Ethics Quiz: The Fate of Rachel Dolezal


I hope you remember Rachel Dolezal, the former NAACP branch president who falsely claimed to be black, double-talked and lied about her racial origins, and was defended by the “race is just a social construct” crowd on the left, as part of the same ideological fantasy that holds that a man can be a woman by just deciding that she is one. Ethics Alarms discussed her strange story here, here, and here.

Following her 15 minutes of fame, Rachel was somehow unable to manage a book contract or a speaking tour, perhaps because she is a walking, talking Achilles heel for several beloved progressive myths, Now she’s jobless and living on food stamps, and facing foreclosure and expects to be evicted next month.

“There’s no protected class for me,” she told The Guardian. “I’m this generic, ambiguous scapegoat for white people to call me a race traitor and take out their hostility on. And I’m a target for anger and pain about white people from the black community. It’s like I am the worst of all these worlds…I do think a more complex label would be helpful, but we don’t really have that vocabulary. I feel like the idea of being trans-black would be much more accurate than ‘I’m white.’ Because you know, I’m not white.”

Of course, she is.

Dolezal says she’s been rejected for  over 100 jobs. She has had offers on the freak show circuit,  in porn and reality TV. But Dolezal is not uneducated or dumb. Surely there are many jobs that she could perform, and well.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz Of The Day is this…

Would you hire Rachel Dolezal?


If you read the linked posts, you know my answer. Dolezal is either a pathological liar or nuts; which is a close call, but neither is something I would seek in an employee.  Still, I can see arguments for redemption, compassion, kindness, a second chance. Maybe someone can convince me that Rachel deserves a reprieve. I would be easier to convince if she stopped claiming to be black.

I wouldn’t hire Elizabeth Warren, either, for similar reasons, except she’s not nuts. A majority of voter in my home state do not agree, apparently believing that Native American heritage is also a “construct.”

One final note: if your stomach is feeling steady, check out the comments to the story on Tucker Carlson’s site. If my website attracted readers that ugly, cruel, bigoted and racist, I’d shut it down.

Pointer and Source: Daily Caller

20 thoughts on “Ethics Quiz: The Fate of Rachel Dolezal

  1. Would I hire her? Let’s assume that her work history and skills met ALL my job requirements. In an interview, I’d certainly ask her specifically about the entire episode and what happened. I’d want to get a personal perspective on her behavior and attitude. I’d want to talk with her former employer(s) to get a better idea of her behavior and success at her former jobs. In other words, I’d be willing to give her a couple of hours to see if she had a satisfactory explanation of events and why it wouldn’t happen again.

    Would I hire her? Probably not. Based on everything I’ve seen in the media, she appears to have an inability to tell the truth and (going out on a limb here) a martyr complex as well as all the media baggage. She’d have to be pretty interstellar on an interview to get hired.

    What puzzles me the most is how she was able to hold down what appeared to be a decent paying job with a large NGO. Were there no red flags popping up during her employment there?

    • The whole came to public view because people she was working with didn’t think that things added up, and suggested that reporters (and I think even a detective) to look into the matter.

      • Yes, based on the media reports, it appears that something wonky was going on with her and her job. But, in this particular case, I would be willing to give her a couple of hours of an interview (again, if she met all the job requirements) to hear her out.

        Sure, my gut feeling based on the media reports and interviews is to think she’s a nut job. But I’m also aware that the media can create one hell of a story out of a nutshell. If I was interviewing her, as I said, she’d have to be pretty damn interstellar for me to hire her with the baggage she carries.

        • Unfortunately, some of the questions you would LIKE to ask both her and her previous employers, you cannot ask, and the previous employer can only give you her dates of employment and whether or not they would re-hire her.

  2. I do believe Tucker Carlson enjoys those types of comments. I have seen him read some of them, laughing all the while. Evidently, they’re good for ratings.

  3. Either she lied to advance her career or for pathological reasons. In either case, who needs her, especially when there are so many qualified people looking for work?

    I will mention once again the 10-year plus exemplary professional employee of a major and well respected trade association who was summarily fired when it was discovered that he had lied on one point in his resume. The rules were the rules: tough, but employed.

    Why then — except for some non-business-like, smarmy sense of compassion, would one hire either a liar-for-profit or a liar-because-I-can’t-help-it? I own a small business, have compassion, but really cannot, and would not, take that kind of chance.

  4. The answer to this is simple. If even to this day she can’t be truthful about who and what she is, there is certainly no way I would trust her to be responsible for any of my business dealings.

  5. You said “Maybe someone can convince me that Rachel deserves a reprieve”. That someone would NOT be me. I wouldn’t hire her on a bet.

  6. I guess a lot would depend what kind of job she was seeking. If it was a position where I didn’t need to trust her, or rely on her working with the public, I might take a flyer. And in cynical, Machiavellian terms, think of the publicity and goodwill my company would get!

    Just kidding…but if someone did hire her for the right reason, i.e., he/she wanted to give her a second chance, the positive publicity wouldn’t hurt…assuming most of the publicity would be positive.

    But if she was seeking a crucial position in my company, where I’d need to trust her honesty and decision-making, the answer is a resounding hell no.

  7. In her previous role she should have build a network of people that would ‘owe’ her some favors. The fact that she doesn’t have such fall back options is also an indication of the kind of work she is suitable for.

  8. Would I hire her?

    No. She has gamed the system.

    If she is insane, that discussion stops there until she is certified cured (and has many years showing sanity).

    If she simply gamed the system, then that criminal aptitude is detrimental to everything any company I would work for is trying to accomplish.

    That aptitude uniquely qualifies her for a couple of jobs I can think of, though:

    Politician, if she can get anyone to vote for her. And I did not even say ‘Democrat’ politician, as I think little of either establishment side.

    Un-elected government bureaucrat, if she can get appointed

    Judge, if she can get appointed. Many such jobs require no experience with the law, especially at the lower levels.

    She poisoned the only thing she excels at: racial activist. Had she simply been a white person and not gamed the system, that position shows her true skill set. She was good at it: good enough to fool almost everyone for years

    • Elizabeth Warren is an exemplary, ethnicity thievin’ POS, though by no means the…um…Lone Ranger academic in that respect; Andrea Smith and Ward Churchill come to mind

      Don’t take my word for it, take that of Twila Barnes, a genealogist who is reportedly a member of the Cherokee Tribe.

      Yet, per my favorite Quotemeister, the inimitable Oscar Wilde:

      ”Every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.”

  9. Depends on the job I was trying to fill.

    Honestly, though, at this point, I don’t think she can be trusted for anything beyond asking, “Would you like fries with that?”

  10. I’m not sure. Dishonesty, self-victimization and inability to tell reality from fantasy are traits that are not easily compartmentalized, but some people are able to seem totally normal in some respects and act batshit crazy in others. I can’t exactly say I’d be chomping at the bit to see which she is.

    A few things I take issue with…

    I hope you remember Rachel Dolezal, the former NAACP branch president who falsely claimed to be black, double-talked and lied about her racial origins, and was defended by the “race is just a social construct” crowd on the left,

    Wait…who?! I talked about the Dolezal issue with many leftists, both in real life, on left-leaning blogs, and on social media. I can’t recall a single liberal defending her on these grounds.

    The fact that race is a social construct does not mean anyone can claim to be any race. It means that we as a society organize people into racial classifications based on a number of features. Dolezal doesn’t meet any of the social indicators of blackness other than appearance, which by itself is not enough by anyone’s standard. Indians are often confused for Arabs, but that does not make Indians Arabs.

    You may be confused by the fact that many conservatives did try to claim “Well, if a man can say he’s a woman, why can’t a white woman say she’s a black woman?” Which leads me to this…

    as part of the same ideological fantasy that holds that a man can be a woman by just deciding that she is one.

    This is a stupid comparison, and far beneath you, Jack. It was not liberals making this stupid comparison, but conservatives who are not educated on gender identity issues. I thought you were informed on this topic.

    I wouldn’t hire Elizabeth Warren, either, for similar reasons, except she’s not nuts. A majority of voter in my home state do not agree, apparently believing that Native American heritage is also a “construct.”

    …Or they believe that Warren really was told that she had Native American heritage, and believed it. That is nothing like Dolezal convincing herself that she is black because she likes her hair a certain way.

  11. The biggest problem I see is that even if she is hired for the least critical, most mundane position, her employer will have made themselves contractually obligated to her even as she is obligated to them. Especially in today’s society, the employer is more obligated than the employee is.

    As others have mentioned, she still insists on living in her fantasy world, and therefore any employer is opening themselves to great harm. And not only the employers themselves, but all their other employees too.

    To place yourself at risk for a case like this is your own choice. To place others at risk also is unethical.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.