Color Blind Hiring
With all the racial tension in America, seeking solutions is always warranted. However solutions can in themselves be problematic. What has become common is hiring, electing, selecting, and admitting persons based on the color of their skin? Aptitude, intellect, and common sense is not always a factor, unless it is applied to the color choice at the time.
Let’s start at the top of America’s food chain, the President. The case in point here is not the President, but the Vice President, Kamala Harris. Many have questioned the election of Joe Biden, having nothing to do with color, but his stamina, history, ability, contributions, and capabilities. We cannot dismiss the concern he is suffering a decline in his mental recall abilities, certainly his ability to speak extemporaneously. But when it comes to the VP, the choice seems clear to me was predicated on the intersectionality option of a woman of color. As an aside, when the term ‘color’ is put forward the implication is anything other than ‘white,’ or caucasian.
Recently Harris has made it clear she was not selected as a high IQ individual, qualified to speak, and to meet with world leaders. After all she has not even been to Europe. As if speaking more about vacations than her role as the back up to the leader of the fee world, when asked recently on NBC about visiting the border, seeing for herself what is transpiring there and concerning most Americans, she said, yes she has not been to the border, it is not important, as she has not been to Europe either. There is a crisis at the border, not in Europe.
She did visit Guatemala, and when that President expressed his position that the border calamity is Biden’s fault, she could only refer to her notes on ‘climate control.’ She cannot function on her two feet. That is why she lost early in her bid as candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Why the Democrat operatives turned to her for the VP slot, it is clear, color and sex. Not brains. Maybe too, as Obama chose Biden so his VP would not be smarter than him, Biden needed to choose a VP that was not smarter than him either. He paid little attention to her defensive fake laughter routine as well.
Harvard is being sued by an Asian group for being selective in their admission policies by lowering the test scores, by some percentage, of the Asians, so they would be more aligned with other applicants they admit to avoid overweighting with Asians. Now colleges and universities, I understand, want to be more like a city than a single purpose institution, having diversity on campus. What I mean is they need athletes, musicians, mathematicians, philosophers, historians, literature buffs, leaders, followers, artists, conservatives, capitalists, even socialists, but they do not need them to be of any particular color, at least not as a requirement. Of the disciplines mentioned none require a person be asian, black, hispanic, white or of a particular ethnic group. They can select the most qualified from the lot of those that have applied. They just need the talents to make the college/university city operate in the most efficient way possible, producing the most competent graduates. Attract the best, be the best. Now a college/university can set low standards too, their choice, but how will that reflect on their education standards when their alumni cannot get jobs, or rely on welfare. What do we want our colleges/universities to make of our children?
Business is not the same as a college/university. They have a mission, generally to produce quality products, or services, maintain a positive reputation, be good citizens, and be profitable. Standards today seem to be changing. Recently Lockheed was noted for conducting Critical Race Theory training on white executives, reminding them they are ‘inferior,’ have victimized other people of color for centuries (as if they are doing it today), and to be respectful and totally politically correct in their work environment and as representative of Lockheed. I am not as familiar with their hiring practices, but I’d venture to guess they have skilled workers in many essential areas as well as others that are not as skilled as they should be, in order to fill a diversity quota. Businesses should hire on the basis of the applicants ability to do a job, even help to improve the company, to be dependable, a team player, and have the intellect, talent, skills, and willingness to work hard, and contribute to their success as well as the success of the business.
In speaking with a recent venture capitalist, one that is in the market at times raising capital, I was told many (most was my impression) investor groups, institutions primarily, are very conscious of the diversity of the staff of the venture capital firm when choosing to place capital to invest with them. If all white, that is a problem. If no women, that is a problem. All black, or all women, no problem. Where are the standards? What about the history of the firm in delivering on the investments they make? Should that not be essential? Are their investors aware that the entities to whom they have entrusted their hard earned savings may be making investment choices not predicated on the ability to make a return on investment, but to be politically correct?
Political Correctness today clearly has a left leaning politically correct posture. The key to that statement has to do with sexual preferences, not how we are born, male or female. God decides, not humans. It is being applied, however, by humans, in business, in institutions especially, the government, and schools at all levels. Many work places today, as do the social media sites, have algorithms in their computers on the lookout for word choices to include, black, negro, muslim, islamic, girl, woman, women, trans, gis, gay, bi, Christian, Jesus, God, lesbian, binary, black, nazi, and many others, even variations of the themes, some sentences, some with political meanings, and even the name Trump, being used as spies to root out anyone that does not meet the politically correct requirements imposed. The politically correct environs create spies; the social media and their algorithms are the most adept as they deal with recorded words every minute, When you hear the word ‘algorithm’ beware.
They can even apply the methods (algorithms) to the spoken word. And when a workmate, classmate, or past associate blows the whistle on an incident in which a fellow (or person that participates in what they do) was involved, the politics, color and sexual preference of the whistle blower noted as having an impact on their credibility, by Main Stream Media (MSM) standards, then the spy network and the indoctrination to root out the evil non-compliant citizens is working.
The education indoctrination by the left, through issues such as 1619 and CRT, as well as teaching about homosexuality, a woman’s right to choose to end a pregnancy (as birth control), and a falsified history of America cannot be ignored. It must be resisted. School Boards are all to occupied with politically correct leftist liberals who want the indoctrination to continue. The purpose of a school is to teach reading, writing, communication, arithmetic, history, and english, at all levels. It is not a forum for political preferences nor opinions. Students must be taught to develop their own opinions, make choices based on what they learn, not how they are trained. And what they learn must be the honest truth. Our system must be structure to educate, not indoctrinate.
Back to color. Train all students with the same information, with good teachers, and with proper curriculums. Tenure in education has allowed for far too many educators becoming dispassionate about their students and their subjects, They are more interested in their paycheck and their security, than in actually teaching their students. They have Unions that protect their status. They are neither challenged nor current, in many ways. When institutions lower their entry standards, or testing requirements to make a playing field more level, they reduce the quality of the education students can and should receive.
Families must fight for equal standards. Not equity. “Equity” is a politically correct false premise. There are problems in our society. There are too many children being raised in single family homes, or no proper homes, without fathers, and without guidance. This is the area that needs study and needs leadership to impress upon all our children, indoctrinating them properly, that family and faith, belief in God, are essential to growth and prosperity. Where this is not present today is where the problems lie. Comparisons must be made based on family units. If this is done the outcomes might surprise you.
Color only matters when the numbers seem to favor or disfavor one color over another, or one ethnic group over another. Then the MSM and the politically racist begin chanting a need for more ‘equity.’ That word again. It is not money that solves problems. It can help, but certainly not when the bureaucracy steals from the funds available or prefers strings attached when dispensed favoring its wants. Money corrupts. Power corrupts absolutely.
If all applicants could be considered without a need to check boxes based on color, religion, or ethnicity, or without a photo, and with non-face-to-face interviews, the increased level of productivity, intellectual acuity and responsible government would be wonderful. Maybe then the ‘equity’ promoters would see a need to apply their power elsewhere, as on family structure, educational standards and opportunity, freedom of speech and faith, and the truth.
See: Note.
by
Thomas W. Balderston
Author and Blogger
Note: This article was submitted for consideration by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Other articles have also been submitted. There is an immediate automated response, “Thank you for your interest in The Wall Street Journal. If you have submitted an op-ed article to this mailbox, the editorial features staff will consider it for publication. If your op-ed is accepted, you will receive a reply from us within three business days. If you do not hear from us, feel free to submit your op-ed to other publications.” In the past, after three days, nothing. So a non-acceptance is assumed. No problem. However with the submission of this piece there was a follow-up response in less than a few hours, “Thank you for your interest in the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Unfortunately, we will be unable to use this piece. We wish you all luck placing it elsewhere. Cordially, The Editorial Features Staff” My submission was at 11:30am 6/9/2021. The WSJ response was one hour later, 12:30pm 6/9/2021. My only thought was even the WSJ has their PC police algorithm working.
No comments:
Post a Comment