Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Ban Beauty Bias? (And The Horse It Rhode In On...)

Deborah Rhode, a Stanford law professor, has a new book, The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Life and Law, calling for banning beauty bias. (See here for a favorable review.)

Rhode notes in a recent Washington Post OpEd that lookism is pervasive.

• According to a poll by the Employment Law Alliance, ?16 percent of workers reported being victims of appearance discrimination ... ?;

• From a whole bunch of studies: ?Unattractive people are less likely to be hired and promoted, and they earn lower salaries?;

• One study estimated that prejudice against ugly lawyers ?can translate to a pay cut of as much as 12 percent?;

• ?Not even justice is blind. In studies that simulate legal proceedings, unattractive plaintiffs receive lower damage awards.?
  

Rhode argues that lookism is just like racism or sexism, and should be prohibited by similar anti-discrimination statutes.

Just like racial or gender discrimination, discrimination based on irrelevant physical characteristics reinforces invidious stereotypes and undermines equal-opportunity principles based on merit and performance....

Appearance-related bias also exacerbates disadvantages based on gender, race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation and class. Prevailing beauty standards penalize people who lack the time and money to invest in their appearance. And weight discrimination, in particular, imposes special costs on people who live in communities with shortages of healthy food options and exercise facilities

Fine. But before we rush into this called-for expansion of the anti-discrimination regime, we should be clear that if the same standards are applied to banning beauty bias that prevail today for banning race discrimination, it will not be long before employers, universities, etc., will be accused of discriminating against the unattractive if ugly people are ?underrepresented,? accusations that will be followed by demands that ?goals? and ?timetables? for hiring/admitting more of them must be submitted to governmental monitors. And what of all the advertising promoting ?beauty? products? Don't such ads reinforce invidious stereotypes?

It?s not a pretty picture. (In fact, phrases like ?pretty picture? may soon be condemned as insensitive.)

Full post as published by Discriminations on June 14, 2010 (boomark / email).