Public policy and institutionalized discrimination
Publishers said:
I understand what makes nice public policy but where and who draws the lines. Who is to determine what a fair shake is? You tell me.
Okay. "Nice" is a non-starter. To define "fair treatment," for openers, here is a quote from the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident,
that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness . . . ."
(emphasis added)
The Fourteenth Amendment, cited above, is just one of several efforts to further define and clarify fair treatment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, civil rights legislation, and, yes, affirmative action legislation, are other efforts.
Freedom and equality are the underpinnings of our system. Thus, we, as Americans, expect fair treatment. When there are blatant institutionalized discriminatory practices, there is no fair treatment, and the line is crossed. Plain and simple.
If I have Joe Shmoe as my chief pilot and he says he wants Ed and I think Tom would be better, I have to go with him because he is the guy I made responsible for the people under him.
* * * *
We try in this country to legislate fairness and equality and it rarely works becuse ultimately, these things are decided by a person who brings all their prejudices and discriminations, and preferences, to the table with them.
Thus, if Joe Shmoe simply doesn't like women pilots, or older pilots, or black pilots, or Hispanic pilots et al, that is institutionalized discrimination.
If the company says you have to have a 737 type rating, you are obviously discriminating against those who do not have it. Must be a college grad, same thing, must be whatever is part and parcel of the program.
C'mon, Pub, you know it's not the same. That is not discrimination.
Anyone can avail themselves of 737 type ratings and college.
No one can roll back age or change their skin color. I know at least one person who has lied about his heritage. Changing sex? Wellllll . . . . . .
(I recall a case from years ago where a pilot who underwent a sex change operation lost his/her job and sued to get it back.)
Which sounds more intelligent.
I picked Sam because he had 35 more hours than Bobby and he was 2 years younger, had more jet experience etc, or I just like Sam better than Bobby, have no idea why.
If you were not selected, chances are you feel it was unfair, you were just as qualified.
Of course. In this instance, there isn't much difference between Sam and Bobby. But if all the Sams are much younger than all the Bobbys, or all the Bobbys are women, etc., and all the Bobbys are being shunned in favor of the Sams, that is patently unfair, and discriminatory.
Kathy has a bunch of good points and having seen the horrors up close and personal, she did not even start to address the basic errors. Nevertheless, sooner or later, it boils down to I liked this guy or lady better because at the end, we always have more than one qualified candidate.
But if you impose an illegal and/or unfair bias on any candidate, you have committed discrimination.
I have made my case above about age discrimination existing in pilot hiring.