Or even worse, in the case of the military and others, you
make special exceptions for that class?
So your choice is either to lower the bar for everyone and
leave everyone worse off in the end, create a special exception for a certain
class of individual, thereby creating the perception (rightfully so) that
people in that class are less valuable to prospective employers*, or, you allow
your protected class to live up to the same standards as everyone else, and
succeed or fail on their own merits.
Yet somehow, option #3 seems to be the wrong choice; the
classist, racist, sexist choice, when it is most obviously the correct and most
logical choice.
*What I mean by that is this – say you have a race of
people, let’s call them Vulcans, who don’t have the same success rate as
another race, the Sporks. In order to
fix this, you lower the success standards for Vulcans, so that they have
equality in result (as opposed to equality in opportunity), and you feel as
though the problem is solved. Knowing
this, what employer would hire a Vulcan over a Spork, knowing that the Vulcan
was held to lower standards and likely cannot perform to the same standards as
a Spork? What employer would pay a Spork
and a Vulcan the same money for the same job, knowing the the Spork is probably
more qualified and can perform to a higher standard?
What about the rare case where you actually have a Vulcan
that exceeds the Spork against whom he is competing for work? Having nothing else to go on, why would that
employer risk hiring the perceived lower-performing Vulcan over the Spork?
Do you still think that changing the standards for Vulcans
is actually helping them? Or is it just
serving to make the university feel better about themselves?
No comments:
Post a Comment