And Now, Obesity Rights

• Share

(2 of 2)

The struggle for a tolerant society -- not only one in which the big racial injustices are cured but one in which the strong do not prey on the weak, the beautiful do not insult the ugly and the thin do not prevail over the fat -- is a worthy goal. But neither resources nor public sympathy is limitless. Treating the discrimination against someone who is fat alongside that of someone who is a paraplegic is part of an effort by special-interest groups to make all suffering equal so that all remedies will be. It is a trend that would make the college student who is insulted by a racial joke comparable to James Meredith barred at the door of Ole Miss; rape by a spouse as terrorizing as rape by a stranger with a knife in a dark alley; a Playboy calendar on the wall as detrimental on the job as a supervisor who takes away the duties of a clerk who has rebuffed his advances.

In isolation, all of these things -- and more -- are wrong and should be set right. But in a world of limits, some rights are more sacred than others, some wrongs more deserving of punishment. Not every unfairness derives from the violation of a right. Robert Nagel, professor of law at the University of Colorado, warns, "The rights makers are like children with toys, so delighted and entranced by them they want more and more, heedless of the consequences." Consider lookism, as the practice of preferring the pretty over the plain is called in rights jurisprudence. In the Harvard Law Review, Adam Cohen of the American Civil Liberties Union argues that ugly people need to be protected against discrimination too. Cohen says, "People don't realize how pervasive the preference for the beautiful is in our society, starting with teachers who give attractive children better grades." And he adds, "There is nothing wrong with giving these people who have a hard life a legal remedy. We can always set enforcement priorities later."

There should be a way to recognize that something is too bad without saying it can be fixed. To do otherwise is to fail to protect the truly vulnerable, the truly prejudged, the truly disadvantaged. There is another way to proceed. Let the current trend continue until finally, after years of legislation and adjudication, all God's children are found to be aggrieved, and then all, in their need for protection, are equal once again.