Can’t we just be people?
Lead Summary
By
-
By Jim Thompson
HCP columnist
Having a career that has spanned 50 years thus far, I have seen a number of seismic shifts in employment practices, educational recognition and so forth. For perspective, understand that when I started to work, there was no Environmental Protection Agency and there was no Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Most other safeguards we take for granted in employment and education did not exist then, either.
In those days, when you talked about recognition for someone in either employment or academia, it was taken for granted you were talking about a white male. This is what I would call pre-Phase I publicity or public relations. The discrimination was so blatant that it was taken for granted.
Phase I, which seemed to start in the early 1970s, or at least that is when I became aware of it, was an approach that involved a process labeled affirmative action. In this phase, employers and academia made a big deal of the process of hiring someone other than straight white males. This started with gender and race, and in the past decade or two, expanded into sexual orientation. This was fine for the times and helped move us toward the idea that able-bodied, talented people should be hired in any circumstance based solely on their education and expertise. There should be no other criteria.
I had in my mind that by now, we would have moved into what I will call Phase II, where we recognize, hire and, if necessary, fire people based on their expertise and never say anything about their race, gender or sexual orientation. After all, in my experience, we are talking half a century – except we have not moved here.
This leaves me wondering what message is being delivered to me when a headline reports that a (successful candidate) (a terminated person) is of a certain gender, race or sexual orientation. What is the purpose of giving me this information? What does the deliverer of this information intend for me to deduce from this announcement?
In most of the environments involving a paycheck, we now have in place laws that protect from the sorts of discrimination I have described. Perhaps one place where this is not the case is entertainment, especially music, where the purchasing audience votes with their pocketbook, determining the success or failure of individuals. However, this is probably one of the areas of least discrimination (Otis Redding, Louis Armstrong, Beverly Sills, Nat King Cole, Liberace, Elton John and others come to mind).
Politics, especially presidential politics, seems to be one of the last bastions of making a big deal out of attributes, not qualifications. It seems in this particular arena, there are still issues left that do not involve finding the best candidate.
Joe Biden’s pronouncement of attributes, not qualifications, for selection criteria for a running mate is the current blatant example. We may get lucky and see him pick Tammy Duckworth, who I could vote for if she wasn’t pro-abortion. But it is going to be luck, not qualifications, that make this happen if it does. And, by Biden’s selection criteria, that only means she may be the best qualified among a limited pool, a pool that does discriminate against search far and wide for the best qualified candidate.
Nevertheless, I think we will have really gotten over our discrimination practices in general when we present employees, academics, award recipients and others without any mention of those attributes which are not pertinent to the recognition being bestowed.
Jim Thompson, formerly of Marshall, is a graduate of Hillsboro High School and the University of Cincinnati. He resides in Duluth, Ga. and is a columnist for The Highland County Press. He may be reached at jthompson@taii.com.
HCP columnist
Having a career that has spanned 50 years thus far, I have seen a number of seismic shifts in employment practices, educational recognition and so forth. For perspective, understand that when I started to work, there was no Environmental Protection Agency and there was no Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Most other safeguards we take for granted in employment and education did not exist then, either.
In those days, when you talked about recognition for someone in either employment or academia, it was taken for granted you were talking about a white male. This is what I would call pre-Phase I publicity or public relations. The discrimination was so blatant that it was taken for granted.
Phase I, which seemed to start in the early 1970s, or at least that is when I became aware of it, was an approach that involved a process labeled affirmative action. In this phase, employers and academia made a big deal of the process of hiring someone other than straight white males. This started with gender and race, and in the past decade or two, expanded into sexual orientation. This was fine for the times and helped move us toward the idea that able-bodied, talented people should be hired in any circumstance based solely on their education and expertise. There should be no other criteria.
I had in my mind that by now, we would have moved into what I will call Phase II, where we recognize, hire and, if necessary, fire people based on their expertise and never say anything about their race, gender or sexual orientation. After all, in my experience, we are talking half a century – except we have not moved here.
This leaves me wondering what message is being delivered to me when a headline reports that a (successful candidate) (a terminated person) is of a certain gender, race or sexual orientation. What is the purpose of giving me this information? What does the deliverer of this information intend for me to deduce from this announcement?
In most of the environments involving a paycheck, we now have in place laws that protect from the sorts of discrimination I have described. Perhaps one place where this is not the case is entertainment, especially music, where the purchasing audience votes with their pocketbook, determining the success or failure of individuals. However, this is probably one of the areas of least discrimination (Otis Redding, Louis Armstrong, Beverly Sills, Nat King Cole, Liberace, Elton John and others come to mind).
Politics, especially presidential politics, seems to be one of the last bastions of making a big deal out of attributes, not qualifications. It seems in this particular arena, there are still issues left that do not involve finding the best candidate.
Joe Biden’s pronouncement of attributes, not qualifications, for selection criteria for a running mate is the current blatant example. We may get lucky and see him pick Tammy Duckworth, who I could vote for if she wasn’t pro-abortion. But it is going to be luck, not qualifications, that make this happen if it does. And, by Biden’s selection criteria, that only means she may be the best qualified among a limited pool, a pool that does discriminate against search far and wide for the best qualified candidate.
Nevertheless, I think we will have really gotten over our discrimination practices in general when we present employees, academics, award recipients and others without any mention of those attributes which are not pertinent to the recognition being bestowed.
Jim Thompson, formerly of Marshall, is a graduate of Hillsboro High School and the University of Cincinnati. He resides in Duluth, Ga. and is a columnist for The Highland County Press. He may be reached at jthompson@taii.com.