A Thread About Censorship In Films Shown...
ChatterBank2 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't believe that I am typing this but I agree with you.
If I was to offered a job (terrible thought) only on the basis that I was female I would feel insulted. I once got turned down for a job because I was female - way back in the mid 80s.
It should be the best human for the job - unless the vacancy if for a mouser or a K9.
If I was to offered a job (terrible thought) only on the basis that I was female I would feel insulted. I once got turned down for a job because I was female - way back in the mid 80s.
It should be the best human for the job - unless the vacancy if for a mouser or a K9.
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
'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
Positive discrimination has no place in an ideal world.
We are not, though, in an ideal world. The system as it existed for a very long time was so heavily biased against minorities, and even while that bias isn't nearly so deep-seated, the problem now is more one of inertia (as well as the almost impossible to solve problem of unconscious bias). Positive discrimination is designed to try and fight this inertia, not by sacrificing standards to get the job in the first place, but by increasing the chances for a suitably-qualified member of a minority to get employed.
The resentment that results is, I think, the product of misinformation. Every time this comes up people say "It should be the best person that gets the job". They are of course correct to say so. But why are they so convinced that this is being sacrificed? Changing the order in which applications are considered, or trying to eliminate/ expose/ work against unconscious biases, or holding recruitment drives that widen the application pool, don't change the end result that you are seeking the best person for the job.
Why, too, is this attitude never reversed? 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?
We are not, though, in an ideal world. The system as it existed for a very long time was so heavily biased against minorities, and even while that bias isn't nearly so deep-seated, the problem now is more one of inertia (as well as the almost impossible to solve problem of unconscious bias). Positive discrimination is designed to try and fight this inertia, not by sacrificing standards to get the job in the first place, but by increasing the chances for a suitably-qualified member of a minority to get employed.
The resentment that results is, I think, the product of misinformation. Every time this comes up people say "It should be the best person that gets the job". They are of course correct to say so. But why are they so convinced that this is being sacrificed? Changing the order in which applications are considered, or trying to eliminate/ expose/ work against unconscious biases, or holding recruitment drives that widen the application pool, don't change the end result that you are seeking the best person for the job.
Why, too, is this attitude never reversed? 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?
Ah, the old "casually edit out the part of the quote that allows me to make a point that was already addressed" ploy. Did you not notice the "than you'd expect given the demographics of the country" bit? Or did you deliberately remove it so you could misrepresent my point?
Never mind the fact that the bias is still present in many fields if you consider male/ female representation v. demographics, thus totally contradicting your point anyway, such as it was.
Never mind the fact that the bias is still present in many fields if you consider male/ female representation v. demographics, thus totally contradicting your point anyway, such as it was.
The misrepresentation continues pretty blatantly. It's not "discriminating against white men" to increase the chances and attempt to create the balance that really should have been there in the first place. The overwhelming advantages than being (a) a man and (b) white meant that you would have enjoyed over the centuries rather destroy that idea anyway. Reducing that level of advantage isn't "discriminating against white men".
Suppose I gave you a coin, told you that it was fair, but when you started to flip it it came up head 95% rather than 50:50. Wouldn't you wonder that the coin was actually unfair?Wouldn't you try to do something about it, either by finding a new coin or by working to rebalance the one you had, weighting it so that tails came down as often as you should expect? Or would you leave it as it as, saying "sure it's probably fair really..." and persist with flipping it again and again, never being perturbed when it nearly always came up heads and saying "it's totally fair to tails really and anything I try to do to correct the accidentally massive statistical bias towards heads is horribly unfair to heads"?
In a nutshell, that is what positive discrimination is about. Repairing the damage of centuries of horrible bias, discrimination and blatant racism/ sexism, etc, not by sitting idly by and hoping the problems that definitely exist correct themselves, but by doing something about it.
Suppose I gave you a coin, told you that it was fair, but when you started to flip it it came up head 95% rather than 50:50. Wouldn't you wonder that the coin was actually unfair?Wouldn't you try to do something about it, either by finding a new coin or by working to rebalance the one you had, weighting it so that tails came down as often as you should expect? Or would you leave it as it as, saying "sure it's probably fair really..." and persist with flipping it again and again, never being perturbed when it nearly always came up heads and saying "it's totally fair to tails really and anything I try to do to correct the accidentally massive statistical bias towards heads is horribly unfair to heads"?
In a nutshell, that is what positive discrimination is about. Repairing the damage of centuries of horrible bias, discrimination and blatant racism/ sexism, etc, not by sitting idly by and hoping the problems that definitely exist correct themselves, but by doing something about it.
It isn't eradicated by pretending it doesn't exist, either. And, like I say, it's not about removing the "best person for the job" criterion (incidentally, does anyone ever seriously believe we ever had that rule in the first place?) -- it's just about redressing age-old imbalances.
This is a short-term solution to a centuries-old problem. Inertia will just leave the discrimination against non-white, non-middle-class, non-men in place across the board. Anyone who thinks the problems either no longer exist or will go away naturally is seriously mistaken.
This is a short-term solution to a centuries-old problem. Inertia will just leave the discrimination against non-white, non-middle-class, non-men in place across the board. Anyone who thinks the problems either no longer exist or will go away naturally is seriously mistaken.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
If You Wanted Confirmationour...
News18 mins ago
If Planes Are Safe Then Why Do...
ChatterBank28 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.