For A Moment, I Was Sure It Was "The Onion"
Affirmative action for ugly people? Yep. Daniel S. Hamermesh, author of the soon-to-be-published book, "Beauty Pays," is actually suggesting that, writing in The New York Times:
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.
It gets really good when he gets into figuring out who's ugly:
For purposes of administering a law, we surely could agree on who is truly ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population. The difficulties in classification are little greater than those faced in deciding who qualifies for protection on grounds of disabilities that limit the activities of daily life, as shown by conflicting decisions in numerous legal cases involving obesity.There are other possible objections. "Ugliness" is not a personal trait that many people choose to embrace; those whom we classify as protected might not be willing to admit that they are ugly. But with the chance of obtaining extra pay and promotions amounting to $230,000 in lost lifetime earnings, there's a large enough incentive to do so.
His idea of how this plays out:
We face a trade-off: ignore a deserving group of citizens, or help them but limit help available for other groups.
I am consistently amazed by adult, grownup people who think that the answer to making life "fair" -- as if it can be made fair -- is to take money out of one person's pocket and hand it to another.
Let's this to the next step. I am not an NBA-quality basketball player. In fact, if there were a bet that I could make a basket, I would urge every one of you to bet against me.
Of course, what this means, Hamermesh-style, is that I should get a lifetime of basketball camp scholarships and various other handouts because...well, because I'm no Kobe. (In fact, as basketball acumen goes, if Kobe has a blind great aunt who's on her deathbed, I'm no Kobe's blind great aunt who's on her deathbed.)
we surely could agree on who is truly ugly
Not likely. Not at the level of the "worst" 1 or 2 percent. We could probably come up with consensus on a region. But not to the degree were you could administer the a program.
I think some of dis-ability of stuff is ridiculous. I mean if they can do the job fine, small accommodation fine (e.g. a co-worker cannot sit for long periods of time so they have a special desk that can be raised so they can work standing up). The shocker for me was an article praising the company -- we have an employee who has a personal assistant that in all reality is the one doing the job. Plus, others have to help if s/he needs to use the restroom. But we cannot discriminate.
The Former Banker at August 28, 2011 11:39 PM
Read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. Written back in 1961.
DrCos at August 29, 2011 4:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/29/for_a_moment_i.html#comment-2450701">comment from DrCosGreat, Dr. Cos. Here's a quote from it:
Another quote:
(If you were smarter than other people, you had to have a radio always playing in your head so you'd be dumbed down to everyone else's level.)
Online here:
http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=825
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2011 5:40 AM
Hamermesh seems to be confused by his own argument. He's claiming a 10-15% spread between the top and bottom thirds. So why focus on the worst 1-2% and ignore the remaining 30% of uglies? He's not presenting any evidence that the effects intensify as you go up (down?) the ugly scale. I suspect that he's looking for a camel's nose and figures that people who actually look like a camel's nose are a good start.
Moe at August 29, 2011 5:58 AM
The only way to stop this nonsense is with merciless ridicule. If you are that ugly, there is always plastic surgery. Which you can easily afford with the $230,00 in extra lifetime earnings.
Next problem, please.
MarkD at August 29, 2011 6:38 AM
I read this article, and was incredulous. We get the Times on Sunday, as our local paper is getting worse and worse. (Especially since they dropped Amy's column. ;-}) However, reading the Times is painful. I read this just after a column about how Obama should have concentrated more on creating jobs. Like he and the government in general can create real (non-government) jobs! Wave your magic wand, Mr. Obama, and suddenly employment will be full! (Oh, wait: he already tried that. Never mind!) I guess I'll just have to stick to the Rook Review.
ken at August 29, 2011 6:38 AM
This sounds like something Hamermesh and his liberal elitist friends came up with it while drinking really expensive wine and smoking weed.
ahw at August 29, 2011 7:54 AM
Well, political Washington has been referred to as "Hollywood for ugly people," so the career path should be obvious...
david foster at August 29, 2011 8:03 AM
I am going to assume that he's arguing against Affirmative Action. There is NO way that someone could actually be that honest about the stupidity of what they are suggesting and not have tongue firmly in cheek. For the sake of my sanity, I refuse to accept it.
Tomare Utzo Zo at August 29, 2011 8:48 AM
Ugly people seem to get married easier. They don't face as much resistance.
Alexander Walker at August 29, 2011 10:00 AM
Hey - I'm ugly. Where do I sign up for dating subsidies?
brian at August 29, 2011 6:14 PM
I have met more than one female in my life that to look at, was a perfect 10. Then I started talking to the "person" and my penis tried to become an innie.
Do they qualify as "ugly"?
Jim P. at August 29, 2011 7:32 PM
Hey, just what the world needs: yet another fertile area for ADA lawsuits!
Cousin Dave at August 29, 2011 7:44 PM
Okay, so I haven't read the linked review of the book and I had never heard of Hamermesh before today.
Whether he's serious about this proposal or not, doesn't it illustrate the unfairness of affirmative action programs? As Amy noted, it sounds so ridiculous on its face that people might start to wonder about the actual victimhood level of other protected groups. Probably that was not an intended result but with enough publicity I could see that happening.
Miss Conduct at August 30, 2011 8:17 AM
Because being given special privileges on the grounds of being too ugly to function isn't at all embarrassing.
JonnyT at August 30, 2011 4:56 PM
I think that would probably be a good idea considering the fact that there is scientific evidence out there that ugly people really do have a harder time in life.
Arian Mount at August 30, 2011 11:45 PM
Here's the thing. Looks fade. A person ages and does not look the same. So then they would want affirmative action too? Seems silly. And true, beauty is in the eye of the holder. Agree with Bukowsky.
Kyle at August 31, 2011 1:07 AM
Leave a comment