Assess the argument that there is nothing wrong with “facial discrimination”–tha
ID: 470247 • Letter: A
Question
Assess the argument that there is nothing wrong with “facial discrimination”–that it simply reflects the fact that human beings are naturally attracted to, or repelled by, other human beings on the basis of their physical characteristics. (At least 500 word reply)
Please read the below case to answer this question:
“Facial Discrimination”
SCENE: A CONFERENCE ROOM OF A BRANCH OFFICE of Allied Products, Inc., where Tom, Frank, and Alice have been interviewing college students for summer internships.
Tom: Did you see that last candidate? Jeez, was he sorry looking.
Frank: Too ugly to work here, that’s for sure. And those thick glasses didn’t help. Still, he wasn’t as ugly as that young woman you hired last summer. What was her name . . . Allison? Boy, she was enormous! And remember that hair of hers? It wasn’t surprising we had to let her go.
Alice: Come on, Frank. Don’t be so hung up on looks. That last guy seemed to know his stuff, and he certainly was enthusiastic about working for Allied.
Frank: Hey, don’t get me wrong, Alice. I know you don’t have to be beautiful to work for Allied—after all, look at Tom here. Still, with a face like that guy’s, you got to wonder.
Tom: Wisecracks aside, Alice, Frank’s got a point. Studies show that it’s natural for people to discriminate on the basis of looks. I’ve read that even babies will look at a pretty face longer than an ugly face.
Alice: I know that. Studies also show that people attribute positive characteristics to people they find attractive and that they treat unattractive people worse than other people in lots of ways. For example, strangers are less likely to do small favors for unattractive people than they are for attractive people, and even parents and teachers have lower expectations for ugly, fat, or odd-looking children. Attractive people also earn more money than average-looking people. So what this really boils down to is implicit discrimination.
Tom: That’s what I’m saying. It’s natural. Besides, it’s not illegal to discriminate on the basis of appearance.
Frank: That’s right. You wouldn’t want us to hire somebody with green hair and rings in his nose and put him out at the front desk, would you? This is a business, not a freak show.
Alice: Hey, slow down, guys. First, it may be natural and it may even be legal to favor good-looking people, but that doesn’t make it right. And second, I’m not talking about grooming or dress. It’s your choice to dye your hair and decorate your face, and if you don’t fit in because of that, that’s your fault. But the guy we talked to today didn’t choose to be ugly, so why hold it against him?
Frank: I suppose next you’ll be telling us that we should have kept Allison on last summer just because she was fat.
Alice: No, I’m not saying you have to give preferential treatment to overweight people. But I think that nobody in the office cut her any slack. If she’d been normal size, things would have worked out okay, but people took one look at her and prejudged her to be a loser. You know, Frank, some courts have held that discrimination against the obese violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Tom: That’s only if it’s a medical condition. Frank: Yeah, Allison’s only problem was that she liked to eat. Alice: You don’t know that. You don’t know anything about her. Frank: I suppose her hair was a medical condition, too.
Tom: Okay, you two, take it easy. Seriously, though, Alice, a number of our interns have to interact with the public, and people can be put off by having to deal with ugly people, fat people, or even very short people. So why aren’t an employee’s looks a job-relevant issue?
Alice: No, I think that as long as the person is clean and well groomed, then the public shouldn’t be put off by having to deal with someone who is unattractive or unusual looking. It’s unreasonable.
Tom: That’s what you say. But what if the public is “unreasonable”? What if they prefer companies with attractive or at least normal-looking employees?
Alice: It’s still irrelevant. It’s the same as if a company had customers who didn’t like dealing with blacks. That’s no reason for it not to hire blacks.
Tom: Yeah, I can see that. Frank: Okay, but what about this ugly guy? Do we have to offer him an internship?
Explanation / Answer
Facial discrimination can be described as a discrimination that is based on a person’s facial appearance. Many a times, people are judged by or categorized based on their face and facial features.
I firmly believe that facial discrimination is unethical and should not be practiced. In the context of the case, Allied Products cannot judge the ability of an individual to perform his or her tasks efficiently on the basis of facial features or appearances. What should matter most to an organization when hiring an individual is that the individual should have the required skill sets, the desired experience and educational qualification and the determination to perform to the best of one’s ability. Appearance is secondary and does not determine or affect, in any way, the productivity and efficiency of an individual.
People do not decide on their facial features. They are born with it. But what they can decide on is to learn new skills, make themselves competent and acquire relevant experience. These factors should matter as they are the factors that will make a difference in the productivity of the organization at the end of the day.
Individuals should be dressed neatly and not shabbily. They should be tidy and not unkempt. If people maintain an unkempt and disheveled look and appearance then they can be discriminated against. This is because these individuals are being untidy and disheveled by their own individual choice. They could have maintained a tidy and neat appearance. Unkempt and untidy employees can hamper an organization’s business as customers would prefer not to interact with such employees. So, if Allied Products decide to discriminate against people who keep a dirty appearance then it is fair and acceptable. However, if individuals are discriminated on the basis of their facial features then it is not acceptable. It may be true that people attribute positive characteristics to people they find attractive, but if an individual with a not-so-attractive face maintains a neat appearance, then the bias would reduce and the negative impact for the organization would minimize.
For employees who have to deal with customers and clients on a regular basis, the organization can implement strict dressing guidelines. These guidelines would ensure that employees are dressed neatly and in a way that they are not obnoxious to the customers. The employees should come across as pleasing personalities and a willingness to help the customer should come forth during the employee’s interaction with the customer. The facial appearance of the employee is, in no way, a deterrent in such cases.
Tom and Frank are being unjust in their reasoning. Just by judging an employee on the basis of their appearance is not right. If somebody has green hair and nose rings, but has got very good experience and skills then the employee can be hired after making him/her aware of the fact that as an employee of the organization the individual will have to maintain a formal corporate look. Green hair and nose rings would not be allowed as part of the policy of the organization. This is perfectly fine and ethical.
So, as appearance is secondary and does not determine or affect, in any way, the productivity and efficiency of an individual, facial discrimination should not be practiced.