Discriminatory Practices

Discussion Questions:

In today’s society looks are everything. Looks can get you in the door of a nice club, can help you find a more suitable mate, and can even result in better salary. The problem with instituting any form of social remedy to counteract appearance-based work related discrimination is that appearance is entirely subjective. If we go down the road towards preventing discrimination based on natural attributes, then what is next? Do we require athletes of average skill be rewarded with scholarships and contracts based on their attempted effort, regardless of the desired outcomes achieved? A study in part by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that attractive lawyers not only earned more at large law firms but also in private practice, suggesting that better looking people were generally more appealing to potential clients as well as major employers.

The argument that humans are naturally attracted to or repelled by another based on looks is quite simply factual. There is no Federal law that prohibits discrimination based on looks, although just as with the myriad of other protections available, proving such discrimination would be difficult, outside of it being blatant. “Lookism” is the buzz word surrounding “facial discrimination” and refers to those of beauty receiving preferential treatment. Research has shown that even height plays a significant factor in being found attractive. This type of preference towards those who fit a particular cultural norm has been the status quo throughout history. In the 19th century, many American cities banned public appearances by “unsightly” individuals. Even Chicago held an ordinance requiring fines for exposing one’s self. It would be ignorant to think that we’ve somehow progressed from prejudice on the basis of physical appearance.

I think in all three of the examples you provided, attractiveness is a relevant feature. I think in ALL careers, attractiveness plays a role in landing the job to...