Being good-looking is useful in so many ways. In addition to whatever personal pleasure it gives you, being attractive also helps you earn more money, f’amd a higher-earning spouse and get better deals on mortgages.Each of these facts has been demonstrated over the past 20 years by many economists and other researchers, The effects are not small: one study showed that anAmerican worker who was among the bottom one-seventh in looks, as assessed by randomly chosen observers, earned 10 to 15 percent less per year than a similar worker whose looks were assessed in the top one-third — a lifetime difference, in a typical case, of about $ 230, 000.
Most of us, regardless of our professed attitudes, prefer as customers to buy from better-looking salespeople, as jurors to listen to better-looking attorneys, as voters to be led by better-looking politicians, as students to learn from better-looking professors. This is not a matter of evil employers’ refusing to hire the ugly: in our roles as workers, customers and potential lovers we are all responsible for these effects. How could we remedy this injusticeA、radical solution may be needed: 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 inCalifornia, and in theDistrict ofColumbia, where discriminatory treatment based on looks in hiring, promotions, housing and other areas is prohibite D、The mechanics of legislating this kind of protection are not as difficult as you might think. Ugliness could be protected generally in the United States by small extensions of theAmericans WithDisabilitiesAct. Ugly people could be allowed to seek help from theEqualEmployment OpportunityCommission and other agencies in overcoming the effects of discrimination. You might argue that people can’t be classified by their looks — that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In one study, more than half of a group of people were assessed identically by each of two observers using a five-point scale ; and very few assessments differed by more than one point. There are possible other 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.Bringing antidiscrimination lawsuits is also costly, and few potential plaintiffs could afford to do so.But many attorneys would be willing to organize classes of plaintiffs to overcome these costs, just as they now do in racial-discrimination and other lawsuits. Economic arguments for protecting the ugly are as strong as those for protecting some groups currently covered by legislation. So why not go ahead and expand protection to the looks-challenged There’s one legitimate concern. With increasingly tight limits on government resources, expanding rights to yet another protected group would reduce protection for groups that have commanded our legislative and other attention for over 50 years. You might reasonably disagree and argue for protecting all deserving groups.Either way, you shouldn’t be surprised to see the United States heading toward this new legal frontier. According to Paragraph 2, who should be responsible for the discrimination against bad looking people in the workplace A、The employer. B、Public at large. C、The customers. D、The policy-makers.
试题查看
参考答案： 
答案解析
