Originally posted by chissler
Please do elaborate on this point, and offer an insight to exactly what you are referring to. If I were to discriminate against a man of disability,
just how would I go about it in an appropriate manner?
When a person's physical or mental condition is not relevant to the job, then there would be no justification for choosing a less qualified
"normal" person over one with a "disability." However, there are physical and mental conditions that make a person unfit for some positions.
In those cases, discrimination on the basis of disability is justified.
The advances in technology relative to appliances and prosthetics are making certain physical conditions, such as amputations, almost advantageous,
but a man confined to a wheelchair and who requires oxygen is not likely to get a job as an arc welder on a high-rise building, even if his welding
skills are exceptional.
In any case, a person should be looked at not in terms of weakness, but in terms of strengths. Not that the weaknesses aren't real, but because
going with a person's strengths gives the person something upon which to build and the wherewithal, and a starting point, to overcome weakness.
This is one of the reasons I don't like the idea of creating a minority class of disabled people. For one thing, the term is not used in any
statistical manner, but in the Marxist/leftist sense of perceived power or lack thereof, as in the case of a black person living in a urban center
that is 70% black is considered a minority.
In fact, the whole minority-class dogma has done nothing to empower anyone in America. The only outcome to classifying people according to minority
status is to create a privileged class that has a built in excuse to fail.
How contradictory is that?
Being a minority gives one preferential treatment in the job market, but if that person fails, then the problem must be institutional
And in this sense, I don't mean to give credence to the movement to change the names of everything undesirable, such as "differently-abled" and
That's a good mentality, but again we are creating an atmosphere of denial of reality. The strengths perspective does not deny the weaknesses and
should not give them vague names.
In fact, by assuming the role of a "minority," the person whose abilities are limited for some reason is really placing an albatross around his own
In the work place, discrimination is the name of the game. Employers want to hire people who will be the best for the positions for which they hire.
A person who goes into an interview with the idea that he's a minority who's going to face discrimination is not going to present very well. The
deck is stacked against him in two respects.
The employer is going to be looking for weaknesses in each applicant and expecting the applicant to accentuate the strengths. The free market isn't
group therapy. It's hardball competition.
Every applicant who wants to have a chance has to have the best attitude that he can have, but at the same time expect that there will be rejection in
the job search.
Only the employer knows what qualities he's actually looking for and in many cases, they are probably intangible and indescribable.
So, classifying oneself as a "minority" really isn't in one's best interest. Considering oneself as eminently qualified is the best attitude
combined with the perseverance to continue in the face of rejection.
I hate to keep harping on this theme, but it is a far more productive approach than the one I see being made here.
[edit on 2007/7/13 by GradyPhilpott]