News

Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search

News

First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni

News

Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend

News

Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library

News

Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty

Age Doth Not Wither

DISSENTING OPINION

By George K. Sweetnam

IT IS ALL too easy to forget that the elderly constitute a minority group, and that mandatory retirement is a vicious tool of discrimination against this group. We agree with the ultimate philosophy of affirmative action--that standards of merit should be the only criteria for employment. But that philosophy should apply to the old as well. Chronological age alone is not a valid criteria for choosing employees.

In an age of overwhelming progress in medicine, improved health care and increased life expectancy, more and more people who reach age 65 are unnecessarily forced to retire. In many cases mandatory retirement leaves severe psychological scars. Old people should not have to fill their last years with make-work and boredom when they are capable of leading active, productive lives.

Therefore we strongly support efforts in Congress to raise the minimum permissable age of mandatory retirement, in hope that mandatory retirement will be eliminated altogether. American society is badly in need of reforms to provide equal opportunity for women and minorities. But the need for broad reform should not be grounds for continued discrimination against the elderly. It is unclear whether the passage of the bill now in Congress will cripple attempts to implement reforms favoring opportunities for women and minorities, but it is clear that a continuation of mandatory retirement will limit the opportunities of the nation's elderly.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags