...I'm just saying!
See, I work for the government. I am a pencil pushing, rigid, rule maker. And the public is full of questions about WHY? I'll tell you why? To be fair to everyone there must be some structure. I am unwaiveringly...100% fair...to everyone regardless of my feelings or lack there of about them. There are no exceptions, no questions, no deviations from protocol.
Am I completely coldhearted? No! I will waiver in the event of extreme emergency. And say you dear reader, like my brother, can't imagine a "library emergency", here's one: You are about to lose your child...you must file the papers to ask for assistance from the court electronically before 5:00 p.m....you have never used a computer before...you need help, you need more time, you need me to be flexible. Well, ALRIGHT THEN...as long as I am not seriously inconveniencing other people...let me do whatever I can for you!
Alternately...you are playing Quake...you want to continue playing for the rest of the afternoon...because QUAKE IS FUN. That would NOT be an 'extreme emergency' requiring the rules be broken. So if you love QUAKE where is the fairness here? Well, I don't care if you are Black, White, Gay, Straight, a Democrat, a Republican, Green Party, Baptist, Mormon or Atheiest...the answer is still NO! You can't play Quake all afternoon on the library's dime...you can only play for an hour a day like EVERYONE else.
So...here's where the bureaucracy comes in...Say someone playing Quake claims they were discriminated against because of race. Well, I could point to the policy. It is ironclad...race, creed, religion, national affiliations, nothing sways me.
Guess what the official bureaucratic response to this ass saving, lawsuit avoiding, unwaiveringly fair policy was? Go on, guess. Well, it was to change it to a subjective policy.
That's right! Presented with irrefutable proof that there was no instance of discrimination, and couldn't possibly be any discrimination since all people were treated the same day in and day out...my company responded by instituting a policy of discrimination. It is now totally arbitrary if I kick someone off the computer and could indeed be based on my not liking the color of their socks. After all, if I have no guidelines and just make up the rules on a case-by-case basis...who's to say I am fair?
Here's how that works (this is a real life example): Say, I have a Hispanic man, pillar of the community, always unfailingly gracious and a Caucasian woman, slightly dotty and extremely disruptive but harmless...they started working at the same time (10:00 a.m). At 11:00 the other two computers fill up, now there are no vacancies. At 11:45 someone wants a computer. One of our patrons must evacuate. Both feel that what THEY are doing is important, both plead with me NOT to boot them off. Someone wants a computer but neither pillar nor pest is willing to leave of their own accord if the other one can stay...so...I must pick someone to kick off the machine. AND the other person can continue for another six hours if nobody else wants a computer. Who do I pick? Why? Should I ask them both to leave even though there is only ONE new person needing a computer? If anyone can have a vacant computer and there is no daily time limit, can the booted person immediately ask for the non-booted person's computer? Please explain your answers in a way you can defend in a discrimination case.
who at this point is planning to flip a coin...heads pillar...tails pest!