Look Again

Dude, I hate that Britney Spears song."

"Me too. But she's so hot."

As a camp counselor, I learned that children can be astute social critics. As these two 12-year-olds realized, Britney Spears' record producers most likely hired her for her navel rather than her pitch. But Spears is not alone.

Studies show widespread appearance discrimination — lookism, as New York Times columnist William Safire called it in a recent article — in employment. One 1994 study found that below-average looking people earn five to 10 percent less than average-looking people, who earn about five percent less than people with above-average looks. Attractive people tend to enter occupations where their appearance might be beneficial, such as modeling. But good looks increase earnings even in occupations where beauty does not affect productivity, such as janitorial work. Another study found that obese women make less money and have lower family incomes than thinner women.

But appearance discrimination in employment is not illegal. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1964 banned discrimination based on sex, race, ethnicity or national origin. That list was expanded in 1978 to include age, and in 1990 to include disability. But physical appearance is not on the list. Should it be?

Lookism occurs not only in employment, but throughout our daily lives. As a day camp counselor, it doesn't take tendencies toward pedophilia to notice that the cutest little six-year-olds get the most attention from their peers and from their counselors. The kids feed off this attention and become more outgoing, more confident, giving them an edge in social situations — making friends and excelling at sports and other extracurriculars.

Most people will agree that laws like the Equal Employment Opportunity Act are necessary to protect individuals against discrimination based on characteristics such as sex, race and ethnicity. But what about discrimination based on ugliness?

One argument for equity laws that deal with discrimination based on race, sex and ethnicity is that we should not penalize people for having traits they cannot change. So is it realistic to to think that people can change their appearances? Sure, women can put on makeup and Al Gore can wear all the earth-toned polo shirts he wants. But, all things being equal, naturally attractive people tend to appear more beautiful than others.

The second reason we adopt laws against discrimination based on race, sex and ethnicity is that these traits have little to do with your abilities. Your skin color does not physiologically affect your ability to write a brief, play a sport or do well in college. And attractiveness doesn't either.

So what should we do about lookism? Should we include attractiveness in the Equal Employment Opportunity Act? The Civil Rights Act of 1964?

One could claim that appearance has complexities that race and sex do not. People usually agree on who's black and who's female. But people disagree on who's pretty and who's ugly. If someone brought a looks discrimination case to court, who could settle this dispute? Miss America judges? The plastic surgeons union? The American pimp society?

But let's get real. Though there are no absolutes, guys sitting around a bar will all turn their heads when a good-looking woman enters, just as 12-year-olds seem to agree that Britney Spears is hot. Why can't a jury do the same? Other types of discrimination yield the same gray areas. Can a person who is half Latino or one-eighth black sue for racial discrimination? Is Attention Deficit Disorder a disability? Lookism might be a tad impractical to prevent, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't get as much attention as other types of discrimination.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Even the Princeton admissions office should consider the detrimental implications of lookism within the context of its affirmative action policy. Affirmative action supporters usually cite two main reasons to adopt it as part of the University's admission policy — making amends for historical discrimination and promoting diversity in the student body.

Less attractive people fulfill both criteria: First, they have been historically discriminated against. And, second, more below average-looking people would increase diversity. How? The logic may not be pretty, but it works: Because people's level of attractiveness can determine how others react to them, people with sub-par looks have often had different life experiences. Life experiences aside, a broader spectrum of attractiveness might be a worthwhile goal. Shouldn't diversity be something we can all see with our eyes — as well as understand with our minds?

These claims might seem strange, especially since we don't yet know how harmful or pervasive lookism really is. But appearance discrimination is at the very least a sensible hypothesis for explaining why certain people succeed over others. Even Britney Spears' pseudo-autobiographical hit concedes, "She's so lucky."

And so hot. Zach Pincus-Roth is a philosophy major from Chevy Chase, Md. He can be reached at zacharyp@princeton.edu.