Going for the Look but Risking Discrimination

“We all know that appearance matters, but the price of prejudice can be steeper than we often assume” (Washington1.) Published originally in the Washington Post on May 23,2010 by Deborah L. Rhode. Rhode the Professor of law and legal director at Stanford University in her essay “Why Looks Are The Last Bastion Of Discrimination,” argues that an individual's physical appearance is one of the few qualities of their personal identity that other people are legally within their rights to discriminate against. Rhode states her thesis clearly explaining the forthcoming reasons she will offer to uphold her position. Rhode believes that discriminating against individuals based on their appearance is wrong, and is often overlooked in many environments such as the workforce. Many think it is crucial that discrimination on looks is banned in workplaces, schools, and most other organizations.

Deborah L. Rhode, a law professor at Stanford University and author, has written or co-written over twenty-seven books in the genre of “professional responsibility, leadership, and gender,” and published editorials in the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and Slate. On May 23, 2010, an editorial by Rhode titled, “Why Looks are the Last Bastion of Discrimination,” was published in the Washington Post. This article argues for the need of stricter anti-discrimination laws after proving that the United States’ bias towards more attractive people severely impacts one’s ability to obtain jobs and other opportunities. Rhode follows Toulmin’s model of argument which states that an argument must incorporate data, a claim, warrants, qualifiers,

Why women are discounted by employers and not men is interesting. Men have judged women based on their looks for years even in the workplace. This is a form of sexual objectification and undervaluing women according to Caroline Heldman, (2013). One would think that due to The Equal Pay Act that positive business acumen would be practiced for the greatest good based on skill and not using discriminatory practices based on sex and looks. The utilitarian theory will be evaluated to identify the greatest good for the greatest number as it pertains to women being discounted and

Today’s jobseeker has tough competition. In our text book readings “Judging by the Cover” (657-658), Bonny Gainley begins the argument of the paper by stating that job seekers must be careful when they make personal choices that initially will affect their chances of entering the workplace. People have a need to be accepted by others just the way they are, in the same way people continue to say, “you can’t judge a book by its cover”, yet people do based solely on their personal appearances. That goes for businesses as well, “[t]he bottom line is that businesses exist to make money. Whether it seems fair or not, most employers do care about the personal appearances of the people they hire because those people represent the business to its customers”.

Companies that discriminate on basis of a host of job-irrelevant issues, comprising race, sexual orientation, gender, disability, age and ethnicity put themselves at a competitive disadvantage as opposed to companies that appraise employees solely on their credentials and qualifications to work well. Given the high rates of discrimination encountering the workforce today, discrimination based on racial discrimination and sexual orientation represents an actual hazard to the profitability of companies (Oeo.tufts.edu, 2015). This essay discusses the non-discrimination policy of the Home depot company.

“Judging by the Cover,” is an essay written in 2003 by Bonny Gainley who is a consultant, speaker, and author. It originally appeared in an opinion column in a Colorado newspaper. Although non-discriminatory, she believes that people project messages about themselves with their appearance. This essay seems to be intended for recent graduates and young job seekers. The main point that she tries to explain to the reader is that even though our family and friends may accept us for who we are, employers may not.

For job advertisements, the EEOC has said it is illegal to publish an advertisement for a job that shows a preference for or discourages someone from applying for a job because of race, religion, excreta. When recruiting it is illegal to recruit new employees in a way that discriminates against them. It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee when it comes to wages and benefits. When it comes to employees with disabilities, the employer must make reasonable accommodations for the employee, unless it causes excessive expense or burden on the business. It is always illegal to harass employees based on religion, sex, color, race, and etcetera. When it comes to an employment application, employers are not allowed to ask questions regarding, race, height and weight, financial information, religious affiliation, marital status, and any medical questions, unless it would interfere with properly doing the

According to Deborah Rhode in her essay “Why Looks Are the Last Bastion of Discrimination”looks and discrimination are based on physical appearance. This includes height, weight, body shape, disfigurement,skin conditions, scars, and even birthmarks. Rhode’s ideas do apply to discrimination, because nearly thirty percent of women reported experiencing discrimination in 2013.

Steven Greenhouse, writer for New York Times, states in his article “Going for the Look,but Risking Discrimination”, that companies are hiring people based only on how attractive they look and are risking discrimination because of it. Greenhouse then supports his claim by giving examples, like L’Oreal, Gap, Abercrombie & Fitch, and W Hotel. He next proceeds to show that hiring based off looks can result in lawsuits and discrimination. Finally, he informs that stores have hired good looking people who are incompetent rather than hiring someone who is not that good looking but is experienced. Greenhouse’s purpose is to show that although it is not illegal to only hire attractive people, it might not be morally correct to just hire on looks.

4. Discriminating based on sex or race is without exception something that is officially seen upon as highly despicable, without stating that it does not happen. One cannot choose whether to be born man or women neither can one choose what race to be born into. However, one can decide upon the level of human capital that one wants to posses. Education, experience, training, work habits etc. are elements that can be acquired

The stores attracted customers with “physical attractiveness” of the store employees and quite clearly there is an argument of unconscious bias in the practice of hiring employees based on physical attractiveness as considered by Shahani-Denning (2003) in the study. Although numerous lawsuits under employment legislation were filed, most of them were based on conscious discrimination and quite interestingly there are no laws governing discriminatory practices under hiring based on “physical attractiveness”. However the brand image of Abercrombie and Fitch is dependent on the outward projection of physical appearance and hence there is a rationale for the argument of hiring physically attractive store staff to attract more

Personally I see this world of salesmanship and such value being put on image everyday in the world of business. Sad but true, that many employers hire first off based on what that candidate looks like as they walk up to the interview room. Image without substance; what ever happened to what that

Wolf discusses the effect that these standards are having on women in the workplace. A woman’s beauty, or lack of it, can be used against her. In 1986, Mechelle Vinson lost a sexual harassment case. “Vinson was young and ‘beautiful’ and carefully dressed. The district court ruled that her appearance counted against her.” (Wolf 38) “In Hopkins v. Price-Waterhouse, Ms. Hopkins was denied a partnership because she needed to learn to ‘walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely,’ and ‘wear makeup’.” She brought in more business than any other employee. (Wolf 39)

Lookism is a more and more pressing problem for companies and corporations, that strive to create an equal opportunities work space. The definition of lookism is “bias or discrimination against individuals on the basis of appearance, often unconscious.” This discrimination refers to both people who are not perceived as attractive and those who have to deal with the stereotypes connected to being exceptionally good-looking.

The article proposes that there is a positive relationship between beauty and labour market earnings and the impact of beauty is higher for men than women. However, the article fails to answer an important question: is the impact of beauty due to pure discrimination or