Business Ethics 301
TUI UNIVERSITY
Module 2: Case Study, Should disabled veterans get preferential treatment over better qualified candidates who are not disabled veterans?
Course Number: Ethics 301
Normally, when I have written papers in the past I have read the question asked of the professor and roll around the question in my head. I usually respond to the question with a “short answer”, which would be “no” or “long answer” which is “yes”, and then research the question further. I have done so with this question as well. My short answer is “no”. Why would a company hire a person with a disability, or someone without a disability, over a possible employee who is better qualified? After staring at this question for a couple of hours I noticed the word typed in bold “better”. Better qualified. Now I would mention our thread discussion this module is the value of merit. One could argue that a resume is a value of merit. It shows a company your education, and your certificates awarded for skills for that particular job. If a disabled veteran is better qualified than the next guy who is not disabled, there is a standard of merit. Merit has equality. Hiring the better candidate should always prevail. Hypothetically, let’s say Mr. Value and his wife have been trying for a few years to have a child. Mrs. Value has a high risk pregnancy and goes in to labor early risking the life of their only child. Merit Medical University has a resident and a disabled veteran who served heroically in Desert Storm. SSG (Dr) Haynes graduated from medical school and scored in the bottom of his class.
He finished his internship at MMU and barely passed his medical board.
Ms High Grades is a civilian who graduated from the same college, honor student and also did her internship at MMU and aced her medical board. Both Doctors applied for the same position at MMU. After reviewing both resumes and
Module 2: Case Study, Should disabled veterans get preferential treatment over better qualified candidates who are not disabled veterans?
Course Number: Ethics 301
Normally, when I have written papers in the past I have read the question asked of the professor and roll around the question in my head. I usually respond to the question with a “short answer”, which would be “no” or “long answer” which is “yes”, and then research the question further. I have done so with this question as well. My short answer is “no”. Why would a company hire a person with a disability, or someone without a disability, over a possible employee who is better qualified? After staring at this question for a couple of hours I noticed the word typed in bold “better”. Better qualified. Now I would mention our thread discussion this module is the value of merit. One could argue that a resume is a value of merit. It shows a company your education, and your certificates awarded for skills for that particular job. If a disabled veteran is better qualified than the next guy who is not disabled, there is a standard of merit. Merit has equality. Hiring the better candidate should always prevail. Hypothetically, let’s say Mr. Value and his wife have been trying for a few years to have a child. Mrs. Value has a high risk pregnancy and goes in to labor early risking the life of their only child. Merit Medical University has a resident and a disabled veteran who served heroically in Desert Storm. SSG (Dr) Haynes graduated from medical school and scored in the bottom of his class.
He finished his internship at MMU and barely passed his medical board.
Ms High Grades is a civilian who graduated from the same college, honor student and also did her internship at MMU and aced her medical board. Both Doctors applied for the same position at MMU. After reviewing both resumes and