A couple of days ago, were were discussing writing CVs. A colleague (let’s call him Dick) was asking whether or not he should include a photo on his CV. I commented that I’d never seen a photo on a CV and would never consider including one. It’s not necessary in our line of work (i.e. code monkey - if I was an actor or a model then obviously it would be a different matter). But someone else (let’s call him Bob) suggested that he should include a photo. His reasoning was this: it would probably be apparent on Dick’s CV that he came from South Africa (because even if he didn’t explicitly state his nationality, his job history would give it away). Therefore a photo would show that he was white, so if the person reviewing his CV with a mind to interviewing him was racist then he’d probably be more likely to get pass the initial stage.

I was, in no uncertain terms, taken aback by this reasoning. I think my response might well have been a “What the fuck?” followed by a hasty “But that would be totally illegal!” Bob’s response was that it might well be illegal but even so, it wouldn’t stop the racists. The flashing moments of self assessment that were going off in my head like gunshots in Beirut made me realise that as much as I’m generally quite bitchy and cynical, I do tend to not think ill of people and their motivations. I’d never consider tailoring my CV so that it would be obvious that I was a WASP (even though I’m actually a WASC or, these days, more of a WASA. Except not so much AS - think I’d actually be classed as a WCA. Just think of all the fun you’re going to have working out what all those mean!)

At this point I think I said something along the lines of “If I didn’t get the job because I didn’t attach a photo, I wouldn’t care because I wouldn’t want to work for a racist anyway.” To which Bob said “Doesn’t that make you as bad as him because you’re discriminating too?” “Of course it doesn’t,” I replied. “Why not?” he queried. “I, ah…” My philosophical acumen failed me and I couldn’t come up with any constructive argument that was better than “It just doesn’t.” I felt so ashamed.

Reading Gert’s blog shortly after this, she said something quite simple: “the only thing we hate is hatred itself“. The logical inference from this is that Gert must hate herself for hating (under the assumption that the other thing they hate are people who hate). Yet this is one argument where logic can’t feature. I’m 99.9% certain that hating those who hate, discriminating against those who discriminate and being intolerant of those who aren’t tolerant is morally acceptable - after all, freedom of expression doesn’t make it all right - and I’m confident that it’s not being hypocritical or and that it’s not, in any way, a paradox. But for the life of me, I’m coming up blank when trying to find compelling justification for this viewpoint.

What would you say?