Can Discrimination Ever Be "positive"?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/local-news/cheshire-police-straight-white-tribunal-2578808
Being an able bodied white heterosexual male is now a major disadvantage to getting employment.

[-Talbot-]

THECORBYLOON
Other than that instance, how many able-bodied white heterosexual males have suffered discrimination from other employers?



16,754

[woofgang]

but but but....the bloke won his case....and if this was common then it wouldn't be news?

[Mamyalynne]

Theland, are you on the wrong thread? Cheshire Police actually.

[Theland]

Mamya - no the BBC have a policy of discrimination in the interests of diversity and inclusiveness. Total BS.

Not fair if somebody works hard to gain qualifications and then rejected because their skin is the wrong colour.
Black or white.

[THECORBYLOON]

If there were two equally suitable candidates and one were from an under-represented section of the community, which one should get the position?

[-Talbot-]

You mean if a woman or a white bloke applies for a job at a curry house they should be stitched on to get it, TCL?

[Deskdiary]

No, discrimination can never be positive.

Even though the tribunal found in favour of the claimant, I found the following comment of concern "The tribunal...ruled that while positive action can be used to boost diversity, it should only be applied to distinguish between candidates who were equally well qualified for a role"

Does this mean that if two candidates are equally well qualified for a role that the job should be offered to the person who is in some way in a minority?

IF the story in the link below is true, this positive discrimination can morph into things that are racist and sexist.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6638141/Fire-service-accused-discrimination-amid-claims-entry-tests-harder-white-men.html

The best person for the job should prevail. If that means the best person for the job is a one-armed, black, transgender pygmy - then good for her (or him).

[sunny-dave]

It's nothing new - I got passed over for a (big) promotion in the mid 80s - after a rigorous selection process they appointed a woman - the first at that level in our organisation.

A couple of years of ineffectiveness later she was politely side-lined (to a post where she was still paid the same, but with less responsibility) - they re-ran the selection and I got the job.

Years later I was told by the director in charge (just as he was about to retire), that the original selection was not so much 'rigorous' as 'rigged' - he'd been ordered to appoint the only female candidate - regardless of ability.

On the other side of the interview desk, I've had my arm twisted to appoint 'the right candidate', rather than the best candidate - fortunately for the best candidates I'm an awkward *** if I think I'm being manipulated.

Is it fair to rig selections to balance the books - even if it is actually righting a historical wrong? I don't think so, but (to quote Mandy Rice-Davies) "I would say that, wouldn't I".

[youngmafbog]

Discrimination is wrong and divisive, positive or otherwise.

Some jobs will never be equal between the sexes (simply because women are not stupid enough to want to do them - and good on them!)
for instance I work in IT and like a balanced team, but I have always struggled to get women in, they simply dont want to do such a boring job, and I dont blame them. My daughter went into it but has left it now so there is another one out the game.

[naomi24]

No, discrimination is never positive. Discrimination in favour of one automatically discriminates against the other.

[Cloverjo]

It’s not fair to employ someone in order to fill a quota of black, female, disabled or anything else. I can see why people want to redress the balance, and not have white, heterosexual, able-bodied males having all the best jobs. But it’s not fair on the current cohort of those men. It’s not their fault society has been skewed, and they shouldn’t have to pay for it themselves.

[Spicerack]

THECORBYLOON// If there were two equally suitable candidates and one were from an under-represented section of the community, which one should get the position?//

The aBBC got around that problem. Simply told white people not to bother applying.

[Old_Geezer]

Appropriate discrimination is more neutral that actually positive, inappropriate discrimination is clearly negative. Not spotting a lot that's positive in there yet.

[spathiphyllum]

No, positive discrimination depends on perspective / position, so it's highly subjective, making it never truly "positive" because for someone else it's negative.

[retrocop]

I have not read all this but my very fit and eager younger son attempted to join the LFB. Every year they asked for ethnic and female applicants but white males were included about every three years only.
Their loss. Likewise the Met Police at that time which was about 15 years ago. Definitely positive discrimination exists and it stinks.

[bednobs]

but the police force are about 80% male. i would hazard a guess the FB are the same (or even more)

[JF85]

I had to read the article a couple of times to make sure it wasn't a joke. He applied to be a police officer in the area where his father was already a senior officer, rather than try for a job where his background wouldn't seem to offer him an advantage. He was one of 127 potentially employable candidates and was not chosen, but he accepted that. It was his father who made the complaint.

So. Young man not assertive or self-assured enough to apply for job without the advantage of nepotism. Not assertive or self-assured enough to question the decision. Fortunately, police officers do not need to be assertive or self-assured, so long as they know the right people. I am not sure I would want to have somebody quite so lacking in presence to be my last line of defence against a tide of crime.

Cheshire Police might have been a bit slack in their recording of microscopic differences between candidates, and the verdict was in his favour so it must be right, but I wonder how detailed the reasons for turning down candidates would have to be. Is it possible the police have more pressing considerations than "127 people have passed the physical and intelligence tests, and all performed adequately in interview. How can we best meet the needs of our local area in terms of representation? Remember, for every unsuccessful candidate we will need to prepare for a legal challenge."

We have a country dominated not by white men but by privileged white men. A small proportion go to private schools, but they get the pick of jobs in the judiciary, the civil service, the media and many other walks of life, so are well-placed to perpetuate their own privilege.

If we rephrased the question and asked "Should it be easier for state educated children to get top jobs?" how many would be saying that the best person should get the job in every case?