The Social Affairs Unit

Print Version • Website Home • Weblog Home


Use the buttons below to change the style and font size of our site.
Screen version     Print version:   
March 11, 2010

Theodore Dalrymple finds much to dislike in a job ad in the British Medical Journal

Posted by Theodore Dalrymple

Theodore Dalrymple gets to grips with the rather odd preferences expressed in a job advertisement placed by the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

An advertisement in a recent edition of the British Medical Journal caught my eye. It was for a Senior Adviser, Access, placed by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, one of those many organisations that live and breathe and take their being in the large no man's land between government and charity.

Like every applicant for every job these days, the applicant "will be an exceptional leader and strategist" and will "have excellent interpersonal skills" - that is to say, he will at the very least be plausible and manipulative. The advertisement goes on to say that "CVs will not be accepted", presumably on the grounds that past performance is no guide to future performance.

None of this startled me. It was the beginning of the final paragraph that did so, the first sentence being the only one in the whole advertisement to be in heavy type:

Applications are particularly welcome from candidates openly living with AIDS/HIV.
The next sentence read:
IPPF is committed to equal opportunities and cultural diversity.
It would, of course, take an entire book to uncover all the layers of deceit, moral cowardice and double or multiple standards contained in these words. I can make only a beginning.

What is a person "openly living with HIV/AIDS?" Does it mean someone not only infected with HIV or suffering from AIDS, but trumpeting it abroad? Or can it in include someone living with a person of that description, and trumpeting it abroad?

Let us assume that the first of these meanings is the one that is meant. There is surely something very peculiar about the particular welcome to be given by the IPPF to such people, not because one wishes such people any harm, but because one does not see anything particularly virtuous or worthy of particular welcome in their affliction. Is it the openness that is particularly welcomed, or the HIV/AIDS, or the combination of the two? That is to say, if a person kept the fact that he had HIV/AIDS to himself, would he not be a particularly welcome applicant?

You might remember that there was a time within living memory when a lot of effort went into persuading people that AIDS should be regarded as just another illness, albeit one with its own characteristics, clinical and epidemiological - which, indeed, it must have had in order to be a recognisably different illness in the first place. As it happens, this was a point of view that accorded completely with my own from the very first, and I therefore had no difficulty accepting it.

So why, if AIDS is just another illness, do we never see an advertisement particularly welcoming applicants living with syphilis/general paralysis of the insane, or cancer/secondaries, or hepatitis C/hepatoma, or any number of others that one could think of?

The fact is that the advertisement demands doublethink of us: that we accept simultaneously that AIDS is just one disease among others on the one hand, and that it is completely and categorically different on the other. We are expected, in most cases rightly, to perform this mental operation without even noticing it. And we do so, because we are accustomed to doing so.

Let us now turn briefly to the weasel word "particularly", or "particularly welcome". What does it actually mean? How particular is the "particular" of particularly welcome? What effect on the final choice of candidate for the job will the particular welcome have? If it has none, why include it in the advertisement? In what sense, then, is the welcome particular? Extra tea and biscuits?

On the other hand, if it has some actual effect on the choice, in what sense can the IPPF then claim to be an equal opportunity employer? That all opportunities are equal, but some are more equal than others?

Whatever sense (not much, outside of apartheid states) can be given to the term "Equal opportunity employer", it surely cannot mean the giving of what amounts to sheltered employment to people with certain favoured or designated diseases. And this is so even if the only other meaning of the term is the random selection of employee from the list of candidates, if not from the electoral roll or from the population of the entire world.

I will pass over in dignified silence the juxtaposition of people living openly with HIV/AIDS with the commitment to cultural diversity. For even if HIV/AIDS is contracted largely through activities that are associated with subcultures, I doubt that this is what is meant by encouraging cultural diversity.

Let us briefly consider cultural diversity from another angle. What it means in this context, I think, is "Anyone from anywhere, provided that he or she accepts our ideas". It cannot really mean anything else, because the successful candidate is supposed to have, in addition to the other qualities I have mentioned, "a sound understanding of sexual and reproductive health and rights, research and evidence based programmes".

I am no anthropologist, but I do not think it is necessary to be one to know that "sexual and reproductive rights" (of which the IPPF calls itself "a leading advocate") are not, and never have been, human universals, recognised in all times and all places by all cultures. Let us suppose that we uttered the phrase "sexual and reproductive rights" to David Hume (let alone Genghis Khan): what would it mean to him?

This is not to say that I am against such rights: only to point out that you cannot advocate them and fail to discriminate against people, quite likely of another culture, who do not recognise them.

So the advertisement placed in the BMJ by the IPPF is a typical modern utterance of a certain kind: one that wishes to convey virtue without the difficult work of actually being virtuous. It has the moral seriousness of Messrs Podsnap and Veneering in Our Mutual Friend. It would be just as amusing as that fiction, if it were not rather a symptom of a deep malaise in our culture: the corruption of language.

Theodore Dalrymple is a writer and worked for many years as an inner city and prison doctor. He is the author of the author of Junk Medicine: Doctors, Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy and In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas.


Comments Notice
This comments facility is the property of the Social Affairs Unit.
We reserve the right to edit, amend or remove comments for legal reasons, policy reasons or any other reasons we judge fit.

By posting comments here you accept and acknowledge the Social Affairs Unit's absolute and unfettered right to edit your comments as set out above.
Comments

An excellent piece. This is the kind of 'criticism of language' which should be done in A-Level and University English classes, but isn't.
In fact, Universities are among the worst offenders when it comes to corruption of this sort.

Posted by: K McQuiggan at March 11, 2010 09:19 PM
•••

"So why, if AIDS is just another illness, do we never see an advertisement particularly welcoming applicants living with syphilis/general paralysis of the insane, or cancer/secondaries, or hepatitis C/hepatoma, or any number of others that one could think of?"

Good point!

Posted by: aids symptom at March 12, 2010 06:50 AM
•••

Having been a nurse in a drugs treatment agency, I was very interested in your comparison in "living openly with" HIV and doing the same with Hep C, which as you know can be transmitted sexually and also caught from injecting. Many organisations advocate for people with HIV, very few for those with Hep C. Given that people living with Hep C lack the articulate, middle-class campaigning base that those unfortunate enough to have HIV have, does one detect a hierarchy of the afflicted?

Posted by: Frugal Dougal at March 12, 2010 10:24 AM
•••
Post a comment








Anti-spambot Turing code







Creative Commons License
Except where otherwise noted, this site is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

The Social Affairs Unit's weblog Privacy Statement