Application Response

Currently, I am looking for either a summer internship or job, so over the past few weeks I have been emailing my resume, cover letter, writing sample, references, etc. to a variety of different organizations and businesses. I originally wanted to intern with the federal government, but that never really panned out. I realize I am presently at a disadvantage because I am a college freshman and internships, especially with the federal government which are probably in high demand, go to graduating seniors, juniors, sophomores, and finally freshman. After, the federal government internships never really panned out I began applying for internships in office work, administrative work, public relations, and lobbying just to get any basic office experience. Yesterday, I applied with one of the following organizations, and today I received an interesting response. I was rejected like with all of my past attempts; however, this individual had something additionally negative to say. The name of the organization and the individual will remain nameless. The email read as follows:

Hello Steven:

Thank you for your application. I read your blog and
your resume. We are seeking candidates who have a
background in advertising, public relations, graphic
design, video, or web design. Those candidates would
have prior course work, experience (paid or unpaid),
internships, and memberships in professional
associations. For this reason, I don't have a
position here for you.

I do have some advice. When you begin to set a career
direction for yourself -- and it is early, yet, to do
so -- you will want to package yourself for the job.
Many employers would find your aspects and topics of
your blog offensive. So I don't recommend, in the
future, that you send potential employers a link to
your blog, because of its controversial content.

It's great that you are writing and practice will
definitely improve your writing and critical thinking
skills. Even for a blog that is personal in nature,
you should start thinking about your audience and how
to make your writing more understandable. Think: what
do I want them to think or do after reading this post?
Am I trying to persuade them? Entertain them? Why
should they bother reading my posts? These kinds of
questions will lend purpose to your content.

Breaking your blog into shorter topics and applying
simple formatting (using headings, bullets, and links)
would go a long way to making your writing more
user-friendly. Try and keep your posts to 450 words
or less, and think about making one main point,
supporting it well with about three supporting points,
and calling it a day for that post. You may want to
watch the tone of your writing, if you want to
increase your audience. I know this is not a business
blog, but if you are submitting it to a business as a
writing sample, you should know that the essence of
business writing for online purposes is creating
concise, purposeful, and memorable content (people can
remember about three supporting points before you lose
them).

I definitely recommend that you make an appointment
with a career counselor to discuss your options and to
learn about ways to strengthen your resume and present
yourself to potential employers. Good luck.

The first paragraph is perfectly fine. That is exactly how organizations should select employees, in a rationally selfish way. If the applicant does not have the merits or abilities to produce profits for the business then the applicant should not be hired. An email that stated that would be perfectly fine. However, this individual goes into the problem area once he starts addressing this blog.
When applying for this internship one of the questions was whether or not I have a blog. Of course, I do. I am writing on it right now. Since I had a blog the organization would like to know the web address so they could read it. Obviously, that did not go over very well. However, I want to address that there is a perfectly logical way this organization could have responded. If they read the blog, and realized I did not hold the same beliefs as them, then they could have responded by saying, "You will not be hired because you do not follow the same philosophy as the organization." This would make perfect sense. It is just like an organization not hiring someone for a lack of merit or abilities. If my philosophy runs contrary to the organization's philosophy then the organization should not hire me because not only would that be immoral on their part for compromising their values, but it may also be difficult for them to generate profits on hiring me. However, this is not at all what this individual says. This individual says I should deny the truth.
This individual basically argues that it is moral for me to lie. Within the second paragraph he says it was a poor decision to send my blog to them. At first I thought that maybe this individual were right, but then I realized he was absolutely wrong. Firstly, they asked if I had a blog and if I would give them the web address; therefore, if I did not send the web address then I would be lying. There are certain occasions when lying is acceptable. For example, if lying will preserve one's natural right from being violated, or if lying will protect one's privacy, what one holds to be personally sacred. Of course, neither of these are long term solution. They are short term, escapes from the current situation. If someone puts a gun to my head, asks if I am a Christian, and I know if I say I am a Christian I will not be killed, then I will certainly lie and tell the gunman I am a Christian. However, then I will leave that place as quickly as possible. Primarily, so the chance of my natural right to life being violated decreases, but also so I can live in a place where I can be myself without lying. In this application, however, lying is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to deny the truth in order to get a job. The second problem with this individual's argument is that in order for me to lie about the existence of this blog I would have to be ashamed of it. In turn, I would also be ashamed of my philosophy, and ultimately I would loathe myself. None of this is true; therefore, I have not reason to hide my blog. In fact, my blog is open to the public. I do not have to give anyone a web address. People can just search for my blog on blogspot. The final problem with this individual's argument is that he is basically saying his organization condones lying, the denial of truth, the denial of one's self, and in turn self-loathing. He says it would have been better for me not to submit the blog, to lie, in order to appear better to my employers. In other words, lying would make me appear better to my employers, acting viciously would make me appear virtuous. I would not want to be part of such an organization.
The second part I would like to address is that the individual claims my blog is offensive and controversial. Controversial? - yes. Offensive? - no. Granted, I have called Rousseau a clown, attacked religion, and attacked altruistic morality, but those are all really just controversial. Well, except for the Rousseau part. Offensive would be more like if this was a Nazi blog and in every post I argued that all the Jews should be killed. In fact, my blog is the exact opposite. My blog argues for the absolute protection of natural individual rights. This cannot be offensive. Of course, this individual just points out a current ill. In addition to Nazi-esque positions being offensive, the term "offensive" has also come to include saying people are wrong. In the current multi-culturalist, free loving, accepting society, it is offensive to say other people are wrong. I have addressed this issue to a much larger extent in previous posts, but once again it makes itself clear.
Another problem is when the individual begins addressing my writing. Obviously, the writing in this blog is not the acme of literary work. I am sure there are plenty of spelling errors and certainly plenty of grammatical errors. However, this blog really is not made for that purpose. The purpose of this blog is to provide immediate Objectivist commentary on the events in my life. Therefore, much of the work in this blog will be simply first draft. Now, I can understand if this blog was the only example of my writing I sent with my application; however, this is not the case. In addition to sending my blog I sent a writing sample. I sent an essay from my Foreign Policy class last semester concerning Islamic fundamentalism in the year 1979. Thus, in addition to my blog they had a pristine, clean, polished, clear, and concise piece of academic writing. Therefore, they are able to establish a difference. They can see this is clearly first draft immediate writing, while I can achieve good clear and concise writing. However, this individual responds like this blog is the only evidence of my writing they have. Also, the individual actually acknowledges this is a more personal casual blog not meant to reach academic professional standards.
Additionally, the individual then goes on to tell me how to write. Now, I agree writing classes are important in order to understand how to structure different kinds of written works. What this individual recommends, however, does not assist me in structuring my work. I hear his advice all the time. The advice that my writing needs to be more accessible to the masses in order to achieve its goal of convincing people. This is where people are always wrong. I do not write for anyone, and as I understand it no one should be writing or working for anyone else. I write, and people should work, for themselves. I write so that I am personally satisfied with what I produce. I am not concerned with what people think after reading my work, what they do, how they change, or even if they read my blog. There are very few people who read this blog but I continue writing. The reason is because I like to Objectively comment on my life, not because I want to serve the people.
Finally, the individual appears to present a contradiction in the last paragraph. He recommends I make an appointment with a career counselor so I know what to put in my resume and how to present myself with employers. This appears to contradict what he said in the first paragraph. He said I was completely based on my merits and abilities, which did not meet the organizations desires. He obviously says this in order to make it appear like my blog had no affect on the decision making process; however, the last paragraph makes it appear otherwise. If I was completely based on my merits and abilities then there is nothing a career counselor can do. A career counselor cannot provide me with a better background in marketing, advertising, and public relations. I can only do that myself. Honestly, I am not really interested in that. I am actually studying International Relations; however, as I stated earlier I wanted office experience. Of course, this is beside the point. The point is the career counselor can help me if I have no idea what I want to do with my life, or if I do not know what to put in a resume. He can also teach me how to behave around an employer. The email I sent, of course, did not contain any material that is in my blog. I did not attack the organization for being altruistic or religious. I simply said I am interested in a summer internship with you organization, attached is the required information, and if any more information is required please contact me. Therefore, the career counselor cannot help me improve upon what I presented. The individual, however, acts as if I was misguided, anti-social, a problem child because I did not lie and sent them my blog like they asked. He appears to think a career counselor can guide me in lying about my philosophy to my employers. Since the career counselor cannot improve my abilities, my blog must be what the individual is referring to; however, he said in the first paragraph the blog had no impact on whether or not I was hired. This is the contradiction the individual offers.
As I concluding note I would like to make it clear that I have not responded to this individual's "help" as he calls it. It sounds like he just uses altruism as a guise to attack my philosophy. This also presents lots of other moral problems such as lying again and self-loathing; he does not believe he can argue against my philosophy so he pretends like he is offering me advice. This is, however, another digression. I am saying that I do not desire to "prove these people wrong," or "show them." There was a time, back in high school, a time when I was more misguided than today that I had the mentality that I would show all the people who did not believe in me by becoming rich and famous. In the past year I realized this is not a reason to desire success. If I desired success for that reason I would really just be seeking power, which is just dependency. I would be admitting that I do not have control over my own happiness. I would be admitting that I am weak. I would need other people to suffer in order for me to feel happy. This is vicious because it is a product of self-loathing and is dependence. Therefore, I have not responded to this individual. His response shows me he has a weak morality; thus, his opinion of me hold no value to me. I do not need to make them suffer now or later because I can make myself happy, their suffering cannot. However, some may argue that by addressing the email in my blog I am trying to achieve the same as if I were to respond to the email. I do not believe this to be the case. I used the email because I believe it offered good issues to address with Objectivism. Also, as I stated before this blog is for myself. I do not expect that organization to read this, nor do I care if they do.