Now that the Hardvard-educated biologist Amy Bishop allegedly has murdered three professors at the University of Albama, her charge of sex discrimination against the university would seem to be a shut case. But, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, a spokesman for the university declined comment on Bishop because of the ongoing discrimination case.

Such is the atmosphere of proceduralism and bureaucratic hesitation created by our anti-discrimination statutes. Bishop had acted erratically and aroused suspicions of insanity in a number of colleagues, the Chronicle reports, and yet she was free to threaten the university with a sex discrimination suit filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Employees are much less likely to speak frankly with supervisors, and employers are much less likely to act on their instincts, in the kind of atmosphere created by anti-discrimination laws. They are not just inherently unfair, they are dangerous. Perhaps it is not too absurd in today’s work climate to imagine a convicted murderer winning a discrimination case.

                               — Comments —

Michael S. writes:

“Perhaps it is not too absurd in today’s work climate to imagine a convicted murderer winning a discrimination case.”

That would not surprise me in the least.

Please follow and like us: