The Moralist: False Identities for Dummies

Is it ever ok to apply for a position under false pretenses, even if you lack the necessary credentials to do the job? The Swift Report moralist says 'absolutely'—but suggests steering clear of background checks and using a pseudonym whenever possible.

The Swift Report moralist helps untangle today's moral and ethical conundrums

By Howard Ogilvie, Swift Report Moralist

	Meet Mr. Moralist
	The Swift Report is proud to introduce Howard Ogilvie as "Mr. Moralist," the author of a regular column on these pages that will help readers untangle their moral and ethical conundrums. Mr. Ogilvie, a specialist in matters moral, will already be familiar to many Swift Report readers from his role as our official ombudsman. In that position, Mr. Ogilvie handled several sensitive stories, including the Swift Report's response to the news that executive editor Todd Fox had been included on reporter Jeff Gannon's 'enemies list.' To send a question to Mr. Moralist, write to swiftreport@yahoo.com.

Dear Mr. Moralist: I am seeking a professional position for which I have no credentials and very little training. If I secure the job, I will have access to some of the most powerful individuals in the country. In order to get the position, however, I must undergo an extensive background check, a process that I fear could reveal some embarrassing moments from my past (anything that goes on the internet, it seems, is there forever). I recently discovered a loophole that will allow me to avoid the probing search into my personal life but still enjoy the benefits associated with the professional position. I'm also considering using a pseudonym as my own name is hard to spell and pronounce. Must I inform my new employers that I am unqualified for the position and that I may not be who they think I am?

First, kudos to you for pursuing such an exciting career opportunity. Many people feel dissuaded from actively seeking out positions for which they have no training, experience or credentials. But the moralist sees no ethical reason why you should be kept from following your career dreams, especially if you are able to do great things while in your new position.

As for sidestepping an intrusive search into your past, who can blame you for that (even the moralist has a few dark spots on his dossier, after all)? Whatever small ethical lapse may be constituted by your bending, or slightly breaking, of the rules, is more than made up for by the good that you'll do once in your new position. Consider, for example, our new attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, who found himself in a similar situation just a month ago.

Gonzales knew that he would be able to do a world of good once he had the keys to his new office in hand, but first he had to submit to an intrusive question-and-answer session. His solution: not to flatly deny writing a memo that referred to some provisions of the Geneva Convention as "quaint" and "obsolete" (that would be lying, after all), but to rely on the ethically stronger "I can't remember" defense.

Nor does the moralist have any problem with your choosing a name that is easier to spell and pronounce than your God-given moniker (what we wouldn't give to have been christened something other than 'Ogilvie.') Plenty of political figures have changed or altered their names for ones that better resonate with voters. Take Byron Looper, for example, who not so long ago was just another Tennessee republican. But then he had the foresight to change his middle name to (Low Tax) (parentheses included) so that voters would know exactly what he stood for. The end result: it will be a long time before most Tennesseans will forget about Byron (Low Tax) Looper.

So feel free to pursue your career dreams, knowing that you have the full blessing of the moralist behind you. And I look forward to hearing more about you in the not so distant future.

JOB APPLICANT UPDATE: After successfully circumventing an intrusive search into his personal history, the applicant went on to shine in his new position. It is gratifying to see ingenuity rewarded.

Dear Mr. Moralist: My daughter recently announced to the world that she practices a lifestyle to which I am adamantly opposed on moral grounds. Must I continue to provide shelter, succor and sustenance to an individual that I regard as a selfish hedonist?

The things kids do! It's important to keep in mind that while God doesn't punish us per se, he does send occasional reminders our way. In this case, God is probably not punishing you for being evil, but may be offering something more tangible for you to speak against—a prophetic summons to 'work from home,' in other words. As for a moral imperative to continue to house and provide for a spawn gone to seed, the bible is filled with cautionary tales of daughters who defy their father—and pay a heavy price as a result. The moralist hopes that you'll take comfort in the words of Leviticus 21: 'If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.'

FRUSTRATED FATHER UPDATE: After careful consideration of the moralist's advice, the father in this case did indeed decide to give the selfish hedonist the heave ho.

To send a question to Mr. Moralist, write to swiftreport@yahoo.com.

Send this page by entering the recipient's e-mail: