|
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
What contradictions? With few exceptions, I think people should earn things the honest way, and not because they've been victimized, or whatever other crock of shit..like the fellow in this article. Pretty simple concept. |
What do you call the honest way then? I guess the first question is, are you referring specifically to this case, or is this your veiw generally?
I would say this, if he got the job now based solely on his claim of victimizaiton, and an attempt to placate him, then, you would be correct based on your statements. I mean we can be blunt and say, if this man got the job at this point because of the victimization, ************ that there were more qualified people, then yes, that is not earning it based on merit and ability.
However, when you then talk about merit and ability, i.e. "EARN IT OF YOUR OWN MERIT AND ABILITY" you seem to disregard the fact that someone with equal or greater merit or ability is passed over due to some other reason, which is a direct contradiction to what you are saying. If they guy wasn't getting a fair review of his application or credentials because he was black, how is that based on merit or ability? To be honest, I don't know how he stacked up to the rest of the candidates for the job. I don't think we'll ever know. He may not even get the job.
I think, though, what this illustrates is that potentially deragatory and discriminatory behaviour happens to various groups of people, and this was just a case where it was made public. It may very well be that her reference to the man as "ghetto dude" was, as I suspect, simply a poor use of identifier. However, it is not a far stretch for the applicant, after learning how he has been described, to be concerned that he is not in fact being judged based on his merit and ability alone.
Do you disagree with this possibility?
|