Disabled Attorney Says 'Apprentice' Biased

AP ^ | 2/9/05 | JIM SUHR

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

The problem is that the show contains many physical tasks in places that are not necessarily handicapped accessible (two weeks ago, they had to renovate an old Jersey shore motel which had stairs and no elevator, for example). They also run the candidates through a meat-grinder experience where they don't get enough food or sleep. It's really not a show for someone who isn't in top shape. I doubt I'd be up to it and I'm fairly average.

Balderdash!

Yes, I saw the motel episode and there were tasks that someone confined to a wheelchair could have done. Customer service and interior decorations were only two.

Who's to say that team members couldn't help get a wheelchair bound person up the stairs? Are you saying that someone in a wheelchair can't make beds? Can't paint? Can't put up wallpaper? While it's true that they couldn't have RNR'd the toilets, laid carpet or moved mattresses up the stairs, the fact remains that there are far more tasks they could've done than not if given half the chance.

I've seen every episode and there isn't a single task that the teams have been assigned that someone in a wheelchair wouldn't have been able to take part.

Given the choice, I'd take any wheelchair bound worker over a lazy able-bodied one like the loser below. This clown had immunity and sat on his duff. As a result, his team lost the challenge. Trump will never pick this lazy, good-for-nothing as his 'apprentice'.

The wheelchair bound person, more than any able-bodied one can imagine, knows what hard work is really all about.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I'm going down to The Apparel Mart and insist they hire me as a model.

I think you're much more well suited for a career in proctology or urology, but that's just my opinion.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

If they have the balls I will loan them one of my wheelchairs and we will go for a few job interviews, shopping, to the local restaurant for a drink. I bet I can change those bigoted attitudes in about an hour.

These are Bush's 'compassionate conservatives'.

Phoney's, one and all.

[The_Media_never_lie]

And given the stories that are getting out about how they treat the contestants (e.g., cameras in the bathrooms, not enough food or sleep, etc.), it's little wonder that the show is turning into more and more of a freak show.

My concern is that people watch shows like this for whatever reason. How many of them will unwittingly try to emulate this behavior in the business world. It may not be good business but, business people can get away with most anything, at least in the short haul. Ethics, smethics; there is no such thing in the business world. I base this on my career observations.

[Question_Assumptions]

Who's to say that team members couldn't help get a wheelchair bound person up the stairs?

The point that I think you are missing is that The Apprentice is a competition. The contestants will only help each other so much. If you watch the show, you know that. And they also really resent having to help other contestants do their job which could generate some fairly ugly but legitimate comments during the show. I've worked in a workplace where some of the workers resented a handicapped coworker who they felt wasn't contributing and let's just say that some of the things they did as a result were very ugly (the guy was blind and one guy "accidentally" slammed a door next to him because he was asleep at his desk, which made him fall over and disoriented him terribly so that he had to call out for help). Do you really want to see that on national television?

Are you saying that someone in a wheelchair can't make beds? Can't paint? Can't put up wallpaper? While it's true that they couldn't have RNR'd the toilets, laid carpet or moved mattresses up the stairs, the fact remains that there are far more tasks they could've done than not if given half the chance.

The person bringing this lawsuit is a quadriplegic. Yes, I'm telling you that he couldn't make beds, couldn't paint, couldn't put up wallpaper, etc. If you want to argue that an otherwise fit person who happens to be confined to a wheelchair because only their legs won't work should be given a shot at competing, I'd probably agree with you. But try not to let your own problems blind you to the realities of this lawsuit.

I've seen every episode and there isn't a single task that the teams have been assigned that someone in a wheelchair wouldn't have been able to take part.

There have been plenty of tasks where being a quadriplegic would have been a show-stopper and plenty of other tasks where it would have been a liability, given that time is one of the constraints on many tasks (and a growing constraint as Mark Burnett Survivorizes The Apprentice and tries to burn the candidates out so they'll say stupid things on camera).

Given the choice, I'd take any wheelchair bound worker over a lazy able-bodied one like the loser below. This clown had immunity and sat on his duff. As a result, his team lost the challenge. Trump will never pick this lazy, good-for-nothing as his 'apprentice'.

Trump will never pick something like 75% of the current cast (or the previous cast, for that matter). You can tell that just by looking at them. Again, that has to do with how Mark Burnett is turning the show into Survivor: New York City. That said, I'll agree that an otherwise healthy wheelchair-bound person with at least one working arm would be a better choice than quite a few of the people actually getting cast.

But remember that those people are being cast not only on the basis of IQ tests (which they do use), qualifications, and heath but also because they are willing to sign away most of their rights, are willing to be taped 7X24 no matter what they are doing, and will say entertaining things on camera. I get the distinct impression that they got some good business-type candidates during the first season but Burnett's meat grinder and desire for friction have driven most of the normal people out and we're getting Survivor types, instead.

The wheelchair bound person, more than any able-bodied one can imagine, knows what hard work is really all about.

Yes, but that's because a wheelchair bound person must work hard to do many things that a person who isn't handicapped doesn't have to work hard to do. That's not a boast or a brag. That's simply the way it is.

But if you want me to agree that there are people in wheelchairs out there who could go that extra mile and handle the extra work, I will. And I do agree that an otherwise healthy wheelchair bound person who has the use of at least one arm should be given the opportunity to compete if they otherwise qualify. But remember that this particular person is quadriplegic.

Of course the reality of many of these shows is that you won't get cast if you are ugly, uninteresting, or a small breasted woman, either. They aren't looking for nice normal people. They are looking for entertaining television. If you really want to see a person get cast who uses a wheelchair, then figure out some way to convince the producers that they will provide them with some interesting television. That's how the nut with the guitar must have gotten cast this season.

[Question_Assumptions]

My concern is that people watch shows like this for whatever reason. How many of them will unwittingly try to emulate this behavior in the business world. It may not be good business but, business people can get away with most anything, at least in the short haul. Ethics, smethics; there is no such thing in the business world. I base this on my career observations.

The show actually does a halfway decent job of showing that a lot of nonsense doesn't work in the short or long term. The winners have been the quiet "get it done" types who don't flip out, don't antagonize the other candidates, and just get the job done. Burnett is casting the loons because they make for interesting television but the more loons he casts, the less and less "reality" the show is going to be. But in the end, the loons won't get hired and Trump's once-an-episode advice is often reasonably useful.

[Tall_Texan]

The show actually does a halfway decent job of showing that a lot of nonsense doesn't work in the short or long term. The winners have been the quiet "get it done" types who don't flip out, don't antagonize the other candidates, and just get the job done. Burnett is casting the loons because they make for interesting television but the more loons he casts, the less and less "reality" the show is going to be. But in the end, the loons won't get hired and Trump's once-an-episode advice is often reasonably useful.

In an unintentional way, this show does a public service. It reaches a lot of people in the 15-35 age demographic who have never been taught what you should or shouldn't do on the job. You see it all the time with people who can't even handle the fundamentals like showing up for work on time, appropriately dressed, keeping your mouth shut before saying something to offend a customer, not hitting on every chick in the office, etc.

The firings are more educational than the qualities displayed by the winners.

I agree that the producers, with each new season, have looked more and more for people who make for good plot lines rather than people who would make model Trump apprentices. About half the current group would have been gone the first two weeks had I been the employer.

I also get the impression Trump thinks this show is going to have some staying power whereas I think this may be the last round before the quality of candidates becomes just the usual reality show collection of models, unemployed actors and exhibitionists.

[freedumb2003]

I am ugly as all get out.

Clearly, "the Apprentice" (and "American Idol" [and "Survivor" {and "Fear Factor" <and "Bowling For Dollars">}]) is discriminating against me.

[Terpesman]

At this point, you might be able to get that contract.

Go Browns!!!

[Question_Assumptions]

In an unintentional way, this show does a public service. It reaches a lot of people in the 15-35 age demographic who have never been taught what you should or shouldn't do on the job. You see it all the time with people who can't even handle the fundamentals like showing up for work on time, appropriately dressed, keeping your mouth shut before saying something to offend a customer, not hitting on every chick in the office, etc.

Yes, though I think they sometimes pull too many punches to avoid saying something actionable. I wouldn't hire some of those people to shovel a driveway, nevermind running a company.

And the one thing that they really miss the opportunity to point out is that Donald Trump is not looking to hire someone like himself. A lot of the candidates go around saying things like, "This is what Donald Trump would do!" or "This is how Donald Trump would act!" Donald Trump isn't trying to hire himself, because he's quite a handful. What they really should be trying to do is emulate George or Caroline.

The firings are more educational than the qualities displayed by the winners.

I think that they are two sides of the same coin. One is an example of what not to do and the other is an example of what to do, though a lot of the what to do probably gets cut from the final show. For example, I saw an interview with Isaac Mizrahi where he said that Kwame was the one who came back and worked out all the details of his charity contribution during the first season but that all happened off camera.

I agree that the producers, with each new season, have looked more and more for people who make for good plot lines rather than people who would make model Trump apprentices. About half the current group would have been gone the first two weeks had I been the employer.

Frankly, I think that at least half of them wouldn't have made it past the first interview if they were applying for a position in Trump's organization the right way.

I also get the impression Trump thinks this show is going to have some staying power whereas I think this may be the last round before the quality of candidates becomes just the usual reality show collection of models, unemployed actors and exhibitionists.

It seems to be in quite a hurry to get there, judging from the last two seasons compared to the first. Either that, or they'll be running shows where all of the candidates are lawyers.

I also suspect that the show will be increasingly taken to task for the fact that white males seem to always win and that all of the black women cast so far (with one possible exception) have been utter disasters.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

You've raised some good points. I'll address them individually below.

I've worked in a workplace where some of the workers resented a handicapped coworker who they felt wasn't contributing and let's just say that some of the things they did as a result were very ugly (the guy was blind and one guy "accidentally" slammed a door next to him because he was asleep at his desk, which made him fall over and disoriented him terribly so that he had to call out for help). Do you really want to see that on national television?

What you write about the show being a competition is valid. My main point was that the fact that they are wheelchair bound should not be a barrier to them being given the opportunity to participate. If they don't make it to the end, then so be it.

If this (your story above) were to happen on the show, which it could, then the nation would see how some handicapped workers are actually treated in the workplace.

The person bringing this lawsuit is a quadriplegic. Yes, I'm telling you that he couldn't make beds, couldn't paint, couldn't put up wallpaper, etc. If you want to argue that an otherwise fit person who happens to be confined to a wheelchair because only their legs won't work should be given a shot at competing, I'd probably agree with you. But try not to let your own problems blind you to the realities of this lawsuit.

First, the article never says that the plaintiff attempted to participate and was refused, leaving the lawsuit as the natural remedy or if they filed suit simply because they hadn't seen a handicapped contestant during the first three seasons. Personally, I don't think a lawsuit is the best avenue to become a participant on the show.

Even so, if a quad wants to compete, let them. If their limitations get them fired, then they're fired. But their physical limitations should never be used to preclude them from the start.

There have been plenty of tasks where being a quadriplegic would have been a show-stopper and plenty of other tasks where it would have been a liability, given that time is one of the constraints on many tasks (and a growing constraint as Mark Burnett Survivorizes The Apprentice and tries to burn the candidates out so they'll say stupid things on camera).

True, but again this should only be criteria for elimination, not inclusion.

But remember that those people are being cast not only on the basis of IQ tests (which they do use), qualifications, and heath but also because they are willing to sign away most of their rights, are willing to be taped 7X24 no matter what they are doing, and will say entertaining things on camera. I get the distinct impression that they got some good business-type candidates during the first season but Burnett's meat grinder and desire for friction have driven most of the normal people out and we're getting Survivor types, instead.

Absolutely. It's a show first and a recruitment tool after. And they will do whatever it takes to keep the viewers coming back. As I say, it's what sells toilet paper and sanitary napkins.

Of course the reality of many of these shows is that you won't get cast if you are ugly, uninteresting, or a small breasted woman, either. They aren't looking for nice normal people. They are looking for entertaining television. If you really want to see a person get cast who uses a wheelchair, then figure out some way to convince the producers that they will provide them with some interesting television. That's how the nut with the guitar must have gotten cast this season.

Well, there were some small-breasted women in the cast last season and this one, too. But, what you write could be said for any reality show. As I wrote above, we don't know if any handicapped were even allowed to try out. If so, then the lawsuit is a waste of time.

It sounds like we agree more than disagree.

[Question_Assumptions]

What you write about the show being a competition is valid. My main point was that the fact that they are wheelchair bound should not be a barrier to them being given the opportunity to participate. If they don't make it to the end, then so be it.

What you need to remember is that hundreds of thousands of people apply to be on that show and they need to select among those candidates somehow. From watching shows about reality shows, for example, I know that they use IQ tests to screen candidates. I'm sure that some perfectly viable candidates are getting excluded on the basis of doing poorly on an IQ test but they need to use some criteria to pick and choose from among the masses. I don't think that health is necessarily a bad criteria, though I'd agree that an otherwise healthy wheelchair bound person should be given a shot if their arms, heart, brain, etc. are all in good working order.

If this (your story above) were to happen on the show, which it could, then the nation would see how some handicapped workers are actually treated in the workplace.

Yeah, it could. But it could also have some unintended consequences that you need to consider. The show has given several black women a shot at competing and one per season (there is only one left that we haven't seen that much of) has been a disaster. Rather than showing that a black woman can compete with white people and black males, they've shown the exact opposite by living up to the stereotypes (e.g., lazy, unprofessional, agressive, overly sensitive, etc.). Do all black businesswomen fit those stereotypes? Of course not. But you wouldn't know that from watching The Apprentice. Similarly, many of the women are emotional wrecks and fit the Barbie Doll stereotype and Kwame seemed to be done in because he couldn't manage another black worker, also stereotypes that a lot of people hold which aren't entirely fair.

Now, consider what happens if they cast a handicapped person who can't keep up. Rather than sending a message of inclusion, it sends a message that handicapped people are a liability, a burden, and a disaster. Would that be fair to handicapped people who can contribute? Of course not. Could it happen on The Apprentice? Given their track record with minorities, I sure think it could. That's why I think it's important that if they pick a handicapped contestant, it needs to be a contestant that can overcome their handicap and contribute and even win.

Bear in mind that the show illustrates a lot of other biases that the show and media doesn't talk about. For example, why was it possible for two attractive blonde white women to sell candy bars for $5 each while a black man practically had to give them away and the uptight Asian woman with small breasts had to drop her skirt to get money? Yes, boys and girls, appearance matters. And, yes, New Yorkers have a bunch of stereotyped views of people, including young black men and uptight Asian women that influence how they feel about them. What I'd really like them to do is to do a show on what The Aprentice illustrates about stereotypes and assumptions.

Even so, if a quad wants to compete, let them. If their limitations get them fired, then they're fired. But their physical limitations should never be used to preclude them from the start.

Again, the show needs to whittle down hundreds of thousands of applicants into less than two-dozen contestants. They can't really afford to include constestants who can't win unless, as I said, that contestant will provide entertaining television before they go. And if quadrapeligic wants to compete, that's what they'd have to do.

But I think there are other considerations in those cases. For example, how will it look when Donald Trump finally tells the guy or gal in the wheelchair, "You're fired!"? It would also be a disaster if a handicapped person died, for health related reasons, while filming a season.

True, but again this should only be criteria for elimination, not inclusion.

They exclude people for all sorts of reasons that are questionable, from IQ and looks to how entertaining they think they'll be and their willingness to have a camera stuffed in their face 7X24. They need to pick and choose less than two dozen candidates out of hundreds of thousands, and I think "they can't contribute" and "they can't win" are mighty fine criteria for elimination.

Absolutely. It's a show first and a recruitment tool after. And they will do whatever it takes to keep the viewers coming back. As I say, it's what sells toilet paper and sanitary napkins.

So if a wheelchair-bound person wants to be on the show, I think they really need to make the case that it will provide entertaining television.

Well, there were some small-breasted women in the cast last season and this one, too. But, what you write could be said for any reality show. As I wrote above, we don't know if any handicapped were even allowed to try out. If so, then the lawsuit is a waste of time.

How many fat women have been cast? How many that aren't at least reasonably attractive? I do agree, however, that handicapped people, provided that they are reasonably healthy (i.e., won't die during filming if things get a little rough) and have a shot at winning, should be able to try out for the show.

It sounds like we agree more than disagree.

Probably. I do think that health and substantial handicaps are legitimate reasons for excluding people from that show. But I do agree that people in wheelchairs who are otherwise healthy and can use their arms should be given a shot. You are correct that I can't imagine a task where a healthy wheelchair bound person couldn't have contributed to a win if they are healthy and their arms work just fine.

[Tall_Texan]

In the finale last year, Trump parroted over and over how the last two contestants should be proud of themselves that they were chosen over the "thousands" of applicants. One would presume they had applicants from all walks of life, from grannies to street bums and everything in between. Just because the final 18 that appear on the show look like the usual cast of 20-something Ivy Leaguers doesn't mean the applicants for the show weren't more diverse.

First, you'd have to find people willing to fly to New York and take three months off of work (if they have work). That leaves me out right there. I have a job and I have bills to pay.

Unless the lawyer has been to all these application meetings, I don't know how he can claim that they don't let the handicapped try. In fact, given the Freak Show nature of most reality tv shows, I'd bet they'd like to give someone with some disabilities (blindness, amputee, disabled vet) a chance on the show just for the plot angle but I'm sure it wouldn't fly if the person was incapable of doing a minimum of physical tasks, wasn't physically attractive or showed enough smarts to compete.

If you put some Marine on the show who lost a limb fighting in Iraq, you'll have somebody everyone wants to root for.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Just because the final 18 that appear on the show look like the usual cast of 20-something Ivy Leaguers doesn't mean the applicants for the show weren't more diverse.

Upon further reflection, I had pondered this possibility as well. We don't know exactly who was interviewed and rejected prior to becoming one of the 18 finalists. If handicapped were interviewed and given the chance to become one of the 18 finalists but were rejected prior to the start of filming, then that's all anyone can ask --equal opportunity.

[moog]

At this point, you might be able to get that contract.

Go Browns!!!

Cool! I'll start eating my high-carbs immediately.

[Bellflower]

IMO the people who have made it to close to the top seem more like pencil pushers than inovative and creative individuals. They may fill a management slot in a company of his but I doubt that they will be movers and shakers.

[Bellflower]

I think the thing Trump needs is someone with extremely innovative ideas and someone who can lead. The person he chooses is not going to be somebody who can do menial tasks the best. People with disabilities may try harder and have exercised hidden gifts of creativity and motivating and getting along with people to a greater extent than someone who always had everything going for them physically. They may know what it truly means to persevere and overcome great obstacles. The rarest blooms often grow in the shade.

[JLO]

"Loser Pays" would seem to be a good thing here...

===

I'm not so sure about that, FRiend.

[Sofa King]

Apparently, some people can't understand that they're trying to make a TV show here. They need healthy, physically fit people who they can abuse for the entertainment of the audience. Whether or not the most qualified person out there wins is barely even relevant: it's all about who will most help drawn an audience. That's how TV works.