Positive discrimination and demographic quotas - Hypocritical and wrong
In response to recent threads mentioning positive discrimination and quotas, particularly in regards to gender, I feel I should share my opinion on the subject. I'll use the example of employment here.
Firstly, an employer should not discriminate on anything other than suitability for the job, nor should they be made to. To hire people specifically for their race or gender, for example, goes against the principles of fair treatment and equal rights.
Secondly, a quota is simply a reflection of what somebody thinks the proportions should look like. An inequality may simply be down to different choices or because a certain demographic, on average, is ill-suited to the job. It does not necessarily imply that unfair discrimination is taking place. In addition, to tackle this from the employer's side (if the equality could be considered 'wrong' in the first place) is ultimately back-to-front, as well as going against the principles of equal rights. It is much fairer (and principled) to positively encourage demographics to pursue certain jobs or career paths. It is unfair to force an employers hand and neglect other, more well-suited individuals. Furthermore, is to hire someone on the grounds of their skin colour or genitals not also somewhat condescending to them?
There are already laws in place targeting discrimination. Unless it can be evidently shown that these laws are being broken or circumnavigated, then from he employer's side we should just let things be. If we want to play the social engineer, we should do it via encouragement and education; not by engaging in or enforcing hypocritical, discriminatory practices to 'help' those not suited to the job in the first place at the expense of others.
Do you agree?
Firstly, an employer should not discriminate on anything other than suitability for the job, nor should they be made to. To hire people specifically for their race or gender, for example, goes against the principles of fair treatment and equal rights.
Secondly, a quota is simply a reflection of what somebody thinks the proportions should look like. An inequality may simply be down to different choices or because a certain demographic, on average, is ill-suited to the job. It does not necessarily imply that unfair discrimination is taking place. In addition, to tackle this from the employer's side (if the equality could be considered 'wrong' in the first place) is ultimately back-to-front, as well as going against the principles of equal rights. It is much fairer (and principled) to positively encourage demographics to pursue certain jobs or career paths. It is unfair to force an employers hand and neglect other, more well-suited individuals. Furthermore, is to hire someone on the grounds of their skin colour or genitals not also somewhat condescending to them?
There are already laws in place targeting discrimination. Unless it can be evidently shown that these laws are being broken or circumnavigated, then from he employer's side we should just let things be. If we want to play the social engineer, we should do it via encouragement and education; not by engaging in or enforcing hypocritical, discriminatory practices to 'help' those not suited to the job in the first place at the expense of others.
Do you agree?
Original post by Dandaman1
...
Do you agree?
Do you agree?
In an ideal world there'd be no wrong to right, but it's not so there is.
At some point in the future, when hopefully there's no obvious legacy of the centuries of formal and informal discrimination, there'll be no justification for positive discrimination, until then attempts to correct imbalances have some legitimacy.
Your post reminded me of this:
Original post by Axiomasher
In an ideal world there'd be no wrong to right, but it's not so there is.
At some point in the future, when hopefully there's no obvious legacy of the centuries of formal and informal discrimination, there'll be no justification for positive discrimination, until then attempts to correct imbalances have some legitimacy.
Your post reminded me of this:
At some point in the future, when hopefully there's no obvious legacy of the centuries of formal and informal discrimination, there'll be no justification for positive discrimination, until then attempts to correct imbalances have some legitimacy.
Your post reminded me of this:
That comic neglects to point out that all the descendants of the freed black slaves were born on that platform with the whites.
Today, in our society, we have equal rights. Ethnic minorities are granted the same freedoms as everyone else. They go to public schools and they get the same education as their white classmates (or at least the same opportunity). Those with similar credentials and expertise usually have comparable incomes. They do not, therefore, deserve to be given the upper hand over their equally qualified peers as a matter of requirement, based purely on their race, as though they are still slaves, and as though the whites are still benefiting from slavery. Everybody gets the same basic public services and the same opportunities. We are subject to the same laws and principles of equality. Positive discrimination serves little more than to contradict this.
Original post by Dandaman1
That comic neglects to point out that all the descendants of the freed black slaves were born on that platform with the whites...
No, they weren't. Generations of black Americans suffered ongoing formal and informal discrimination following the abolition of slavery. Everything didn't suddenly get put right just because chains were removed.
As an aside, I genuinely don't expect you to understand. Every now and again someone just like you comes along to TSR and bleats out the same one-dimensional rage against attempts rebalance the effects of centuries of disadvantage. You'll wear your keyboard out for a couple of years and jump on a new hobby-horse. Seriously, I've seen it a few times now.
Original post by Axiomasher
No, they weren't. Generations of black Americans suffered ongoing formal and informal discrimination following the abolition of slavery. Everything didn't suddenly get put right just because chains were removed.
As an aside, I genuinely don't expect you to understand. Every now and again someone just like you comes along to TSR and bleats out the same one-dimensional rage against attempts rebalance the effects of centuries of disadvantage. You'll wear your keyboard out for a couple of years and jump on a new hobby-horse. Seriously, I've seen it a few times now.
As an aside, I genuinely don't expect you to understand. Every now and again someone just like you comes along to TSR and bleats out the same one-dimensional rage against attempts rebalance the effects of centuries of disadvantage. You'll wear your keyboard out for a couple of years and jump on a new hobby-horse. Seriously, I've seen it a few times now.
You seem to be thinking of blacks and whites as collectives, as though they are each subject to their own actions and experiences as a whole. When looking at things on an individual basis, however, your entire case easily falls apart and appears very racist. For example:
Tim and Jamal are both born in the same town. They go to the same public school and they both study hard, but Tim happens to get slightly better grades. When applying for the same job, Tim has better credentials and they are otherwise equal, but Jamal gets the job anyway because the firm is required to hire more black people. Tim doesn't get the job because he's white. Tim was neither responsible for the enslavement of the blacks, nor was he benefiting from it any more than Jamal was, yet Jamal gets the 'helping hand'. How does this way of thinking sound at all fair to you?
(edited 10 years ago)
Affirmative action is basically institutionalized racism and it's morbidly comical how the left can't see that. What they say and promote have very clear implications:
1. Organizations should be forced by law to accept certain quota of blacks - The implication here is that blacks are inferior to whites, they cannot compete with whites on their own merit and they need government assistance to compete on equal terms.
2. Blacks are oppressed - no, they are not. Black people have all the opportunities that whites have. The current generation has not experienced true racism.
This white guilt crap is really getting old.
1. Organizations should be forced by law to accept certain quota of blacks - The implication here is that blacks are inferior to whites, they cannot compete with whites on their own merit and they need government assistance to compete on equal terms.
2. Blacks are oppressed - no, they are not. Black people have all the opportunities that whites have. The current generation has not experienced true racism.
This white guilt crap is really getting old.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
