On Serving Justice for Hair-raising Racism

By Lawrence Rubin

Published April 20, 2007, issue of April 20, 2007.
  • Print
  • Share Share

The current controversy swirling around shock-jock Don Imus’s crude description of the Rutgers University women’s basketball players as “nappy-headed hos” recalls an incident from another time when tightly curled hair — this time on the head of a Jewish music professor — played a dramatic, though ultimately minor, role in the struggle against segregation.

This is how I remember it: For many years, Gegner’s and Squire’s barbershops in Yellow Springs, Ohio, were notorious for their refusal to cut black men’s hair. Each proprietor insisted that he hadn’t the skill or training to do so.

In a community known for its outspoken liberalism, the adamant refusal of these two barbershops to serve black clients roiled the town. In 1960, the Antioch College chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — known with a certain cynical pridefulness as the largest NAACP chapter on a predominantly white campus — decided to initiate a test case against both businesses. I was chapter president at the time.

In a coordinated plan, black students accompanied by white colleagues entered each shop and demanded haircuts. The atmosphere in both small places was tense, ominous. Neither side seemed to know what to expect.

At Squire’s, we were surprised when the owner nervously complied. Almost like teenagers fumbling awkwardly on a date, the student and the barber quietly talked their way uneasily through the process. At bottom, the fact of the haircut was more important than its quality. From that day forward, Squire’s was no longer an issue.

Lewis Gegner, however, once again refused to cut a black man’s hair. “Son,” he said, “you know I don’t cut Negro hair.”

With the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, Gegner was charged under an Ohio public accommodations statute for failure to comply with a request for service. The trial in nearby Xenia was seriocomic: TV’s “Night Court” meets C-SPAN.

For those of us from the Antioch NAACP, the proceedings were profoundly important. Yellow Springs, at least in our minds, was now a center in the still-nascent struggle for civil rights in America, and this case was most assuredly a litmus test about the effective use of the law to address racial injustice in society.

You can imagine our outrage when the defense attorney kept insinuating that the ACLU represented a pinko, un-American cabal maliciously striving to deprive poor Lewis Gegner, a hardworking and independent American, of his livelihood. Even worse, counsel insisted on referring to that august organization as the UCLA. (A rabid Ohio State fan with a hatred for Bruin basketball, I could only wonder?)

At first, we thought counsel was merely stupid. Then we realized that he was cleverly appealing to the nativist, anti-communist sentiments of the jury. Remember, this was 1960. We writhed.

We were incensed, as well, when the defense called its star witness, the proprietor of the local barbershop that catered to the Yellow Springs black community. Derisively, as if it were as clear as the nose on your face, he harrumphed that of course black hair is different, and it takes a special talent — his, as it so happened — to cut it properly. How cynical, we thought, to betray one’s own community just to make a living.

The defense rested.

Things clearly weren’t going well for the prosecution. Then, in a Perry Mason moment, the state called a professor named David Epstein to the stand. Wearing a suit and tie, Epstein was duly sworn in. In brief testimony, when asked where he got his previous two haircuts, Epstein answered quietly, “Gegner’s.”

“Would you please show the jury your hair,” the prosecuting attorney requested. Epstein slowly bowed his head toward the jury box, revealing a full head of tight, dark, kinky curls. You could hear a pin drop.

After the guilty verdict was announced, a number of jury members said that it was Epstein’s hair that convinced them Gegner had, in fact, discriminated against blacks at his barbershop.

I wish I could say that the case ended there, but it didn’t. As in the Scopes “Monkey Trial” of 1925, Gegner, though found guilty, was reportedly fined only $1 and went back to his discriminatory ways.

Yet where the law fell short, civil disobedience finally made a difference. I had already graduated when, in 1964, hundreds of Antioch students and others held a mass protest and sit-in in front of Gegner’s barbershop. Though many were arrested, Gegner finally hung up his for-whites-only scissors and closed his doors forever.

Lawrence Rubin is writing a book on the black-Jewish encounter in American literature.


The Jewish Daily Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Jewish Daily Forwardrequires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and The Jewish Daily Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.





Find us on Facebook!
  • The rose petals have settled, and Andi has made her (Jewish?) choice. We look back on the #Bachelorette finale:
  • "Despite the great pain and sadness surrounding a captured soldier, this should not shape the face of this particular conflict – not in making concessions and not in negotiations, not in sobering assessments of this operation’s achievements or the need to either retreat or move forward." Do you agree?
  • Why genocide is always wrong, period. And the fact that some are talking about it shows just how much damage the war in Gaza has already done.
  • Construction workers found a 75-year-old deli sign behind a closing Harlem bodega earlier this month. Should it be preserved?
  • "The painful irony in Israel’s current dilemma is that it has been here before." Read J.J. Goldberg's latest analysis of the conflict:
  • Law professor Dan Markel waited a shocking 19 minutes for an ambulance as he lay dying after being ambushed in his driveway. Read the stunning 911 transcript as neighbor pleaded for help.
  • Happy birthday to the Boy Who Lived! July 31 marks the day that Harry Potter — and his creator, J.K. Rowling — first entered the world. Harry is a loyal Gryffindorian, a matchless wizard, a native Parseltongue speaker, and…a Jew?
  • "Orwell would side with Israel for building a flourishing democracy, rather than Hamas, which imposed a floundering dictatorship. He would applaud the IDF, which warns civilians before bombing them in a justified war, not Hamas terrorists who cower behind their own civilians, target neighboring civilians, and planned to swarm civilian settlements on the Jewish New Year." Read Gil Troy's response to Daniel May's opinion piece:
  • "My dear Penelope, when you accuse Israel of committing 'genocide,' do you actually know what you are talking about?"
  • What's for #Shabbat dinner? Try Molly Yeh's coconut quinoa with dates and nuts. Recipe here:
  • Can animals suffer from PTSD?
  • Is anti-Zionism the new anti-Semitism?
  • "I thought I was the only Jew on a Harley Davidson, but I was wrong." — Gil Paul, member of the Hillel's Angels. http://jd.fo/g4cjH
  • “This is a dangerous region, even for people who don’t live there and say, merely express the mildest of concern about the humanitarian tragedy of civilians who have nothing to do with the warring factions, only to catch a rash of *** (bleeped) from everyone who went to your bar mitzvah! Statute of limitations! Look, a $50 savings bond does not buy you a lifetime of criticism.”
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.