Wed | May 23, 2018

Orville Taylor's grading biased

Published:Monday | January 14, 2013 | 12:00 AM


The rating of Cabinet ministers by your selected 'examiners', published on Page A2 of The Sunday Gleaner of January 6, raises several questions. I wish to comment on the question of bias, especially as it relates to your examiner, Orville Taylor.

Anyone who has followed his talk programme on radio knows that he has declared time and again that Pickersgill, Clarke, Paulwell, Nicholson and indeed PM Simpson Miller, among others, have no business being in Jamaica's Cabinet. For him, they are either too old or suffer from "youthful exuberance" or incompetence.

For all of those ministers, his position was either that they did not present any work to be examined or that they failed miserably.

Two examples will demonstrate the extent of his deep-seated bias. A foreign minister who is not considered to have brought his country's name or image into disrepute, even if not assigned the highest mark, could hardly receive a failing grade.

With respect to Foreign Minister Nicholson, I have not heard any complaints about his representation of our country, internationally. Moreover, I can confidently tell you, Mr Editor, that here in Canada, he is held in high regard.

But it is in the case of Minister Paulwell that the slip of Taylor's bias is exposed and hangs most loosely. You chose three 'examiners', two of whom assigned the minister the high grade of 'B' for his yearlong contribution.

On what grounds, then, other than his predisposition of bias, could Taylor give the minister the disgustingly failing mark of an 'F'? Isn't it clear that it is Taylor who has failed in his assignment?

With that kind of deeply held bias, how tragic that Taylor could not have graciously declined The Gleaner's invitation to be an examiner! Hopefully, he does not bring that sorry attitude and predisposition to his tasks as a university lecturer.


Toronto, Canada