Today's Society is Too Easily "Offended"

I receive an email newsletter from a medium-sized Florida accounting firm. It pops up in my inbox every week or so, and I browse the titles and taglines, looking for something that piques my interest. Well, this last one did: an article addressing "danger zones" in interview questions.

Apparently, chatting about sports is discriminatory. Why? Well, if the interviewer is male, and the interviewee female, then that is broaching a topic she may not be "interested" in, therefore being biased and practicing discrimination.

Huh. Okay.

So what about this one: it is discriminatory to ask interviewees questions pertaining to their resumes and personal experience. Why? Because the questions may then be considered "subjective," skewed toward each applicant, and by some logic, therefore an act of discrimination.

We are on a roll here.

Here is one last "danger zone:" brain teasers/critical thinking problems. According to the article, such puzzles are considered to discriminate against persons from cultures other than that of the United States, because they may not understand the question. An understandable concern, perhaps, as there may be multiple definitions, some rather obscure, of various descriptions involved in such a puzzle, that persons who do not speak English as their primary language would understand. But I say that if an individual is proficient enough to make it in the U.S. long enough to have work experience, a resume, and qualifications for an interview, either a) they will be able to understand the question and solve it, or b) they will be able to explain why they do not comprehend the nature of the question. If an interviewer is truly using such questions to just thin out foreign interviewees, such responses should negate said intentions.

So, am I being insensitive here? I hope not. I hope that this seems as absurd to you as it does to me. "Fairness" is only good so far--but have we not been told while growing up that "life isn't fair?"

Think on that.