, creativity, healing, and not these other things that are rooted in a very discriminatory past."
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination, but federal court precedent only protects people who wear their hair in Afros, and not other natural hairstyles.
The St. Joseph-Ogden soccer team hosted Oakwood-Salt Fork in their home season opener on Monday. After a strong start, the Spartans fell after a strong second-half rally by the Comets, falling 5-1. Here are 33 photos from the game.
