I like Robert’s review of Professor Rhode’s book and wish to add a few points.

Rhode has done some very useful work. I’m thinking in particular of her criticism of the legal profession for its cartel-like antipathy to competition. Nearly 30 years ago, she wrote a law-review article making a good case against unauthorized-practice-of-law statutes, which she correctly sees as harmful to poorer people. She continued that attack in her 2004 book Access to Justice, which I reviewed here. (Scroll down.)

Alas, her book advocating that “look discrimination” be turned into a new civil-rights offense is just plain silly. It’s bad enough that we now have “protected classes” based on such fuzzy concepts as race, but imagine the difficulties in categorizing people as “beautiful” and “non-beautiful.”

And just as traditional “civil rights” litigation has degenerated into battles over statistics where group disparities are thought to prove discrimination, the same thing could happen if we took her ideas seriously. Employers would have to worry about lawsuits unless they have the right balance of good-looking and not-so-good-looking employees. That, in turn, introduces unfairness through the other door; well-qualified candidates being passed over because hiring them could lead to legal trouble with the Look Fairness Police.

If you believe it’s the job of the government to compel people to make decisions that are always “fair,” you open a Pandora’s Box. There is no end to the mischief and expense of making individual or organizational decisions subject to review by government officials on the grounds of claimed unfairness. Making choices shouldn’t be a potential crime.