Are Uglo-Americans the next victim class? Stacy McCain ponders the question
Conclusively demonstrating that aesthetically impaired Americans suffer economic disadvantages, an academic writes in the New York Times:
A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?
We actually already do offer such protections in a few places, including in some jurisdictions in California, and in the District of Columbia, where discriminatory treatment based on looks in hiring, promotions, housing and other areas is prohibited. Ugliness could be protected generally in the United States by small extensions of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Ugly people could be allowed to seek help from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies in overcoming the effects of discrimination. We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly.
Now this could prove problematic for companies that hire attractive people couldn’t it? I mean think of the lawsuits brought by unattractive people who lose out on jobs to hot, sexy people?
Think of employers, what if they have two prospective new hires, one of which looks like Minka Kelly, while the other looks like, well, Rosie O’Donnell? Might they hire the Rosie look-a-like? Might such a case lead to a demand for equal protection for hotties? All of this is important to consider. I suppose Ed and I might want to rethink hiring that new intern now the one working her way through nursing school. DAMN!