There's nothing new about people denying their true race for an opportunity at a better, more posh future. NAACP Head, Rachel Dolezal merely flipped the tables on the controversial practice of Affirmative Action. Interestingly, I'm reminded of a recent law case - Fisher v. University of Texas - involving a student taking her race-based complaint to the Supreme Court in attempt to lawfully overturn a perceived discrimination practice. The Supreme Court tossed it back to a court of appeals, which offered no conclusive verdict, and Fisher continues her fight against race-based admissions.
The issue of Dolezal reminds me of someone functioning from a "whatever-it-takes" mentality, which is very common in the make-it-to-the-top career-world. The first time I heard that phrase, I cringed to the core; because, the question asked was in relation to something that should have required a more problem-solving approach as an answer. There's something deceptive about doing whatever it takes to make something happen. In this case, it is the integrity of someone working in a job capacity requiring utmost integrity.
Recently, I have applied for many jobs. Usually, near the end of a lengthy application, a page pops up indicating that for statistical uses ONLY information about my race, age, and gender are required. Some companies allow for an opportunity to opt-out. I offer the data anyway; since these identifying factors are easily discernible on my vitae. I'd have to be pretty naive to think one couldn't surmise with near-exact precision my race, age range, or gender based on details given.
On to the bottom line: Do I believe Dolezal should be fired? Nope. If she is clearly fulfilling her role as director, then she should continue doing so. After all, if she wasn't vetted for race, obviously race wasn't a factor in her qualifications. Perhaps, the fact that she checked two boxes infers some loyalty to her son and her adopted siblings. I am sad that she felt a need to falsify her race; however, I clearly understand that for those who have peace about rationalizing integrity in life, she resorted to 'whatever it took.' Clearly, she had all the qualifications needed to impress the person who appointed her. After all, to fire her because she's white would be reverse-discrimination; thus a violation of equal-opportunity rights.
Let it rest. The quandary is hers to deal with. The media-mayhem may get the better of her and she may resign, not because she's white; but because she was truly disingenuous about a key factor in the position she holds. If she denied a black person a lucrative job because the hiring committee 'thought' she was black, then let it rest. It's not her fault, in a sense, because she clearly sat in front of them during several interviews and received the nod as the woman for the job. One for Dolezal. Thousands of people fudge on job applications every day in less obvious ways with hopes of having a pay check at the end of the month to have a sustainable life. Will she resign? I don't know. Should she be fired because she lied about her race? NOPE. After all, to reiterate, this would become a case for reverse-discrimination, as well as the presumption that the NAACP can't have white leadership. Now, that would be a case for the Supreme Court with some tornadic winds in its sails.