There are issues within both the Republican and Democratic Party, which comes as no surprise as a new scandal from each side seems to be coming out each week. But there are also ideological differences (again, not surprisingly) that not only can be key in who gets elected based on their stance, but also how those stances impact what we think about others in daily life. Sure, popular stances to bicker about do include social questions like abortion or the wage gap. But the one I’m talking about here is a bit more complex that seems to be muted at times: identity politics.
Say you’re up for a job position that would come with a pretty big salary jump. You’ve worked hard, you never step out of line, and you even excel in your field, as you are secretly a walking textbook full of the stuff your job entails. This would be a perfect fit for you as a job. Not to mention the extra pay and awesome benefits.
Despite all this, you hear back and you don’t get the job. It was given to someone else. It’s very unlikely that you have full credentials on the person who got it against you. But for argument’s sake, let’s say they have the same or less amount of qualifications as you. Where’s the dividing line that made you lose the job? Why was it that despite that perfect resume and a flawless interview, or even a shoddy interview and a great resume, that you didn’t get it? Could it be something as simple as the hiring director thinking you don’t fit the spot or could it be more than that? This is something that identity politics deals with every day and can even be seen in the classroom with Affirmative Action.
Some people believe that a person should be hired 100% completely based off credentials. Whoever is the smartest or most qualified will fill the position, no questions asked. However, there is a flip side to this, as typically Democrats often point out in pictures such as those that officials like Paul Ryan have posted: what about representation?
In places where the world is watching, do we need to elect or hire those based solely on qualifications? Or, should we look at credentials as well as personal background? It’s a fight that can be uncomfortable to talk about, but seems to be one that desperately needs to be touched on. Should it depend on the job field how the hiring decision is made or should there be a standard for all corporations?
In every way this is discussed, there is also a free market incentive; expect that every day when you live in a country dominated by the pillars of capitalism. If certain companies do hire based on equal opportunity and others do not, what does that say about that company or corporation? When filling out a resume, almost always, there will usually be a space to claim that “This employer is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate based on [x, y, and z].”
Not everyone is covered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, though, so what should a company hire someone upon? Sure, there are still general coverages for every company, but that doesn’t mean that companies will comply. This is when the lawyers start to come in handy; even then though, what may seem as a blatant discrimination could be regarded as just a coincidence. So what’s really happening here?
There are drawbacks to each, but also good things about both sides of the argument. First, let’s say we live in a world where we only hire people based on credibility. In this world, ideally, there would be the best person in every spot and work would get done most efficiently. Everyone is qualified and needs little to no assistance. However, this often could lack diversity, and could start to create stereotypes for a group of individuals.
It already happened: when women started to take job positions, the majority of women were seeking jobs in for nursing or education, so it seems natural now to ask a woman if they were going to also pursue one of these positions. These fields became a “traditional” type of job for women to work in, and it’s not expected of women to major in these fields, but it’s no surprise when they do. The lack of diversity could actually also hurt people who rely on those in power to make decisions.
For example, in the past, there were no women in Congress. A lot of women share similar experiences; if there are no women to represent women, how will their demands be most fittingly met? It took forever to attain women’s suffrage; could that process have been sped up if a female was in Congress demanding for those rights on behalf of constituents?
The flip side of the argument is the exact opposite. If there is extreme diversification of people in a certain field of positions, is that the best method of hiring people? If we hire based on what someone’s character or background plus qualifications, would that be the same outcome if it was a blind pick?
With examining who is getting the job, we have more representation in that field and more people can be spoken on behalf of; it also shows that the job cannot pick someone unfairly. But is it unfair to pick someone who is only different than another based on their background or an experience that they had? In a place without equal employment guarantees, how do decisions get made about staff?
There are a lot of different circumstances and decisions being made every day based on or opposed to identity politics. Is it right to have people in place for more representation or based off qualifications only? Personally, I go back and forth on this one a lot. It’s important to choose someone who is most qualified for a position, but also, there has to be some sort of diversity and variation in experience and background present. Where's the balance in that?
