Why do people conflate diversity with fairness/equality? Watch

_gcx
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
...or claim that they are identical concepts?

I don't understand the mindset behind the obsession of diversity, whether this be pertaining to gender, race, nationality, religion, or otherwise. While diversity can be an effect of equality, a lack of diversity is not necessarily indicative of a lack of equality.

Forcing diversity, in fact, undoubtedly causes more inequality by discriminating against (perceived) majority groups, due to their associations. Some seem to argue that, due to a "lack" of "oppression", this is not a problem. (the type that claim that reverse racism/sexism exists, that racism/sexism requires prejudice and power) Logically, this is no different from discriminating against minority groups for bearing an association that is that of a "minority group", and I struggle to see how one could think otherwise. All discrimination, of any kind, has negative effects in some form.

In the end, trying to enforce diversity by means of a quota, or otherwise, creates more discrimination and inequality, rather than ensuring that equal opportunity is present. It gives the impression of solving a problem, but in reality it just worsens it by tipping the scales the other way. If true equal opportunity is present, diversity may or may not occur naturally. If it doesn't, it is a non-problem, as there is equal opportunity.

Therefore I perceive the obsessive thirst for diversity, typical within society, (typically with those who pertain to the left wing) as simply misguided. Diversity isn't a thing we need to strive for in society, in my opinion. I'd be interested to hear others thoughts regarding this.
1
reply
Fusion
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
I remember reading a very thought out piece on positive discrimination in either the ft/economist/times a while ago Basically it was critical and made some excellent points e.g. in a world where white people are ''advantaged'' and make up the vast majority at the top, a white head of diversity would be more productive to forward the cause than a non-white. That a white person advancing non white employment prospects would be seen as less threatening by other white people in power who need to be convinced.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by _gcx)
...or claim that they are identical concepts?

I don't understand the mindset behind the obsession of diversity, whether this be pertaining to gender, race, nationality, religion, or otherwise. While diversity can be an effect of equality, a lack of diversity is not necessarily indicative of a lack of equality.

Forcing diversity, in fact, undoubtedly causes more inequality by discriminating against (perceived) majority groups, due to their associations. Some seem to argue that, due to a "lack" of "oppression", this is not a problem. (the type that claim that reverse racism/sexism exists, that racism/sexism requires prejudice and power) Logically, this is no different from discriminating against minority groups for bearing an association that is that of a "minority group", and I struggle to see how one could think otherwise. All discrimination, of any kind, has negative effects in some form.

In the end, trying to enforce diversity by means of a quota, or otherwise, creates more discrimination and inequality, rather than ensuring that equal opportunity is present. It gives the impression of solving a problem, but in reality it just worsens it by tipping the scales the other way. If true equal opportunity is present, diversity may or may not occur naturally. If it doesn't, it is a non-problem, as there is equal opportunity.

Therefore I perceive the obsessive thirst for diversity, typical within society, (typically with those who pertain to the left wing) as simply misguided. Diversity isn't a thing we need to strive for in society, in my opinion. I'd be interested to hear others thoughts regarding this.
I think sometimes (but not always), diversity is a valid aim in and of itself.

For example, if you're hiring 50 people for a company workforce, you don't want to hire 50 identical people. You want to hire people with a wide range of different skill sets, behaviours, experiences etc. so that if one person turns out to be unsuitable for a particular job, someone else might be.

More generally, in a social group, it's useful to have a diverse range of personalities, beliefs, cultures, attitudes etc. because they can complement or eliminate each other. For example, if I am a Christian being brought up solely around other Christians, I'll never have my beliefs challenged, nor will I be able to challenge anyone else's beliefs. If I'm wrong I'll grow up never knowing any better, and if I'm right, I'll never be able to share my enlightenment with anyone else.
3
reply
GonvilleBromhead
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Fusion)
I remember reading a very thought out piece on positive discrimination in either the ft/economist/times a while ago Basically it was critical and made some excellent points e.g. in a world where white people are ''advantaged'' and make up the vast majority at the top, a white head of diversity would be more productive to forward the cause than a non-white. That a white person advancing non white employment prospects would be seen as less threatening by other white people in power who need to be convinced.

Posted from TSR Mobile
That's very much the greater good argument though, no?

It assumes white advantage without demonstration and further assumes it's legitimate to disadvantage individual white people for POC as a collective. Is it ever acceptable to give up individual rights and liberties for the common good? I'd argue if we lose justice for anyone, we lose justice for everyone - once the individual isn't fundamental everything is justified from discrimination by affirmative action right up to, on the extreme end of the scale, purges of undesirables. Our only real world representations of collective good societies are Stalinist Russia, Hitlers Germany and Maoist China, basically three of the worst nation states to be an individual in history. Hitler is actually quoted as saying 'we must not do what is right for the individual but what is right for society' (funnily enough so is Clinton, no greater point here I just always find that amusing) in one of his speeches.

It's the old philosophical question, if you had 100 people in a jail and knew for a fact one was innocent but not who would you release them all? If not what would the balance of numbers have to be for you to release everyone?

A lot of white people at the top is down to the historical ethnic makeup of the country. Not many whites on top in Zimbabwe, China, Thailand, Vietnam etc.
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by Fusion)
I remember reading a very thought out piece on positive discrimination in either the ft/economist/times a while ago Basically it was critical and made some excellent points e.g. in a world where white people are ''advantaged'' and make up the vast majority at the top, a white head of diversity would be more productive to forward the cause than a non-white. That a white person advancing non white employment prospects would be seen as less threatening by other white people in power who need to be convinced.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Positive discrimination is also unlawful.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by 999tigger)
Positive discrimination is also unlawful.
Not always.

Action against discrimination

You can do something voluntarily to help people with a protected characteristic. This is called ‘positive action’. Taking positive action is legal if people with a protected characteristic:
  • are at a disadvantage
  • have particular needs
  • are under-represented in an activity or type of work

Source: https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-yo...discrimination

At university I found out about several organisations which are geared towards helping people of ethnic minorities get into internships in the financial sector. For example: http://www.seo-london.org
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Not always.

Action against discrimination

You can do something voluntarily to help people with a protected characteristic. This is called ‘positive action’. Taking positive action is legal if people with a protected characteristic:
  • are at a disadvantage
  • have particular needs
  • are under-represented in an activity or type of work

Source: https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-yo...discrimination

At university I found out about several organisations which are geared towards helping people of ethnic minorities get into internships in the financial sector. For example: http://www.seo-london.org
They arent the same.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by 999tigger)
They arent the same.
What's the difference?
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by tazarooni89)
What's the difference?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/j...ve-action.html
0
reply
_gcx
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Not always.

Action against discrimination

You can do something voluntarily to help people with a protected characteristic. This is called ‘positive action’. Taking positive action is legal if people with a protected characteristic:
  • are at a disadvantage
  • have particular needs
  • are under-represented in an activity or type of work

Source: https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-yo...discrimination

At university I found out about several organisations which are geared towards helping people of ethnic minorities get into internships in the financial sector. For example: http://www.seo-london.org
I still fail to see how discriminating based on the third could be considered "fair", by any standard, unless it is a voluntary association, which hence implies some baseline values, beliefs, or objectives.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
In that case, I suppose you're technically correct to say that positive discrimination is illegal while positive action is legal.

Although it does sound like a bit of a false distinction to me, as though they've simply taken some types of positive discrimination, made them legal, and then renamed it "positive action" so it doesn't sound as bad.


From your source:

It will mean that employers can choose to hire candidates from under-represented groups provided that they are as qualified for the role as other applicants.

A manager will be able lawfully to hire a black man over a white man, a woman over a man, or homosexual man over a heterosexual man, if they have the same skill set.
I'd argue that no two candidates for a job are ever going to be identical in practice, and so hiring someone with any sort of regard to under-representation of their race, gender or sexuality would still amount to positive discrimination and ought to be illegal.
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
It is totally insane, I would not care if a company had a all woman board if they were the best people, I would not care if it was all white upperclass men if they were doing the best job I couldnt care with anything.
Forced diversity should be criminal, having a transexual in the bbc brings nothing unless that person is a good person bar being trans.
when hiring you should look for the best not for the minority and if the best happens to be a minority then hire him/her.
3
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by tazarooni89)
In that case, I suppose you're technically correct to say that positive discrimination is illegal while positive action is legal.

Although it does sound like a bit of a false distinction to me, as though they've simply taken some types of positive discrimination, made them legal, and then renamed it "positive action" so it doesn't sound as bad.


From your source:



I'd argue that no two candidates for a job are ever going to be identical in practice, and so hiring someone with any sort of regard to under-representation of their race, gender or sexuality would still amount to positive discrimination and ought to be illegal.

It's a matter of law and with one being legal and the other illegal, then yes it does matter.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by _gcx)
I still fail to see how discriminating based on the third could be considered "fair", by any standard, unless it is a voluntary association, which hence implies some baseline values, beliefs, or objectives.
I think it depends on who exactly is doing the discriminating.

For example, there aren't many women in engineering careers. I think the two main possible reasons for this are either that: [1] our society has a cultural bias which steers otherwise perfectly capable women away from developing their skills or pursuing an interest/career in engineering; and [2] women are, by nature, simply not as interested or as skilled in engineering.

I think it's perfectly fine to try and solve issue [1], and combat girls' preconceptions that they wouldn't be suitable for a career in engineering, and actively try to tap into any interest or potential they may have for it, as it would provide a boost for that whole industry.

But issue [2] may also be an element of why women are under-represented in engineering, and if so I don't think there's any reason to try and solve it, or to have a 50-50 gender balance just for the sake of appearances.

So I'd support targeting girls to see if they can develop their potential to become future engineers (if this is where we think most of the untapped potential lies), but when it comes to actual hiring decisions I'd support complete gender neutrality.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by 999tigger)
It's a matter of law and with one being legal and the other illegal, then yes it does matter.
I'm not sure exactly what part of my post you're responding to.
What did I say "doesn't matter"?
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by tazarooni89)
I'm not sure exactly what part of my post you're responding to.
What did I say "doesn't matter"?
Because you said it was a false distinction.. Clearly it would matter to employers whether they broke the law or not. They are close , but still different,
0
reply
_gcx
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by tazarooni89)
I think it depends on who exactly is doing the discriminating.

For example, there aren't many women in engineering careers. I think the two main possible reasons for this are either that: [1] our society has a cultural bias which steers otherwise perfectly capable women away from developing their skills or pursuing an interest/career in engineering; and [2] women are, by nature, simply not as interested or as skilled in engineering.

I think it's perfectly fine to try and solve issue [1], and combat girls' preconceptions that they wouldn't be suitable for a career in engineering, and actively try to tap into any interest or potential they may have for it, as it would provide a boost for that whole industry.

But issue [2] may also be an element of why women are under-represented in engineering, and if so I don't think there's any reason to try and solve it, or to have a 50-50 gender balance just for the sake of appearances.

So I'd support targeting girls to see if they can develop their potential to become future engineers (if this is where we think most of the untapped potential lies), but when it comes to actual hiring decisions I'd support complete gender neutrality.
I'm fine with campaigns targeted towards getting more females into engineering, but I oppose with every fibre of my being any initiative that attempts to prioritise women, in any way, in the application process. There should be an absolute equal playing field in this regard. This is the main practice I am talking about in the OP.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by 999tigger)
Because you said it was a false distinction.. Clearly it would matter to employers whether they broke the law or not. They are close , but still different,
I mean it is a false distinction in terms of whether or not this type of "positive action" should be legal (i.e. from a lawmaker's point of view rather than an employer's point of view).

Obviously an employer simply has to do what is legal and avoid what is illegal.

However, in practice I think the result of this law would be to enable employers to engage in positive discrimination, whilst believing or claiming that it is legal "positive action" and having it treated as such. The opportunity to engage in genuine positive action which is legal by the letter of the law is very unlikely to ever arise, given that no two potential employees are ever likely to be identically skilled, experienced and qualified.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by _gcx)
I'm fine with campaigns targeted towards getting more females into engineering, but I oppose with every fibre of my being any initiative that attempts to prioritise women, in any way, in the application process. There should be an absolute equal playing field in this regard. This is the main practice I am talking about in the OP.
I completely agree.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (139)
17.77%
It's just nice to be back! (211)
26.98%
Not great so far... (281)
35.93%
I want to drop out! (151)
19.31%

Watched Threads

View All