The Badger Herald: Opinion: Appearance discrimination rampant around country

Opinion

Appearance discrimination rampant around country

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Also by Rachel Alkon:

Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:00 a.m.

5 Vote 0 Votes

For every beautiful person, there is a bulk of ugly folk. But amidst a corporate culture with a heavy emphasis on attractiveness, where should the unsightly seek jobs? And do recruiters have the right to discriminate against the less than gorgeous?

This summer I waited tables at the "trendiest" restaurant on Long Island — an upscale Italian bistro with an obnoxious, designer clientele. On my third day, an "average" looking waitress spontaneously was fired. When she stormed off, the wait staff held a gossip session, noting her admirable work ethic — we concluded that she was terminated because the greasy-haired, middle-aged owner found her unattractive.

At a stint as a waterfront cocktail waitress, a manager threatened to fire a slightly overweight girl, declaring her clothing "too revealing." The supervisor ignored the other waitresses' scantly clad attire, ranging from crop stretch T-shirts and risqué shorts to cleavage-baring corsets. This year, the establishment attempted to create a more equal work environment by implementing a dress code; notwithstanding the new policy, a heavy-set waitress will never be hired to carry martinis.

Appearance discrimination, unlike more publicized forms of discrimination, is challenging to document. By law, companies are required to keep the applications of candidates on file; oftentimes these forms contain optional questions about race, sex, and country of origin and can serve as evidence in discrimination lawsuits. But because lookism — the discrimination or prejudice against people based on their appearance — is variable and determined by the interviewer's perspective, tracking an instance of wrongdoing is a close to impossible feat.

As the old cliché states, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and the only consistent factor in determining beauty is sexual attractiveness. Assuming a strikingly good-looking candidate meets the general criteria, he/she will outshine a heavy-set and unattractive candidate.

Discrimination laws ban racism, sexism and ageism, but no federal law bans prejudice based on appearance. In an interview, candidates can be eliminated solely based on their looks sans measurable evidence.

A string of studies show that the overweight and unattractive fare worse in obtaining jobs. The research of two academic economists, Daniel Hamermesh and Jeff Biddle, reveal that pretty people earn more money. People perceived as "good-looking" earned about 10 percent more than those perceived as "homely." Researchers at Harvard School of Public Health found that fat women had "household incomes nearly $7,000 a year below average." Another recent study cited in London's "Financial Times" states that "the average American male chief executive is three inches taller than his plebeian counterpart."

In August, John Stossel hosted an ABC News special entitled "Like it or Not, Looks do Matter." The show argued America is anything but a meritocracy, citing a study that links beauty and addiction. A team of doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts Institute of Technology used MRI technology to monitor the activity in men's brains when shown pictures of beautiful women. The researchers concluded that "the same part of the brain lights up as when a hungry person sees food, or a gambler eyes cash, or a drug addict sees a fix." While such evidence explains why employers discriminate against revolting individuals, it fails to explain a solution to the problem — how can we avoid lookism?

Like the overweight and unattractive, the vertically challenged and vertically gifted face prejudice, but on a less severe level. As kids, the too tall are forced to duck on the school bus; but later in life, the vertically gifted are perceived to be more competent, intelligent and possess better leadership qualities, according to a University of Pennsylvania study.

For safety reasons, airlines are the most discriminatory. Commercial carriers have minimum and maximum height requirements — they claim that short people (under 5-ft.-2) will have difficulty reaching overhead compartments and tall people will find long journeys in small galleys too confining. Once hired, flight attendants must maintain a proportionate height to weight ratio and stay physically fit. Unlike lookism, a form of unjust discrimination, these policies regulating height, weight, and physical ability are necessary prerequisites for satisfactory job performance.

In hiring and retaining employees, companies should not discriminate based on appearance. Despite research linking higher salaries with attractiveness and height, no conclusive study indicates the better looking are superior employees. Sure, handsome and pretty individuals are more sexual attractive, and thus may have an increased ability to flirt as a means of sealing a business deal, but beauty cannot be distinctly linked to quality or value of an employee.

If a job requires a certain physical attribute — such as being able to carry 50 pounds — then employers have the right to discriminate. But employers need to implement fair hiring practices based on social norms not model-like physiques.

Rachel Alkon (rfalkon@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in English/creative writing.

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | November 17, 2005 1:24 AM | Reply

did she teach emily how to write?

Anonymous | November 17, 2005 4:53 AM | Reply

Way to go, Rachel! It's an issue that's long overdue. Thanks for bringing it up.

Anonymous | November 17, 2005 9:11 AM | Reply

Kurt Vonnegut Jr's "Harrison Bergeron" provides the solution!

***

The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Some things about living still weren't quite right, though. April, for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.

It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn't think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
***
"That dance--it was nice," said Hazel.

"Yup," said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren't really very good-no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn't be handicapped. But he didn't get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.

George winced. So did two of the eight ballerinas.

http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2004/10/17/harrison_bergeron.html

Anonymous | November 17, 2005 11:59 AM | Reply

Just can't wait to see the strip joints implement these suggestions!

Anonymous | June 5, 2006 11:29 AM | Reply

this is a timely discussion. i have been thin and over 40, not too much discrimination. but due to medical problems, i have gained weight, and lo, i have been denied 2 promotions given to thin young people straigt out of college, no previous experience