Ed Feulner: Arizona’s ‘hair police’ example of government overreach |
Featured Commentary

Ed Feulner: Arizona’s ‘hair police’ example of government overreach


Few things could be more American than volunteering to help others. So it’s a shame when our altruism is thwarted by another, far more lamentable American trait: big government.

Juan Carlos Montes de Oca knows firsthand. A cosmetology student from Tucson, Montes de Oca felt inspired when he heard about a barber in London who donated haircuts to the homeless. So he decided to do the same for homeless veterans in Arizona.

He did this to give the veterans a better appearance and a more positive outlook when applying for jobs.

Well, we can’t have that, can we? So, to the rescue rides what the Arizona Republic referred to as “the hair police” — the Arizona State Board of Cosmetology. It turns out Montes de Oca was giving these haircuts despite the fact that he hadn’t graduated from cosmetology school and didn’t have a license.

What a monster! Grab the torches and pitchforks! It seems you can’t just set up shop and start shearing locks in the Grand Canyon state, no matter how talented you may be. A state law requires 1,000 hours of training at a state-licensed school.

Montes de Oca wasn’t the first Arizona resident to run afoul of government overseers. As Republic reporter Kristin Haubrich noted: “A dozen years ago, they swooped down on a 23-year-old Glendale woman who was braiding the hair of African-Americans. The cosmetology cops informed Essence that she’d have to get a license to do that which she’d been doing since she was 13 years old.

“To get that license, she would have to take 1,600 hours of classes at a state-approved cosmetology school, paying tuition of $10,000 or more to learn everything from how to cut and curl to how to manicure and massage. Everything, that is, but how to braid hair.”

The state legislature passed a law to fix this, but then along came the case of Juana, a 24-year-old eyebrow threader. She had been doing this kind of work for eight years, but the “cosmetology cops” told her she’d have to stop. Only a licensed aesthetician could do such work.

Juana, the Republic reported, would “need 600 hours of state-approved classes, learning everything from laser safety to Botox theory, from how to apply chemical peels and how to tint eyelashes. Everything, that is, but how to remove hair with a thread.”

It took a long fight and a lawsuit to get that requirement fixed. But you can never rest easy where government is concerned — as soon as you pluck one bureaucratic weed, another starts growing in its place.

Which brings us back to the case of Montes de Oca. His plight has captured the attention of Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, who noted that a cosmetology license requires “25 weeks (of training), more than an EMT, certified nursing assistant or truck driver.” He’s pushing to ease the draconian requirements for a cosmetology license.

Cases like this show us an eternal truth: The government’s natural tendency is to expand beyond its original tasks — to reach into the details of our everyday lives and dictate what we can and can’t do. That’s why we call it “the nanny state.”

Yes, the rules and regulations may be well-intentioned. But that doesn’t change the fact that this mission creep can cause real harm — or that we need to resist it at every turn.

Hair, after all, isn’t the only thing that needs to be cut. So does big government.

Ed Feulner is founder of The Heritage Foundation.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.