This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should positive discrimination be allowed or not? And what are the alternatives?

Tl;dr version is basically the title. But reading my OP will give you some insight to my perspective on it. And don't forget to list some alternatives to positive discrimination if you have any at all.

I would like to think most people would agree with me that positive discrimination is wrong. Using discrimination/injustice to fight against discrimination/injustice is wrong. And I think most would agree that two wrongs don't make a right.

However, we live in a world where some people feel that positive discrimination can be "justified" because of the slight justice it can bring to minorities. For example, imagine an organization of 40 white people. The CEO prefers to employ only white people as he gets along with them better than other races. He and the managers in the organization are the only ones that have this mentality. Everyone else in the organization doesn't think like them. Everyone else are happy to work with other races as well as whites. However, people can understandably see it as racism that the CEO doesn't employ certain people just because of their race and culture. Now, let's imagine that according to the Equality Act (2010), this organization may have to ensure that 10% (some random percentage) of their employees are of other ethnicities. So the following year, as they're employing more people, the organization has to turn down some white people from the vacancies to fulfil the quota (10% of the employees must be of other races). And these white people happen to be better for the job than the people from the other races, by chance. Unfortunately for these whites, they've been discriminated against because of their race (white british), despite being better for the job.

So as you can see, on the one hand, we see slight justice (people from other races have now been given a chance for employment in the organization) and on the other hand, we see injustice (some whites can't get the jobs because of their race). So here, we're using evil to fight against evil. Do people agree that it was a necessary evil to just give jobs freely to other races, regardless of whether some whites had better skills for the job? Can they say this without any remorse for the whites who couldn't get the job despite being better for it? Can they say this with no guilt?

I personally don't agree with positive discrimination. You're hurting people to give joy to others. You're using discrimination to tackle discrimination. It's a bit like taking an eye for an eye, isn't it? And as the famous Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye makes the world go blind." Personally, I believe the best candidate should always get the job, regardless of their race/gender/religion etc. But I know it is an issue that some employers can discriminate against some people based on the race/religion/gender etc. But is positive discrimination the only and best way to solve this issue?

What do you think about quotas? What do you think about positive discrimination? Is it worth doing the necessary evil, regardless of the discrimination against innocent people? If you agree with me that positive discrimination is unacceptable in our society, do you have any alternative ideas to tackle discrimination, without using any form of discrimination to do so?

I haven't got time at the moment to fully join in the debate. So just give your responses and debate amongst yourselves. I'll look at some of the replies later next week.

(edited 12 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

No.

no, its still discrimination.

Reply 3

Lightf00t

Only idiots like Harriet Harman are for measures like these. No, it's wrong.

Of course not.

I completely agree. It may be positive discrimination for one race, but that therefore makes it negative discrimination for another race.

Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

Reply 6

Aj12

Ban it. It does far more harm than good and leads to people resenting minorities and believing they do not have the skills to do their job.

A job should be given on merit nothing more.

no.

Original post by basketofsnakes

no.

Original post by T-ros

No.

Original post by moonkatt

no, its still discrimination.

Original post by Lightf00t

Only idiots like Harriet Harman are for measures like these. No, it's wrong.

Original post by Tahooper

I completely agree. It may be positive discrimination for one race, but that therefore makes it negative discrimination for another race.

Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

Original post by LipstickKisses

Of course not.

Original post by Aj12

Ban it. It does far more harm than good and leads to people resenting minorities and believing they do not have the skills to do their job.

A job should be given on merit nothing more.

Can you think of any alternatives to tackle discrimination, instead of positive discrimination?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 9

T-ros

Original post by Cable

Can you think of any alternatives tackle discrimination?

yeah

Reply 10

jk49

No it should not. The alternative is true equality.

Reply 11

Aj12

Original post by Cable

Can you think of any alternatives to tackle discrimination, instead of positive discrimination?

Apart from educating minorities I don't think there is much else we can do. For example convincing more black pupils to apply for Oxbridge rather than setting aside places.

Reply 12

LipstickKisses

Original post by Cable

Can you think of any alternatives to tackle discrimination, instead of positive discrimination?

Education. Fighting discrimination with more discrimination is just stupid.

Reply 13

Sendaii

No, it shouldn't be allowed in any shape or form. Not only is it disgustingly racist, it's insulting. If I were a minority, I'd hate to be hired because of my skin colour as opposed to my skills. Equality is giving everyone a level playing field, not giving an advantage to someone because they have more or less of a certain skin pigment. Education is the key.

Reply 14

Lightf00t

The inability to discriminate leads to indiscriminateness of thought. We all discriminate, whether some of us admit it or not.

Reply 15

Nightstar-27

No giving someone a head start just because they're in a minority isn't right either and the alternative is treating everyone fairly and giving everyone an equal chance.

Reply 16

KimKallstrom

The problem with no positive discrimination measures is that the playing field is already uneven. Not for women as Harriet Harperson seems to pretend but in terms of background.

It's so rich for someone, Harman, who went to St Pauls school to preach about an uneven playing field.

Still, positive discrimination causes more problems than it solves so let's just have a rule that erases the names of secondary schools from application forms.

Actually I've been told that many people remove their addresses from CVs so people don't judge them on what area they are from because if you are from, say, South Norwood or some other dump it can adversely affect your chances.

My friend's fiance recently wanted to name their mixed race kid Tyrees. Everyone advised her against it because Tyrees would never be able to get a job because everyone would assume he's a pimp from Compton.

Reply 17

Sendaii

Original post by Nightstar-27

No giving someone a head start just because they're in a minority isn't right either and the alternative is treating everyone fairly and giving everyone an equal chance.