Two former employees of Polo Ralph Lauren filed a discrimination lawsuit against their former employer because the company allegedly seeks a "blond hair and blue eyes image." The lawyer filing the charges on behalf of the Black male and Filipino female plaintiffs, Steven Arenson, believes "that image is a factor in their pay, promotion and hiring practices." This case highlights an oft-overlooked dimension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: its impact upon the ability of employers to select the workplace ambience of their choice.
Polo Ralph Lauren is a clothing manufacturer and a fashion house. It is a New York trendsetter. The company often works with retail stores to create eye-catching, appealing merchandise displays. In short, Polo's business is aesthetics, beauty and seduction. If the charges against Polo are true, it is doubtful that this "infraction" is due to any conscious conspiracy to hold down non-Whites, not in this age of political correctness and fear of lawsuits which surely permeate even Polo's corporate offices.
More likely, this is merely an instance of the cream rising to the top. Polo's employees live in the world of fashion and it is their job to know what the public wants to see. They likely operate upon aesthetic impulses and ideals in their daily lives, by second nature, just as fish living their entire existence in water have no conscious recognition of their surroundings.
Ever wonder just what it is that makes blondes so appealing? There are many intangibles and nuances involved, but there is a scientific term that identifies one of these qualities: paedomorphism-the "retention of youthful features into adulthood," as Richard McCulloch puts it in "Destiny of Angels." This trait typifies Whites more than any other race. McCulloch describes it as a genetic tendency "in the direction of increasingly fine texture and refined features&part of&the ethereal and angelic beauty of the Northern European aesthetic ideal." Many know this as a "baby face;" it's a less coarse appearance. Females tend to retain this trait most, but many males do as well-and you can find plenty of them on TV and in the movies. They just look good, and that's why they're on camera.
Other Polo employees and a vast majority of their customer base likely feel more comfortable, and find more familiarity and sense of welcome, in surroundings that stimulate their aesthetic sense. It's conducive to business because the people and products offered invite you to spend your money. Aren't employers justified in creating the best environment they can, in their own estimation, rather than according to the standards and values of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or Mr. Arenson-especially when that ambience is their business? Does the government and its affirmative action bean counters know the beauty business better than Polo Ralph Lauren? Incidentally, one of the plaintiffs was head of Polo's diversity and Affirmative Action program, so she must not have been a very effective "sensitivity cop" with all this discrimination going on under her nose.
The EEOC and the pack of lawyers working for Arenson reached the conclusion that Polo might be engaging in discrimination (a once positive word that meant perceptive selectivity and fine taste) by interviewing employees, comparing pay scales, and tallying quota breakdowns. Yet, that motley crew is looking for answers in all the wrong places. No computer printout or trick interview question can plumb the mysterious depths of the human capacity for perceiving beauty. Not everyone is worth the same price in the marketplace, which serves and responds to choices and tastes, however particular. According to the diversity police, the fashion industry had better hire just as many 800 pound Samoans as they do petite blondes even if the public gets a little nauseous at the sight of an 800 pound Samoan in the latest super low waist jeans.