|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
 | The Folly of Sacrificing Integrity to Kindness in Competitions Posted by Luke Setzer on 9/27, 10:34am | |
| Oh ... is that is what the competition is all about, is it? If so, then that criteria needs to be disclosed at the outset, with a statement like this: "To all Competitors: Awards will be given according to the judges' assessment of which children most need affirmation and a sense of self-worth, and all other qualifications, such as attractiveness, talent, poise and charm will be secondary, tertiary, or ignored altogether. In some cases, this will mean that the least qualified and least successful entrants will be honored, ironically, as the most successful, and henceforth losing the competition may come to be regarded, with some justification, as proof that an entrant was otherwise too qualified to win it. At such future time, if it comes, when winning an award becomes a mark of shame, inadequacy and pity, we reserve the right to again start giving awards to the fortunate girls with conventional beauty, health, poise and talent, so they will start feeling bad about themselves again—no wait, that's not right—oh! oh! I've got it!—so the award will gradually regain credibility so it can be once more be capable of making a less fortunate child feel special by winning it, at which time the honors of most beautiful, most talented, and best personality will again be capriciously but kindly awarded to the least attractive, the most desperately untalented, and autistic entrants, if there are any." "We hope this clears up any confusion." Incoherence, unfairness, and grandstanding. Pass it on! | ||
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
