Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Has positive discrimination gone mad? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Two articles I've seen recently;

    Not enough girls studying physics;
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...y-physics.html

    Not enough men in HE;
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...ged-group.html

    ...

    Does everything really have to be a microcosm of society? Personally I think positive discrimination like suggested in the above articles is completely pointless.

    Thoughts?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree. Although prescribed in UK law through the implementation of equality directives into the equality act, essentially making such discrimination legal and condoned.

    However, there are always going to be variables; i.e there are a lot more male computer scientists than females. To positively discriminate messes with the natural order of things. Who really cares. This government is so caught up on how many lesbian disabled black women to recruit into the police forces. If we are a society that is truly anti discriminatory then we would let the person who is most suited to the job or post be the person who gets the role. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Some are just obsessed with measures promoting "equality", especially those who brand themselves as feminists and go around spewing out demands for 50% quotas everywhere etc. Such measures are largely irrelevant to the economy and should thus be discarded.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    That the word 'positive' has to be thrown in there tells you all you need to know.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    David Lammy, the once high-rising Labour MP, dropped a resounding clanger on Twitter when he saw that a BBC journalist had tweeted from Rome: “Will smoke be black or white?” Showing a gap in his knowledge of European history, he responded angrily: “This tweet from the BBC is crass and unnecessary. Do we really need silly innuendo about the race of the next Pope?”



    :toofunny:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    The mere concept of positive discrimination is mad and inherently offensive to those it is meant to help. It also means any people that get into a job because of positive discrimination will likely be viewed as perhaps not good enough for the job,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The whole concept is a complete nonsense. I was participating in a jurisprudence tutorial earlier this year and we were discussing the topic of "rights." During the discussion, we came on to the ethical justifications for positive discrimination. I said there weren't any - and that positive discrimination, rather than promoting equality, promotes inequality. My tutor looked at me like a martian - can't question accepted dogma you see. OP just beware that to question positive discrimination is an unpopular viewpoint in this country - although I must say I personally agree with your views
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand how "positive discrimination" exists.

    As for not enough females doing physics - what's the big deal? Not everyone is interested in physics.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. 'Positive discrimination' is daft.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe there is such a thing as "positive discrimination". It's either discriminating, or it's not. And you can either be for discrimination, or against discrimination.

    I think limited discrimination is ok for obvious things - Like discriminating against men by not letting them use female toilets etc, and discriminating against young people by not letting them vote. But discriminating in the workplace isn't right - The best person for the job should get it, no matter what reproductive organs they have.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest, as a female I find positive discrimination patronising. It's basically saying "we know as a woman you're not good enough to get a job on your own merit, so we'll move the goalposts so we can give it you and look like we're being all nice a PC".
    In some ways the whole "poor women" and women as eternal victims that is becoming increasingly common amounst those at the top strikes me as being a mutant blend between misogyny and misandry. The misogynists get to still feel superior to women (men are stronger, more intelligant, better, more capable that women, and women only are treated well because men choose to let them be), and the myandrists feel they are getting one up over men. Add to that those who believe in equality of outcome, and it's a not inconsiderable force. It's hardly surprising that it's biggest support tends to come from the still heavily male dominated areas such as politics, high management and the legal profession.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Utterly idiotic and useless. The fact that it's taken seriously and enforced in this country is actually mind boggling.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Not only does it mean the people most suited for the job won't necessarily get it, it's sheerly condescending to the people it's supposed to help - "here, have this job because although you didn't get in on merit, you got in because of your race/gender/etc, which we have all agreed isn't relevant."

    It's bananas and only perpetuates the idea that these arbitrary traits matter when they don't. Equality is equality - it isn't positive discrimination to make up for negative discrimination.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Agreed.

    Aspects of positive discrimination (e.g. quotas) are just as damaging.

    Let people study what they want to study and do, and stop making issues out of nothing.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Imbalances are a possible indicator of something wrong in the system, so whilst positive discrimination shouldn't be used, the situation should be monitored to see if there is an actual problem (girls being scared off physics, boys being scared off uni in general). Everything need not be a microcosm of society, but differences such as these suggest there is a problem, and if there is one then it ought to be fixed, though at the cause, not at the symptom.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    I don't believe there is such a thing as "positive discrimination". It's either discriminating, or it's not. And you can either be for discrimination, or against discrimination.

    I think limited discrimination is ok for obvious things - Like discriminating against men by not letting them use female toilets etc, and discriminating against young people by not letting them vote. But discriminating in the workplace isn't right - The best person for the job should get it, no matter what reproductive organs they have.
    It's a word used by politicians to disguise the nature of what it really means as discrimination. They slap on the word 'positive' in front of it and that is supposed to make things alright, and the liberals buy into it.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.