One such ad stated that the successful candidate will be "a native English speaker." To emphasize the point the writer added, "No kidding." I replied asking why this is not illegal discrimination on the basis of national origin, and was not surprised not to receive a reply. I can't find the ad any longer, however, leading me to wonder if enough people complained that the company realized it had broken a taboo and perhaps a law.
What is a native English speaker, anyway? Someone born in an English-speaking country? (Which raises the question of what an English-speaking country is.) Someone born to English-speaking parents? (Which raises the question of what English-speaking parents are.) Someone who has never spoken a language other than English? (Which raises the question of why an employer would choose ignorance over knowledge.) Someone who speaks many languages, but learned English first? (Which raises the question of why on earth this would matter.)
If it were possible to discriminate on the basis of native English-speaking status -- and I just can't imagine that it is -- that would have disqualified such excellent English-speakers as my father and wife from the workplace, not to mention Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Soros. It would even call my English credentials into question, Ivy degree and AP awards notwithstanding, as I lived my first year-and-a-half in French-speaking countries, an experience that, alas, had no impact whatsoever on my ability to speak French.
While using the word "native" is fraught with issues, I see no problem with giving an English language test to applicants for jobs that require fluency in the English language. There should be some wiggle room on such questions as whether collective nouns are singular or plural, or whether "that" is an acceptable personal pronoun (though misusing an apostrophe should be grounds for immediate dismissal if not public whipping!) and there would be costs and effort involved in administering and scoring the tests. But none of this should pose any challenge to those with native management skills.
Political correctness is killing our country. I'm sure you disagree. Can some one please tell me what is wrong with this ad?
ReplyDelete"Studio Apt. for rent. Walking distance to PATH train. H/HW included$650."
It discriminates against those who can't walk. So said the Jersey Journal suddenly, as I attempted to place this ad for the umpteenth time. Okay, well if you have no legs, and leave a trail of slime beneath you, is it in sliming distance? Does that discriminate against those who can’t slime? I was never intending to keep out the wheel-chair crowd. It’s still within wheeling distance, but from a bldg that was hopelessly ADA non-compliant.
You have to say CLOSE to PATH. But that doesn’t tell you if you can walk in a reasonable amount of time, if you can walk.
How about a job for an English teacher. Isn’t native English speaker (Born, raised and educated to college level in an English speaking country such as US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand South Africa, etc.) a legitimate requirement? Do you think the guy named “Bob” in Mumbai who tells you to reboot your computer late at night is qualified to be an English teacher if his test scores are high enough?
Yes, that's what I think.
ReplyDeletehow can it be "discrimination" to not hire someone from another country? A small company can hire whoever they want. People typically have to have a green card to work but they have no "right" to work in this country any more than do we have a right to work in another country. There is nothing wrong with requiring a native speaker. If you tried to get a job as a translator of Spanish, you might similarly lose out to someone who is a native speaker of Spanish.
ReplyDelete