For this, my friend admonished me. He accused me of being hyper-ethical, and said I was strangely unwilling to provide my friend with any insight or aid for his upcoming interview. I then questioned why an expectation exists wherein I need to divulge any and all data I have on my co-worker: his pant-size, what kind of underwear he wears (if any), what his hobbies are, the kind of car he drives, his thoughts on premarital sex, his favorite color, whether or not he believes man coexisted with the dinosaurs, has he given any thought to the plausibility of time travel? I asked him if he thought it was fair for me to give him - our mutual friend - an advantage over other candidates by providing him with information he would otherwise not have access to. My friend saw no issue with this and continued to berate me for being 'weird' and 'unrealistic.' He claimed that the system is built on connections, and that often, getting a job is as much a result of who you know, as it is what you know, and that for me to think otherwise is foolish.
I do not deny this, nor had I at any point during our conversation. I know this to be true. However, it is because I know it to be true that I acted the way I did. Knowing something to be true does not somehow preclude me from disagreeing with it. For example, I know racism exists, yet I disagree with it. I know those that possess great power often abuse it, and this is an affront to justice and decency. I know many people consider Lady Gaga to be an artist; again, I do not condone this. To extend this further, I would argue that knowing an evil exists, serves as a kind of encouragement to act in a fashion that is contrary to it - to actively behave in such a way that reduces the quantity of any extant evil - which is why I responded to our mutual friend the way I did; to promote meritocracy instead of cronyism.
And while I don't doubt our friend's ability to perform exceptionally within the role, for me to just give him a leg up on the competition simply because luck has afforded him the opportunity - which really just boils down to proximity - to become friendly with someone who happens to be on that team (me), seems unfair. Imagine interviewing for a position you were highly qualified for, and having gone through the rigors of a grueling multi-segmented interview process (where the feedback was largely positive) - the deal was pretty much sealed - only to receive a call from the recruiter at the last minute informing you they've decided to go ahead and pursue another candidate, whom you find out was buddies with some key members on the team that had put in a good word for him. Would you not feel slighted? Had I asked my friend this question, he may have reconsidered his stance, but I didn't feel like rubbing enough salt to turn the wound to jerky.
I should've conducted a background check on my friend to see if he was ever a member of the 'old boys club,' or perhaps a patron of the 'golden circle.' Though, knowing him, the only types of 'old boys' he has any association with are the ones pictured at lemon party. And the kind golden circles he cares about aren't ones you'd find floating above the heads of angels. Speaking of angels, do you think the only reason some of them got into heaven was because they knew Jesus? If you need proof, just read Luke 23:39-43. I mean if Jesus supported cronyism, who am I to oppose it? I guess hell is a bit more of a meritocracy than heaven is; you really have to earn your place. Organized religion kind of grants you a universal amnesty as long as you believe in the deity they market to you and denounce all others, right? I'll take some of that holy water infused with Oxy-Clean - it washes out even the most stuck-on sins. For a limited time only, buy one and get the second-coming free!
No comments:
Post a Comment