Whilst filling in yet another application form for a job, I was struck by a bit of the small print (which you should always read folks). It said “If you have a disability you are guarenteed an interview if you meet the essential requirements of the job as set out in the person specification”. This really annoyed me.
Looking through the person specification, the essential bits are comparatively simple things: “A good level of education”, “Experience of using local websites” and “Experience of working directly with the public”. As I read these things, I knew that I could tick all the boxes. However, because I am not disabled, I am not guarenteed an interview, and therefore may not be selected for the role. Which I think is hugely unfair.
Would it not be better to say something along the lines of, “if you can prove you fulfill all these requirements, we will guarentee you an interview”? With all application forms, there is a section about discrimination, you have to say what ethnicity you are, and whether you have a disability, as well as providing your gender. Now I understand why this is needed, but when there is small print like the above one, you cannot help but wonder if this whole idea of ensuring equality perhaps is having an adverse effect, and is actually serving to perhaps discriminate against those run-of-the-mill type individuals such as myself? Why can I not be guarenteed an interview if I fulfill all the criteria, but those with disabilities can? I almost feel as though I’m the one being discriminated against because I am not disabled in any way, shape or form.
Recent Comments