Maybe not blind, but watch your focus

By BJ Bjornson

Richard Dawkins has an article up regarding the case of Martin Gaskell, the astronomer who applied for a position at the University of Kentucky and was denied employment based upon his (admittedly ridiculous) beliefs regarding evolutionary biology. According to Dawkins, we should be far more willing to discriminate against job applicants based on their beliefs, religious or otherwise.

If you disagree, I offer the following argument. Even if a doctor�s belief in the stork theory of reproduction is technically irrelevant to his competence as an eye surgeon, it tells you something about him. It is revealing. It is relevant in a general way to whether we would wish him to treat us or teach us. A patient could reasonably shrink from entrusting her eyes to a doctor whose beliefs (admittedly in the apparently unrelated field of obstetrics) are so cataclysmically disconnected from reality. And a student could reasonably object to being taught geography by a professor who is prepared to take a salary to teach, however brilliantly, what he believes is a lie. I think those are good grounds to impugn his moral character if not his sanity, and a student would be wise to avoid his classes.

But should this all change, if it can be shown that these eccentric beliefs are based upon religion? Should religiously inspired beliefs be privileged, protected against scrutiny, where other beliefs are not? If the eye-doctor�s belief in the stork theory, or the geographer�s flat-earthism, or the astronomer�s belief that Mars is the egg of a mongoose, turned out to be derived directly from a holy book or �faith tradition�, should that weaken our objection?

Now, that isn�t a bad argument, and I�m forced to admit that if I was aware that someone I needed to trust for some important task was possessed of some nutty belief or another, I�d be more than a little concerned about their competence and character. Of course, I rather rarely am aware of someone�s personal beliefs, and even if I was, I still have to disagree on whether or not that should influence my decision to hire them.

Let�s take Dawkins examples out for a little bit more of a spin, shall we? Suppose you are entirely unaware of your eye surgeon�s rather weird belief in the stock theory of reproduction? More than possible given you�re going to see her for eye surgery and not pediatrics. Hell, even you�d been seeing her for years and dropped by one day with a new baby and she congratulated you on the gift the stork brought you, you likely pass over it as a kind of joke rather than a deeply held belief. And if we�re to take this as part of the argument regarding Mr. Gaskell, assume our stork-believing surgeon friend just happens to be a truly great eye surgeon? Do you think its necessary to grill the individual over her beliefs and practices totally unrelated to the job she does so well just so you can be more comfortable that the person operating on your eyes follows your own personal definition of proper rational thought? Does it bother you at all that you would likely have supported her as a great eye surgeon up to the point you learned about something unrelated to her job?

I know several people who believe in all sorts of what I consider to be pretty wacky things and yet who are more than competent at their jobs and likely a great deal more intelligent overall than I am. If I didn�t know them as well as I do, I wouldn�t be aware of those beliefs and even now that I do, I still can�t see any evidence that it effects their job performance, and as a good skeptic, I�m all about evidence. If you can�t show me that someone�s beliefs are actually affecting their performance, then I don�t think you have a good case for discriminating against them.

This brings me to something else I read today regarding discrimination caused by rather than based on beliefs about people�s lives outside of their actual jobs, the recent repeal of �Don�t Ask, Don�t Tell� in the U.S., where it was perfectly okay for gays to serve in the military until someone found out about their sexual orientation. I grant we�re discussing entirely different situations here in that one can consciously change their beliefs, but what caught my attention in this case was the method used in my own country to deal with the same kind of transition the U.S. now faces.

Canada�s aim was to change behavior, not beliefs. The U.S. should follow suit. Allow servicemembers to hold whatever beliefs they have about the issue, but do not tolerate behavior that contradicts that rule.

This, I think, acts as a pretty good standard when considering potential applicants beliefs when they�re applying for a position, assuming you happen to know them at all. Let them keep their beliefs, so long as they don�t use them to try and justify not doing their job properly, like some of the Saskatchewan marriage commissioners who seem to think that their religion should exempt them from carrying out their duties to the public if they don�t agree with them. They got slapped down, and good on those doing the slapping.

More to the point, if we are supposed to start treating improper beliefs as sufficient cause to discriminate regardless of the effect it has on one�s work, just who gets to draw up the orthodoxy that must be adhered to? I don�t suppose Dawkins was thinking in those terms, but it certainly came to my mind. Perhaps being in a country where the majority no longer follow any religious faith is making him a little cocky, but being in a nation that, although nowhere near as bad as our southern neighbours, is still fairly religious and to whom a fair number of those religious folks thinks my lack of belief is as completely irrational as theirs actually is, I�m actually quite happy that my beliefs, or lack thereof, can�t be held against me when I�m looking for work. Here at least, requiring employers to be blind to personal beliefs that don�t affect ones duties is to a large degree self-preservation. Its really never a good idea to tell people they should be allowed to discriminate based on something the majority of people disagree with you on.

Even if we were to somehow come up with some kind of skeptical orthodoxy and were able to enforce that kind of system on the rest of the population, we�d rather quickly find ourselves in rough waters regardless. Virtually every one of us has one kind of irrational belief or another, even if we don�t recognize it in ourselves. We�re all human, and humans aren�t terribly rational beings, even if we happen to be masters at rationalizations.

Judge people on their performance. Generally, that�s all you�re going to have good evidence for. Start trying to police their thoughts on other topics and you start treading into territory I�m more than a little uncomfortable with, for what I think are pretty good reasons. Or, as PZ puts it:

We have to be careful about letting personal disagreements on matters of taste intrude on our decisions; if the person has been circumspect about keeping them from poisoning a body of good work, I'm willing to accommodate them. The alternative is that we start rejecting applicants because we discover that they listen to 70s hair metal bands while they work, are fans of the New York Yankees, or put milk in their teacup before they add the hot water, all irrational and unforgiveable heresies. It's all fine unless they join a Poison tribute band and start slopping dairy products about with manic abandon.