Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl
Technically, that is arguable, but that wasn't really my point. Don't you ever question laws? Assuming that a job candidate meets the requirements to work (and be taxed) in that country, why should the state dictate who can and cannot be hired? Is that more productive? Does it ease conflict along racial or religious or gender lines? Experience in the U.S. says no.
Let us suppose that you had a school based upon some particular belief structure (even if it is simply secular). Parents send their children to your school because they like the curriculum. Suddenly, some diametrically opposed applicant shows up. Perhaps they are qualified, or perhaps they are not.
What do you do? If you hire this person, how do you explain it to your students' parents?
|
So equality of opportunity for
ALL is actually a
bad idea? How did that happen? Maybe I'm just a naive optimist, but I do like to think things are a little better between the races, genders, and religions than they were when my folks were kids. They thought so. I do think the 'state'(meaning us) helped with that.
As a principal of whatever school I would tell the parents the same thing-
"Mr/Ms was the best qualified candidate in our judgement to teach these courses."
Really, what else would you say?