- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Money
Video: Should Ugly People Be Protected by Affirmative Action Laws?
According to University of Texas at Austin professor Daniel Hamermesh, unattractive people should be legally protected against discrimination (video below).
Hamermesh points to studies that have found that employers are more likely to hire good-looking candidates. He also mentions that less attractive people earn less than their more attractive peers.
“Logically, I see no difference between this and other protections,” Hamermesh told CNN on Tuesday. “Perhaps not with racism. Politically, I’m much more concerned about racism… but between this and physical disability, I see very little difference. We happen to protect one and not the other.”
Hamermesh added, “We already do this in a couple of locations in California, in the District of Columbia and France. Is it going to happen soon? No. Will it possibly happen eventually? I wouldn’t bet against it.”
Should there be affirmative action for ugly people? What do you think? Would it help or hurt you?
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
You made some decent points
You made some decent points there. I seemed on the internet for the issue and found most people will go together with with your website. Cialis online order sobriquet Buy modalert Commandeer Buy Kamagra Columnar
Coach Outlet Online are
Coach Outlet Online are nicely respected and amazingly popular. Just go along with your heart, and don't neglect your Coach purse. This may be a superb method to acquire the others' awareness. Well, like most items in life, it depends. What appeals for you more? What are you currently longing for nowadays? As we know, every one of us adore to become exceptional and shining. Therefore, a good style accessory may be so very helpful and useful.
If you desire to discount coach purses some amazingly superb extra you can basically purchase some amazingly fine typical wholesale genuine customized producer handbags. When individuals see that "C" they instantly know the manufacturer and understand that it's expensive, substantial quality, and sought after. People purchase these Coach Handbags and purses for that exact exact reason.
Gucci Backpack using the United States has significantly extra than significantly extra than 200 stores and overseas has 300 stores. That Coach Outlet Store Online annually consultation on product pattern to 5,000 high-end consumers, spending of like a fine offer as significantly extra than 3 million bucks a year.
This is too funny! It will
This is too funny! It will never go anywhere. In business, looks can matter. Attractive and well-groomed sales staff are going to be more successful than someone who is ugly. It might be reasonable to say ugly people cannot be discriminated against for looks, but only when looks don't matter, which means only jobs which are not customer facing. Whatever! Are we going to form new support groups such as "Friends of the Fugly"?
This reminds me of the groups advocating for protections for fat people too. It just won't go anywhere.
Is this a serious post or a
Is this a serious post or a wind up? Isnt it a damning snapshot of the society we live in? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all & who has the right to call one person ugly and another person beautiful? It makes no difference to their ability to do the job. Someone could look like a bulldog chewing a wasp but be the best accountant in the world! What a huge steaming pile of horse ****!
Dont vote it just encourages them!
The title is misleading,
The title is misleading, because affirmative action doesn't protect people. It grants people jobs that they may not have been the best applicant for. Anti-discrimination laws are going to become so encompassing that employers are eventually just going to have to hire the first person that walks through the door. Even if that means they have to hire someone with tourettes to work with children or work on the sales floor, and it ends up driving away business.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
I am the author of the
I am the author of the article and I respectfully disagree that the title is "misleading." The question that unattractive people should be protected by affirmative action is clearly posed multiple times by the subject of the story and video, University of Texas at Austin professor Daniel Hamermesh.
You may disagree with affirmative action, which is a different debate, however, the title of the piece is very accurate.
It doesn't matter that it was
It doesn't matter that it was professor Hamermesh that caused to you use this title because he posed the question this way, the title is still incorrect. The title itself asks us our opinion on affirmative action and protection for ugly people, so our disagreement with affirmative action is part of this debate,
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Actually it does matter that
Actually it does matter that the professor asked the question as to whether or not ugly people should have affinative action. That is the center of the story. Also, the CNN host asked the same question. It was logical to title the story in conjunction with both the professor and the CNN host, this provided a coherent structure to the article and video.
A mis-title would be something along the lines of "Artichokes Cause Weight Gain," which would have nothing to do with the story.
I never stated that affirnative action could not or should not be part of the debate. I am a strong free speech advocate and encourage everyone to add their opinion. Thanks for doing so.
The question in the title
The question in the title isn't "should there be affirmative action for ugly people?". The question is "should ugly people be protected by affirmative action laws?". The first question is valid and should be answered with a resounding no. The second question isn't valid in the first place, because affirmative action doesn't provide protection from discrimination. It provides restitution for discrimination by discriminating against those that aren't the target subject of affirmative action. Therefore, I can't agree with your analogy. You should have said something more like "should we use extra rich frosting on our daily cupcake to help us with our weight loss plan?". In other words, it doesn't do what it claims to, and instead does what its supposed to be preventing. A valid question would be "should there be anti-discrimination laws covering ugly people?".
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Hahahahahahah REALLY?
Hahahahahahah REALLY? Unbelievable. So because someone is a CHUD, they should have a better opportunity for a better job than someone who happened to be blessed with not being a fat slug and/or decent genes?