Politics should be separated from institutions
In an ideal professional workplace, appointments, promotions,
demotions, job descriptions and power structures should be free of
politics. Once an act is defined as “political,” it is
presumed by some no longer to be subject to integrity, law,
professionalism, ethics or even basic human decency ““ because
politics is considered to supersede and overrule all of these
values. In Roget’s International Thesaurus, the word
“politics” is bracketed with “cunning,”
where we find “slyness, insidiousness, shiftiness, leeriness,
foxiness, slipperiness, trickiness,” Machiavellism, etc. Most
people trust and enjoy the entities they work in; however, there
are also workplaces in which employees are hurt due to the politics
in them. In the eyes of the “politicians” in the
professional workplace, politics is king, public relations are more
important than quality, flattery achieves more than dedication,
unconditional “cooperation” is more important than
integrity, and style replaces substance. A dissenting opinion,
regardless of its merits, is a nuisance. A certain amount of
politics is inevitable in any human organization. However, if
politics prevents an institution from functioning properly and
fairly, the strength and value of that institution are compromised.
Organizations may run a long time on their good reputation before
such a fatal weakness is exposed. In many workplaces, unfairly
treated employees sometimes do not have the tools or the means to
fight unfair practices. Employees who refuse to tolerate politics
where it does not belong are often handed their retirement packages
long before the political environment of their professional
workplace becomes publicly known. However, though a passive
approach to political wrongdoing may ensure the length of
one’s employment, it also guarantees the politics will
eventually corrode the institution completely. In such an
institution, when an employer has a responsibility to deal with
employees fairly and in good faith but does not, it is called
“politics.” When a highly capable employee with a
substantial life experience and a record of professional excellence
is unfairly eliminated from the decision-making process, when a
false statement is made that lowers a person’s professional
image, the “politicians” of a professional workplace
claim that the issues are not libel, misrepresentation or
collusion; it is merely “politics.” And when a person
complains or participates in legal action about unfair or illegal
treatment because of sex, race, national origin, ancestry, age,
disability, sexual orientation, marital status, retaliation or
medical condition, the “politicians” of a professional
workplace allege that the complainant is addressing merely a
“political” act. The might of the politicians in the
workplace is their right. An institution built on politics will
enhance the life of its politicians, compromise the careers of its
professionals, and ultimately undermine the integrity of its own
work. The leader of such an institution must take a clear stand on
these issues, apply corrective measures to end unlawful conduct and
establish clear boundaries regarding politics in the place of
employment he leads.
Lev Hakak Professor, UCLA Hebrew Language and
Literature
“˜Pearl Harbor’ critique flawed In
the column ““˜Pearl
Harbor’ uses history to disguise war propaganda,”
(Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, June 4) Mitra Ebadolahi rambles on and on
about the evils of war and Hollywood. She uses some of the most
illogical, circular thinking I have ever read. Ebadolahi starts her
article by saying that war is a “dehumanizing murderous
moment in human history. We must ask ourselves why movies like
“Pearl Harbor” are created. What purpose do they serve?
How much can they jeopardize the future of the human race by
promoting and perpetuating war and violence?” Translation:
“Pearl Harbor” is a huge, evil propaganda film made for
the sole intent of glorifying war. But then Ebadolahi closes this
very same article by quoting from the film “a brilliant man
would find a way not to fight a war.” Maybe I’m slow to
figure this out, but how exactly does a war propaganda film contain
these lines? In response to the question “What purpose do
these films serve?” I would think that a history major would
know the old cliche “those who do not learn from history are
doomed to repeat it.” Ebadolahi also goes on and on talking
about how the movies’ greatest injustice is how they paint a
black-and-white picture of the situation and take complex issues
and turn them into simple “good guy versus bad guy”
scenarios. All I can say to Ebadolahi is look in the mirror. What
does she think she has just done with this article? She has created
a story where Hollywood is the all powerful evil villain
desperately attempting to glorify war. Please! I’m going to
spare everyone the endless reasons why a Hollywood big-budget movie
is made. I will, however, tell you that the “glorification of
war” is way down at the bottom. I hope that in the future
Ebadolahi will practice what she preaches. Because as of right now
she merely comes off as an ill-informed student blindly screaming
for justice to the masses.
Andrew Wohlwend UCLA alumnus 2000