Smart Hemp Gummies Nz – All You...
Food & Drink3 mins ago
Positive Discrimination, Is It Really Acceptable?
42 Answers
Why should you be put to the bottom of the pile jut because of an accident of birth?
Is positive discrimination any better, or any worse, than negative discrimination?
Personally I think it is very wrong. Right person for the job no matter what gender, race or class or any other 'bucket' for that matter.
Non of this helps if the right-on liberal ideal is for us to be all equal surely it breeds more resentment?
Is positive discrimination any better, or any worse, than negative discrimination?
Personally I think it is very wrong. Right person for the job no matter what gender, race or class or any other 'bucket' for that matter.
Non of this helps if the right-on liberal ideal is for us to be all equal surely it breeds more resentment?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I can see where you are coming from Naomi but really it only makes sense if you believe that without this "positive discrimination" things would be fair for those it's meant to benefit, and that belief is simply unjustified also.
As I said to start with, positive discrimination has certainly no place in an ideal world. But we are kidding ourselves if we think we are in such a world yet. Until then, either you allow the system to remain stacked as it has always been -- or you try to do something to redress that balance. It's not good enough to stand by and hope that this fixes itself. And in point of fact, it's perfectly possible to achieve this without sacrificing high standards.
As I said to start with, positive discrimination has certainly no place in an ideal world. But we are kidding ourselves if we think we are in such a world yet. Until then, either you allow the system to remain stacked as it has always been -- or you try to do something to redress that balance. It's not good enough to stand by and hope that this fixes itself. And in point of fact, it's perfectly possible to achieve this without sacrificing high standards.
"we don't live in an ideal world and we never will."
Well, of course. But why not at least strive for an ideal world? At least that way we have a chance of getting closer.
As I had hoped the coin analogy makes clear, referring to positive discrimination as a wrong is like trying to criticise any attempts at all to rebalance a loaded coin. It's not a "wrong" to try to rectify a mistake, absolutely not. It's amazing that anyone would think so. It can only be because people think the coin is now fair. They are wrong. It is not.
Well, of course. But why not at least strive for an ideal world? At least that way we have a chance of getting closer.
As I had hoped the coin analogy makes clear, referring to positive discrimination as a wrong is like trying to criticise any attempts at all to rebalance a loaded coin. It's not a "wrong" to try to rectify a mistake, absolutely not. It's amazing that anyone would think so. It can only be because people think the coin is now fair. They are wrong. It is not.
Can someone please explain what positive discrimination has to do with this story, because I've read it through pretty carefully, and can't see the leap of logic.
This is not about job seekers being penalised. It's about Whitehall measuring the backgrounds of people who already work in the public sector./
Why are people missing the point?
This is a voluntary move, and it will give Whitehall the tools to determine the mix of people it already employs which then indicates how we are doing in terms of social mobility as a country.
Again - this is NOTHING to do with positive discrimination.
This is not about job seekers being penalised. It's about Whitehall measuring the backgrounds of people who already work in the public sector./
Why are people missing the point?
This is a voluntary move, and it will give Whitehall the tools to determine the mix of people it already employs which then indicates how we are doing in terms of social mobility as a country.
Again - this is NOTHING to do with positive discrimination.
jim360
Yep...spot on:
The purpose of the questions is largely to see if the recruitment strategy is reaching all sections of society so that the public sector might start to resemble a little more closely the society it serves.
The fact that this is being rolled out as an anonymised survey means that it cannot possibly be used to positively discriminate.
It's a data mining exercise to determine whether there are any anomalies in recruitment strategies.
Yep...spot on:
The purpose of the questions is largely to see if the recruitment strategy is reaching all sections of society so that the public sector might start to resemble a little more closely the society it serves.
The fact that this is being rolled out as an anonymised survey means that it cannot possibly be used to positively discriminate.
It's a data mining exercise to determine whether there are any anomalies in recruitment strategies.
“I'm a bit puzzled. Positive discrimination is putting someone in the minority at the top of the pile (not the bottom) just because they are that...a minority.”
There’s just a couple of shortcomings to that thesis, Zacs. Firstly, for someone to be put at the top of the pile (“positive” discrimination) somebody else is pushed down to the bottom (just plain old discrimination). Secondly, this particular proposal is not necessarily aimed at “minorities”. By the time all the questions have been answered the resulting beneficiaries may well prove to be the majority.
“Well, of course. But why not at least strive for an ideal world?”
Because it’s not achievable, Jim. And worse than that, in trying to achieve it matters are made worse by replacing one problem with another. It is wrong to try to rectify a problem which besets some people only to replace it with a problem which besets others.
“…to see if the recruitment strategy is reaching all sections of society so that the public sector might start to resemble a little more closely the society it serves.”
Why does it have to? It has been apparent in the London Fire Service for some time that white men need not apply (in fact, for some time, they were not allowed to apply). Quite why the fire service has to “resemble” the society whose fires they extinguish is a little unclear.
“The fact that this is being rolled out as an anonymised survey means that it cannot possibly be used to positively discriminate. “
It may be a “data mining” exercise at present. But what is to be done with the results? Nothing? Then why undertake the exercise? What happens when it is discovered that 98% of Civil Servants did not receive free school meals? Or when it is realised that only 0.01% of them were asylum seekers at some point? No, it is a short step from there to it becoming recruitment policy:
“Didn’t have free school dinners? Don’t bother us.”
“Father is what? A barrister? And your mother’s a teacher? Are you having a laugh?"
“Not an asylum seeker? You’re wasting our time”
In the same way that you don’t make the poor richer by impoverishing the wealthy you do the so-called disadvantaged (and, for that matter, the rest of us) no favours by discriminating in their favour. It is every bit objectionable to discriminate against a job seeker because he went to a decent school as it is to be disinclined to employ him because he is black.
There’s just a couple of shortcomings to that thesis, Zacs. Firstly, for someone to be put at the top of the pile (“positive” discrimination) somebody else is pushed down to the bottom (just plain old discrimination). Secondly, this particular proposal is not necessarily aimed at “minorities”. By the time all the questions have been answered the resulting beneficiaries may well prove to be the majority.
“Well, of course. But why not at least strive for an ideal world?”
Because it’s not achievable, Jim. And worse than that, in trying to achieve it matters are made worse by replacing one problem with another. It is wrong to try to rectify a problem which besets some people only to replace it with a problem which besets others.
“…to see if the recruitment strategy is reaching all sections of society so that the public sector might start to resemble a little more closely the society it serves.”
Why does it have to? It has been apparent in the London Fire Service for some time that white men need not apply (in fact, for some time, they were not allowed to apply). Quite why the fire service has to “resemble” the society whose fires they extinguish is a little unclear.
“The fact that this is being rolled out as an anonymised survey means that it cannot possibly be used to positively discriminate. “
It may be a “data mining” exercise at present. But what is to be done with the results? Nothing? Then why undertake the exercise? What happens when it is discovered that 98% of Civil Servants did not receive free school meals? Or when it is realised that only 0.01% of them were asylum seekers at some point? No, it is a short step from there to it becoming recruitment policy:
“Didn’t have free school dinners? Don’t bother us.”
“Father is what? A barrister? And your mother’s a teacher? Are you having a laugh?"
“Not an asylum seeker? You’re wasting our time”
In the same way that you don’t make the poor richer by impoverishing the wealthy you do the so-called disadvantaged (and, for that matter, the rest of us) no favours by discriminating in their favour. It is every bit objectionable to discriminate against a job seeker because he went to a decent school as it is to be disinclined to employ him because he is black.
'for someone to be put at the top of the pile (“positive” discrimination) somebody else is pushed down to the bottom'
Only if the discrimination is successful. PD is a method employed to attempt to balance things out. I'm sure there are examples where the polarity has been reversed i.e. where the PD has been over successful.
' this particular proposal is not necessarily aimed at “minorities”'
As I've already commented, I was answering the OP's general headline, the second para of which (gender, race or class) suggests they are against it whatever the circumstances. My 13:24 post related to this.
Only if the discrimination is successful. PD is a method employed to attempt to balance things out. I'm sure there are examples where the polarity has been reversed i.e. where the PD has been over successful.
' this particular proposal is not necessarily aimed at “minorities”'
As I've already commented, I was answering the OP's general headline, the second para of which (gender, race or class) suggests they are against it whatever the circumstances. My 13:24 post related to this.
"Because [an ideal world is] not achievable, Jim. And worse than that, in trying to achieve it matters are made worse by replacing one problem with another. It is wrong to try to rectify a problem which besets some people only to replace it with a problem which besets others."
But that is simply not what positive discrimination does. I can't repeat the coin analogy enough: if you were given a loaded coin and were happy with that when it should be a fair coin then you'd be mental. Positive discrimination is being painted as replacing that coin with another loaded in the other direction, but this is just not true. It's about fixing a mistake. Why should that mistake be left unfixed? Only because so many people find that the system is broken in their favour and, as a result, of course don't have a problem or are happy to hide from the truth.
No. We can't allow the mistakes of the past, this broken system that allowed so many to be defined by gender, sexuality, ethnicity, skin colour, etc etc etc, to continue. That means opening up opportunities, working hard to reduce bias, and trying to ensure a truly level playing field that doesn't exist at the moment. It's pathetic to resist this attempt by saying "oh that's so unfair to the people who would traditionally have, and still do, overwhelmingly benefited from this system". In the end, doing so is damaging to everyone. Because what it really means is that you *still* don't get the best person for the job. We never did before. We won't until the biases that pervaded the country in previous generations are properly addressed.
But that is simply not what positive discrimination does. I can't repeat the coin analogy enough: if you were given a loaded coin and were happy with that when it should be a fair coin then you'd be mental. Positive discrimination is being painted as replacing that coin with another loaded in the other direction, but this is just not true. It's about fixing a mistake. Why should that mistake be left unfixed? Only because so many people find that the system is broken in their favour and, as a result, of course don't have a problem or are happy to hide from the truth.
No. We can't allow the mistakes of the past, this broken system that allowed so many to be defined by gender, sexuality, ethnicity, skin colour, etc etc etc, to continue. That means opening up opportunities, working hard to reduce bias, and trying to ensure a truly level playing field that doesn't exist at the moment. It's pathetic to resist this attempt by saying "oh that's so unfair to the people who would traditionally have, and still do, overwhelmingly benefited from this system". In the end, doing so is damaging to everyone. Because what it really means is that you *still* don't get the best person for the job. We never did before. We won't until the biases that pervaded the country in previous generations are properly addressed.
NJ
Data mining can be useful. This is why we have censuses. It tells us about us.
If there are areas within the public sector which have an unexplained bias towards one set of workers, that data can lead to policy initiatives. For example, changes to London Weighting payments, consideration on how recruitment drives are handled (methodology, use of social media etc). It can also be useful in detecting bias in the people who are managing the recruitment process.
Remember - in the end, personal bias will always be a factor, unless employers use robots as interviewers. This move will help to identify whether there ARE issues which need to be addressed.
Data mining can be useful. This is why we have censuses. It tells us about us.
If there are areas within the public sector which have an unexplained bias towards one set of workers, that data can lead to policy initiatives. For example, changes to London Weighting payments, consideration on how recruitment drives are handled (methodology, use of social media etc). It can also be useful in detecting bias in the people who are managing the recruitment process.
Remember - in the end, personal bias will always be a factor, unless employers use robots as interviewers. This move will help to identify whether there ARE issues which need to be addressed.
NJ
You wrote:
It is every bit objectionable to discriminate against a job seeker because he went to a decent school as it is to be disinclined to employ him because he is black.
But unfortunately, if a black person ever dares raise that point, the usual mob will start chanting 'chip on his shoulder' and 'playing the race card'.
You wrote:
It is every bit objectionable to discriminate against a job seeker because he went to a decent school as it is to be disinclined to employ him because he is black.
But unfortunately, if a black person ever dares raise that point, the usual mob will start chanting 'chip on his shoulder' and 'playing the race card'.
Zac's Master:
//Possibly because of these factors, positive discrimination is required:
'The research suggested there was a 23% gap in hourly pay between black and white university graduates. Black people with A-levels were paid 14% less on average than white workers with equivalent qualifications, while those with GCSEs faced a deficit of 11%.' Source: The Guardian//
Possibly, but not necessarily, Zac's Master. You'd need to establish that the two graduates were being paid different rates for doing the same job, AND that there are not other factors such as geography or work experience which could skew the resukts. Anyway, the research comes from the GRauniad; how can you trust the numbers?
Jim, thanks for having explained the received wisdom on the issue of positive discrimination with your usual clarity.
You said this:
//Do those who complain about positive discrimination ever wonder why the "best person for the job" is still massively more likely to be a white man in most cases than you'd expect given the demographics of this country?//
No, I've never once thought to wonder that while I've been watching the Olympics the last two weeks.
SP:
//The purpose of the questions is largely to see if the recruitment strategy is reaching all sections of society so that the public sector might start to resemble a little more closely the society it serves.//
SP, what does "resemble ... more closely" mean? If we're using Jim's demographic split we're talking ethnicity. But there are plenty of other ways of slicing the demographic cake - sex, age educational attainment and so on. Is there any a priori reason for expecting every subset of any chosen demographic to be proportionately represented? What happens when we start to interlace demographics? Say, we've got our full quota of people of Japanese descent (say 1%), but unfortunately they're all women? Should we infer from so glaring a disproportionality that our "recruitment strategy" is failing to reach the Japanese blokes? And if so how do we adjust the strategy accordingly? Do you and Jim see any practical difficulties and costs here? The only "positive" thing I see is job opportunities for social engineers.
And noting the last few answers why is disproportionate representation of any group in any industry assumed to be always the result of bias, rather than some other reason like the preferences and personal choices of the under-represented group? Even if proportionality could be achieved, why is it assumed to be necessarily a good thing. The kind of bias which led to catholics in Northern Ireland finding it harder to get a job in the public sector than [protestants is clearly wrong and can addressed by other and fairer means.
//Possibly because of these factors, positive discrimination is required:
'The research suggested there was a 23% gap in hourly pay between black and white university graduates. Black people with A-levels were paid 14% less on average than white workers with equivalent qualifications, while those with GCSEs faced a deficit of 11%.' Source: The Guardian//
Possibly, but not necessarily, Zac's Master. You'd need to establish that the two graduates were being paid different rates for doing the same job, AND that there are not other factors such as geography or work experience which could skew the resukts. Anyway, the research comes from the GRauniad; how can you trust the numbers?
Jim, thanks for having explained the received wisdom on the issue of positive discrimination with your usual clarity.
You said this:
//Do those who complain about positive discrimination ever wonder why the "best person for the job" is still massively more likely to be a white man in most cases than you'd expect given the demographics of this country?//
No, I've never once thought to wonder that while I've been watching the Olympics the last two weeks.
SP:
//The purpose of the questions is largely to see if the recruitment strategy is reaching all sections of society so that the public sector might start to resemble a little more closely the society it serves.//
SP, what does "resemble ... more closely" mean? If we're using Jim's demographic split we're talking ethnicity. But there are plenty of other ways of slicing the demographic cake - sex, age educational attainment and so on. Is there any a priori reason for expecting every subset of any chosen demographic to be proportionately represented? What happens when we start to interlace demographics? Say, we've got our full quota of people of Japanese descent (say 1%), but unfortunately they're all women? Should we infer from so glaring a disproportionality that our "recruitment strategy" is failing to reach the Japanese blokes? And if so how do we adjust the strategy accordingly? Do you and Jim see any practical difficulties and costs here? The only "positive" thing I see is job opportunities for social engineers.
And noting the last few answers why is disproportionate representation of any group in any industry assumed to be always the result of bias, rather than some other reason like the preferences and personal choices of the under-represented group? Even if proportionality could be achieved, why is it assumed to be necessarily a good thing. The kind of bias which led to catholics in Northern Ireland finding it harder to get a job in the public sector than [protestants is clearly wrong and can addressed by other and fairer means.
I don't know when that's from but this is TS now. You really need to be careful where you take things from V_E ;-)
http://
http://
"And noting the last few answers why is disproportionate representation of any group in any industry assumed to be always the result of bias, rather than some other reason like the preferences and personal choices of the under-represented group?"
This is a fair point, to be sure, although in some sense answering this question is also a key part of reducing discrimination in all forms. Sticking with gender discrimination: If you have removed, or significantly reduced gender discrimination at interview level and still don't see a corresponding increase in the number of women recruits, then presumably this is because not that many women are applying, so that rather a lot less than 50% of suitable candidates are women. So you can go the next step down, and try to address this instead. If women aren't interested in applying enough, you should find out why. It may be that they don't have the necessary qualifications because they don't take up the subject at school. So you should check why that is too, and see if it isn't possible to redress this balance.
At the end of all this, you usually find that the reason for the imbalance isn't because women just aren't suited by their nature at birth for the job in question, but because some societal pressures or perceptions are driving them away from considering that as an option. Maybe it's seen as a "man's world"; maybe women are actively discouraged not to bother; maybe a lack of role models just hammers home this idea that women aren't welcome, even if this actually isn't true. In the case of certain ethnic minorities, maybe some cultural upbringing drives children in that community in a certain direction in favour of other ones.
Whatever the reason, while any individual person may of course have no interest in one field and that's just a fact, it's extremely unlikely that such preferences will extend across an entire gender, or ethnic background. Skin colour, gender, sexuality, just don't have enough to do with our career choices to have the effect.
It can work in the other way, too, of course. We have just seen the incredible success of the British men's gymnastics team at the recent Olympics. When I was at school, I think you would struggle to find a single boy interested in taking it up. Why? Because they thought it was a thing for girls. Sometimes, it does take seeing people like Max Whitlock, Louis Smith and Nile Wilson demonstrating just how flawed this thought was, on every level, to challenge that perception. And doing so could open up the sport and lead to the next successful generation of gymnasts in 2024.
And not just gymnastics either. Role models can help to challenge outdated ideas about how should do what. We *all* benefit from those challenges, and from trying to overcome the inertia that would otherwise leave these problems. Positive discrimination plays its part in this. Yes, of course we should hope for a time when it's no longer necessary to target a specific minority of the population. Until then, sitting on our hands is many, many times more damaging.
This is a fair point, to be sure, although in some sense answering this question is also a key part of reducing discrimination in all forms. Sticking with gender discrimination: If you have removed, or significantly reduced gender discrimination at interview level and still don't see a corresponding increase in the number of women recruits, then presumably this is because not that many women are applying, so that rather a lot less than 50% of suitable candidates are women. So you can go the next step down, and try to address this instead. If women aren't interested in applying enough, you should find out why. It may be that they don't have the necessary qualifications because they don't take up the subject at school. So you should check why that is too, and see if it isn't possible to redress this balance.
At the end of all this, you usually find that the reason for the imbalance isn't because women just aren't suited by their nature at birth for the job in question, but because some societal pressures or perceptions are driving them away from considering that as an option. Maybe it's seen as a "man's world"; maybe women are actively discouraged not to bother; maybe a lack of role models just hammers home this idea that women aren't welcome, even if this actually isn't true. In the case of certain ethnic minorities, maybe some cultural upbringing drives children in that community in a certain direction in favour of other ones.
Whatever the reason, while any individual person may of course have no interest in one field and that's just a fact, it's extremely unlikely that such preferences will extend across an entire gender, or ethnic background. Skin colour, gender, sexuality, just don't have enough to do with our career choices to have the effect.
It can work in the other way, too, of course. We have just seen the incredible success of the British men's gymnastics team at the recent Olympics. When I was at school, I think you would struggle to find a single boy interested in taking it up. Why? Because they thought it was a thing for girls. Sometimes, it does take seeing people like Max Whitlock, Louis Smith and Nile Wilson demonstrating just how flawed this thought was, on every level, to challenge that perception. And doing so could open up the sport and lead to the next successful generation of gymnasts in 2024.
And not just gymnastics either. Role models can help to challenge outdated ideas about how should do what. We *all* benefit from those challenges, and from trying to overcome the inertia that would otherwise leave these problems. Positive discrimination plays its part in this. Yes, of course we should hope for a time when it's no longer necessary to target a specific minority of the population. Until then, sitting on our hands is many, many times more damaging.
v_e
You asked:
SP, what does "resemble ... more closely" mean?
It means exactly that.
If a public services body is located in an area of the country with a certain mix of people from different economic backgrounds, and the survey finds that everyone working for that department are Oxbridge graduates, it may highlight an otherwise undetected issue with the recruitment process.
You asked:
SP, what does "resemble ... more closely" mean?
It means exactly that.
If a public services body is located in an area of the country with a certain mix of people from different economic backgrounds, and the survey finds that everyone working for that department are Oxbridge graduates, it may highlight an otherwise undetected issue with the recruitment process.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
The Post Office Horizon Enquiry
News11 mins ago
Connections 321 - Sat 27 April
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.