Sunday's New York Times editorial offers a stunning example of the degree to which age discrimination is accepted in America today. Here's what the editors wrote:
"Senator John McCain is 71 years old, a survivor of an aggressive form of skin cancer. If elected, he would be the oldest man to become president. These factors are not disqualifying, but they impose on Mr. McCain a larger duty than usual to provide detailed, timely disclosure about his health." Read the full editorial here.
Certainly, Senator McCain's health--like that of any candidate for the presidency--is a legitimate topic for campaign discussion and voluntary disclosure, and the fact that he recently survived a bout with cancer is a fair question for public concern.
But the fact that the Times chose to conflate a discussion of the candidate's physical capabilities to do the job with an emphasis on his advanced age is offensive and discriminatory.
If Mr. McCain were an applicant for a job at the newspaper, they could legitimately ask if he knew of any physical limitations that might affect his ability to perform the required duties. But to ask him how old he is would be to invite a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for illegal age-related discrimination. In essence, Mr. McCain is applying to the voters for a job, and the Times is encouraging us to use an illegal discriminatory standard to judge his fitness for the position.
Last year the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission received over 19,000 complaints of age-related job discrimination and collected $66 million in fines from offenders. Age discrimination in employment is epidemic in America. It's sad to see The New York Times setting such a bad example for its readers.
Post new comment