Rachel is the woman at the center of this controversy. She is the head of the NAACP center in Spokane, WA. A Caucasian lady that perpetrated herself to be of African-American descent.
Now I understand why people would be upset and that she lied. I believe the feeling is that she lied to get a job. But have people ever examined why she lied? It certainly wasn't for a Fortune 500 company. It, by all accounts, was to do something to better the NAACP community. Would I say the ends justified the means? In this case, yes. But people are up in arms, because she "Soul Man"'d the system. The organization seems very vague to me. I'm not sure what they specifically do. I would think the term "advancement of colored people" would be different shades of people. And who knows? After this lie, should we pursue WHO exactly would benefit from this advancement?
Personally I wouldn't want ANYONE scrutinizing my books in a situation where my company was already the target of criticism. I'd lay low, let the Caucasian lady keep her post and just let the hullabaloo die down, less you get people looking deep into your organization.
But you know what the real rub is...that this white lady snatched a gig from a black person. Now, if she's been doing a fine job before, there isn't a reason why anything really has changed, except your constituents' mindset. For which then you have to decide what business are you really running.
No comments:
Post a Comment