The story about the Delta Zeta sorority evictions has gotten me thinking about legal protections for the ugly. Or shall we call them the appearance challenged?
Consider that the following types of discrimation are illegal in at least some cases: national origin, race, gender, age, pregnancy status, sexual orientation, disabilities and handicaps, and religion. But the appearance challenged have no legal protection. Not only is there no protection, the very people who would abhor discrimating on the basis of race themselves discriminate on the basis of appearance.
But there are two roadblocks to providing protection for appearance challenged people. The first is that there is no bright line identifying someone who's appearance challenged. In contrast, it's usually pretty easy to say if someone is black, over the age of forty, or a woman. Be because appearance is probably distributed along a continuous bell curve, there is no clear line separating the average person from the appearance challenged person.
The second roadbloack is that there is no appearance challenged movement. This is because appearance challeneged people are so ashamed of their status. People are proud to be black, Puerto Rican, homosexual, or even Moslem, but there's no one proud that they are appearance challenged. Many appearance challenged people are in self-denial about their status, and their self-deception is abetted by society's taboo. Appearance challenged people can go through life not fully aware of how unattractive they are because no one will tell them how ugly they really are.
Thus the appearance challenged, instead of banding together, actually participate in the discrimation. That's why the Delta Zeta sorority at DePauw was losing membership. Other appearanced challenged young women had no desire to hang out with their own kind. They took to heart the words of Groucho Marx who said, "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members."