The Yorksher Gob - Positive Discrimination

Previous | Memories | Tell a Friend | Next

29 July 2008 @ 11:18 pm

Positive Discrimination

It's a bit of a hot topic at the moment, isn't it? I've made fairly clear that I vehemently disapprove of it on several occasions, but I don't think I have ever really, clearly, set out why. Some people think that it is odd that I, as a self-proclaimed feminist, am so against it.

stephashley_fd asked me to start a debate on this earlier (see comments here). So here goes:

1, The argument from individuality. PD treats all women and all men (or all whites and all blacks, or whatever) as representatives of their group first, and individuals second. You don't have to have known me for very long to know how far I am from the average for women in many, many, many areas. I firmly believe that it is perfectly normal to deviate from the average. I am an individual. I am not there to be a tick in the box of a diversity agenda, and I believe that each individual has experiences and needs which are individual to them and not predetermined by what genitals they have or what colour their skin is.

2, The argument from equality of opportunity. If you discriminate in favour of some groups, you necessarily discriminate AGAINST others. This is manifestly unfair.

3, The argument from mediocrity. If you discriminate in favour of one group, you are promoting people who may not be as well-qualified or capable simply because they belong to the group in question; I thought this was what we were fighting against? Positive discrimination has led directly to Hazel Blears being in the cabinet. Is anyone apart from Hazel herself really convinced that this is a good thing?

4, The argument from perpetuation. Using discrimination to fight discrimination is like using violence to fight violence. It might stop specific instances, but it doesn't get to the root cause. It's salving a symptom, while leaving the disease utterly intact. We need to fight discrimination, not foster it.

5, The argument from resentment. Every person who gets a job due to positive discrimination has to fight the perception that they only got the job because of the group that they belong to, however well-qualified and good at the job they turn out to be. They are hamstrung before they even begin, and face resentment that no person should face.

6, The Sins of the Fathers argument. Positive Discrimination means that some people will suffer through no fault of their own, but because they were born to a privileged group. This is manifestly unfair.

7, The argument from commonality. Just because someone has the same genitals as you does not mean that they will be of the same views as you, have the same experiences as you, or understand you any better. I believe that Evan Harris understands me better and does a better job of representing my views than Nadine Dorries.

Really, it all boils down to the fact that if you use positive discrimination, you are accepting that the ends (greater diversity) justify the means. By that logic, you should also accept torture, pre-emptive invasion of other countries, etc.etc. I also hate the slippery euphemistic re-naming of it as affirmative action or positive action, like that changes what it is. I don't think that one needs to have the same genitals as someone else to be able to have empathy with their situation, and I don't think that one needs to be black to understand that racism is bad and wrong. I don't think that diversity is an end in itself, either. I think it's a means to an end of fairness.

Still, now I have set out my stall, I'm interested in what you guys think:

Poll #1231884 Positive Discrimination
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

I think that Positive Discrimination is:

View Answers

always justified
0 (0.0%)

sometimes justified
8 (32.0%)

never justified.
17 (68.0%)

Tags: polls, racism, sexism

Current Mood:

contemplative

62 rants | rant

( Post a new comment )

confusiontempst on July 29th, 2008 11:16 pm (UTC)

As the first respondent even vaguely in favour of positive discrimination, I guess I have to give a brief case for why.

Because we can't expect social inequalities to right themselves. Groups that have traditionally held power in society will continue to hold power in society unless we enact some form of affirmative action policies in order to give a greater range of options to those disadvantaged.

In a perfect world, positive discrimination wouldn't be necessary, but we live in far from the best of all possible worlds, and positive discrimination can soften the ongoing effects of negative discrimination.

I'm thinking here of measures that allow all parts of society an actual change at getting a decent education specifically.

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)

miss_s_b on July 29th, 2008 11:22 pm (UTC)

See, I'm thinking of candidate selection for political office.

Education is a HUGE 'nother topic, but I'd start by stopping state funding for all faith schools...

Just because I don't approve of positive discrimination doesn't mean I think we should be doing NOTHING. Of course social inequities aren't going to right themselves. I'm firmly in favour of initiatives which encourage more female/minority candidates to apply for things, and in fully in favour of changing various systems so that they don't automatically discriminate against perfectly able people (eg mothers). But that should not includes quotas, and it should not include giving the positions to less qualified people just because they happen to fall into the target group.

That simply transfers the inequity to the other side, it doesn't get rid of it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)

~ -

confusiontempst on July 29th, 2008 11:43 pm (UTC)

~ -

miss_s_b on July 29th, 2008 11:50 pm (UTC)

~ -

diblemming.blogspot.com on July 29th, 2008 11:54 pm (UTC)

~ -

confusiontempst on July 30th, 2008 12:00 am (UTC)

~ -

miss_s_b on July 30th, 2008 12:03 am (UTC)

endless_psych on July 30th, 2008 12:25 am (UTC)

Social legislation barely, if ever works, have ASBO's for instance reduced instances (or more importantly the perception of the amount of) anti social behaviour?

To use the example of the lazy rhetoric of using "political correctness" as a pejorative. People use that term to attack social progress because they somehow wish to suggest the government is enforcing social change. Rather then the reality which is social change is continuing apace and certain sections of society have yet to accept this.

But enforcing, or trying to enforce social change, is not something that will work. Not through legislation anyway. That way I think you risk creating a tipping point (I may mean something else here - its late and I'm a touch tired) where through legislation you make small gains that people resent. But then people who resent such things gather in number and voice and change the people on power who change the law and it tips back the other way.

Probably worse then before.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)

~ -

confusiontempst on July 30th, 2008 12:38 am (UTC)

~ -

endless_psych on July 30th, 2008 12:42 am (UTC)

diblemming.blogspot.com on July 29th, 2008 11:29 pm (UTC)
Never

BUT on the other hand there are things that can be done that fall short of all-woman shortlists and so on. Where do you stand on the work of the Campaign for Gender Balance and Jo Swinson as the spokesperson within the party so far? They have been going about effecting change very gingerly, by mentoring and encouraging women to compete on an equal playing field with men. Jo has gone on record (in the latest round of bloggers' interviews) as saying she would like to see a similar role and body being set up for ethnic minority Lib Dem members. I would love to say I need no handholding, but that's just not true, I really do appreciate extra support wherever I can get it, I'm underconfident to a crippling degree in some situations and this whole process is hard. The idea of pairing less experienced women in the party with a more experienced female mentor doesn't disadvantage anyone IMO and it does provide some comfort if like me and many others you find that the other active members of your local party are predominantly men - I love my guys down here in West Wales but they don't really get what it's like to be full of PMS and sometimes when you're stuck in a campaign you really need to rant/rave/cry at someone who does understand.

Where I am wondering if CGB might have gone just a tiny bit too far is with women-only training sessions. I have heard male friends complain bitterly that there's no such thing as male-only training sessions and to be fair they have a point and in that sense those particular training sessions are discriminatory... but they tend to be training sessions that men would have little interest in ANYWAY a lot of the time (there was one at Brighton about how to dress as a female candidate, which is a valid topic - it's not as straightforward as 'nice suit and tie'), and quite apart from that, there is nothing to stop men from setting up men-only training sessions should they wish and even inviting the same speakers and trainers, but as they're not, I assume they don't really feel the need.

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)

miss_s_b on July 29th, 2008 11:36 pm (UTC)
Re: Never

From what I know of the CGB (which is clearly not as much as you) they have got it almost exactly right. I very much like that we have a campaign for gender balance, and not a campaign to TRAMPLE THE MENS UNDERFOOT.

I hate, abhor and detest the Labour system, and have seen firsthand the contempt which many people hold for my local MP just because she was a woman selected from an all-women shortlist. She's been a bloody good local MP, mostly. It's not fair on her that she is still judged primarily for her gender and not for what she has done.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)

Re: Never -

diblemming.blogspot.com on July 30th, 2008 12:09 am (UTC)

Re: Never -

miss_s_b on July 30th, 2008 12:21 am (UTC)

Re: Never - (Anonymous) on July 30th, 2008 09:40 am (UTC)

Re: Never -

endless_psych on July 30th, 2008 12:33 am (UTC)

Re: Never - (Anonymous) on July 30th, 2008 09:33 am (UTC)

Re: Never - (Anonymous) on July 30th, 2008 09:34 am (UTC)

Re: Never -

miss_s_b on July 30th, 2008 09:38 am (UTC)

gominokouhai on July 29th, 2008 11:54 pm (UTC)

> Positive discrimination has led directly to Hazel Blears being in the cabinet. Is anyone really convinced that this is a good thing?

I suspect that she thinks it is.

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)

miss_s_b on July 30th, 2008 12:04 am (UTC)

Curse you! *edits*

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)

endless_psych on July 30th, 2008 12:37 am (UTC)

7, The argument from commonality.
Really, it all boils down to the fact that if you use positive discrimination, you are accepting that the ends (greater diversity) justify the means.

The end is not greater diversity, thats in fact a consequence of the act of positive discrimination, the stated aim is greater equality. In fact the point of positive discrimination is not to increase diversity its meant to reflect diversity (it does it in a terrible way but there you go.) Ergo the rest doesn't really follow...

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)

miss_s_b on July 30th, 2008 12:39 am (UTC)

People who advocate PD say that the end is greater diversity.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)

~ -

endless_psych on July 30th, 2008 12:48 am (UTC)

(Anonymous) on July 30th, 2008 08:47 am (UTC)

Or that better decisions are made perhaps?

Diverse groups tend to make better decisions because they have a greater range of experience to draw upon...that is one step on your path to equality, surely?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)

~ - (Anonymous) on July 30th, 2008 09:18 am (UTC)

~ -

miss_s_b on July 30th, 2008 09:26 am (UTC)

~ -

endless_psych on July 30th, 2008 11:29 am (UTC)

prolificdiarist on July 30th, 2008 01:21 am (UTC)

I answered never justified, because I'm against it in principle & have yet to see any example or implementation in practice where I think it is justified. Plus, I agree with all your arguments above.

However, I don't generally like to make blanket statements - especially when I know my thinking is muddy on an issue, as I believe it to be here.

"Really, it all boils down to the fact that if you use positive discrimination, you are accepting that the ends (greater diversity) justify the means. By that logic, you should also accept torture, pre-emptive invasion of other countries, etc.etc."

I disagree with this. Sometimes the ends justify the means, but that doesn't mean they always do. Some things I might be willing to say are never right - like killing innocent people - but that doesn't mean everything fits into that category. For example, I think lying is sometimes justified.

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)

miss_s_b on July 30th, 2008 01:24 am (UTC)

I think I was unclear in how I worded that. Given that it's approaching 2.30am, though, I reckon I'll engage with it tomorrow, ifn you don't mind.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)

~ -

prolificdiarist on July 30th, 2008 01:37 am (UTC)

ginasketch on July 30th, 2008 07:08 am (UTC)

I chose sometimes justified as I'm thinking of things like women's groups. While I agree just because someone is a woman it doesn't necessarily mean they will understand, I'm thinking of my friend's experience of letting men into a women's group where they subsequently crapped all over everything by trying to introduce pro life rubbish into a safe space.

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)

tyrell on July 30th, 2008 07:21 am (UTC)

I've never decided either way, but let's play devil's advocate. An area is hugely racist, despite having a large population of the persecuted race. PD *makes* the bigotted assholes give some political places to the minority, thus providing them with a voice and representation for their people.

When the discrimination is already there in the opposite direction, can it ever be necessary to use PD as a balance?

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)

innerbrat on July 30th, 2008 09:26 am (UTC)

This.

And also what

caseytalk says: it's not ever about employing an incompetant because they're chromatic, female or disabled, it's about chosing between two balanced people in a way that encourages diversity.

The problem is, that people (voters, employers, whichever) do, all things being equal, go for the person who represents the 'us' group, because they can relate to them. This is a natural instinct, but it results in domination of a certain group based not on competency, but on similarity.

I had a long discussion with my family over dinner about this, and my sister - who would consider herself the very farthest thing from a racist, but is remarkably ignorant of the issues, told a story to indicate that qualifications and experience does not necesserily mean best for the job.

She had two candidates for a job recently - one white and local, the other African. The second one had more than enough qualifications, experience, ability etc, but she hired the white girl because she had more in common with the rest of the staff and it would encourage a better raport in the working environment.

It left a very nasty taste in my mouth, as I couldn't help but think that she had, subconsciously, acted in a racist manner by deciding the cultural similarities between one candidate and the white people already in the department, were more important than the qualifications of the other.

I bring this up not because I think my sister's evil and should be named and shamed, but because I can't help but think this must be prevalent among employers: they go for the candidate they like, and therefore the candidate they can relate to, which usually means the candidate closer to their own demographic group.

Positive discrimination in its most ideal form is a way of correcting this bias; because no matter how much you may argue that you're not racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic &s, the biases are easy to ignore if you're not constantly checking for them.

And, yeah. I would much MUCH rather lose out on a job because I'm white or able bodied, than because I'm gay or a woman. *shrugs*

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)

~ -

miss_s_b on July 30th, 2008 09:33 am (UTC)

~ -

innerbrat on July 30th, 2008 09:59 am (UTC)

~ -

miss_s_b on July 30th, 2008 10:04 am (UTC)

~ -

innerbrat on July 30th, 2008 10:24 am (UTC)

~ -

tyrell on July 30th, 2008 11:04 am (UTC)

~ -

andrewducker on July 30th, 2008 11:07 am (UTC)

~ - (Anonymous) on July 31st, 2008 10:51 am (UTC)

miss_s_b on July 30th, 2008 09:34 am (UTC)

That doesn't make the bigotry go away, though, does it?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)

~ -

tyrell on July 30th, 2008 09:41 am (UTC)

~ -

miss_s_b on July 30th, 2008 09:44 am (UTC)

~ -

tyrell on July 30th, 2008 09:58 am (UTC)

~ -

miss_s_b on July 30th, 2008 10:00 am (UTC)

~ -

tyrell on July 30th, 2008 10:56 am (UTC)

faeriecween on July 30th, 2008 07:51 am (UTC)

I, as you know, work in retail. Specialist retail where you have to not only know but also care about the products you're selling in order to do your job. Most (not all by a long shot) of the people I've worked with are female. Of the men a large proportion are gay (probably more than half) and I regularly get staff members asking if we can employ "a boy". I would do if we got any genuinely good applications from males. But I've only seen FOUR males over the last three years who were good enough at this to give them a job.
This is largely that the things that we sell (tea, chocolate, household items and accessories) aren't, generally, hugely interesting to guys.
I've rambled. What I'm trying to say is that I'm not prepared to employ a male who'll do the job with slightly less effort and enthusiasm over the female who'll give that little bit extra. Just as I wouldn't employ a female who was less interested over a male who was genuinely excited about the job.
I'm not going to just employ "a boy". The job goes tot eh person who's best at it.

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)

caseytalk on July 30th, 2008 07:53 am (UTC)

Positive discrimination would permit "If all other things, such as skills and qualifications, are equal, then the tie goes to the one who would create more diversity." Very rarely are all other things equal, but they may well balance. For example, you have two candidates where you don't agree with either of them on everything, but you agree with both of them about 75% of the time. I have NO problem voting for the candidate whose success would create a greater diversity of representation in such an instance. Therefore, I feel that it is sometimes justified.

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)

(Anonymous) on July 30th, 2008 08:44 am (UTC)

"I believe that Evan Harris understands me better and does a better job of representing my views than Nadine Dorries."

Oh come on Jennie, nobodies suggesting that you can only vote for women or men! That the choice is between a female tory or a male lib dem! That's a fatuous argument.

"Just because someone has the same genitals as you does not mean that they will be of the same views as you, have the same experiences as you, or understand you any better".

It's not the genitals that make the difference, it's the common life experiences that you may have that lead you to see things that others who have not had those experiences don't. Of course women are very different and there's a lot of work done on gender and race or class intersectionality for a start.

but your argument here is not against positive disrimination per se but against diversity. First you have decide if you belie in diversity, if you belive that a House of Commons made up of a rough balance of men and women would make better decisions than the one we have now.

It sounds to me like your issues is with the diversity debate, not the secondary debate about how best to get diversity by quotas or encouragement.

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)

(Anonymous) on July 30th, 2008 09:21 am (UTC)

Sorry, that anon was me gain...(or me first!)

Jo Christie-Smith

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)

miss_s_b on July 30th, 2008 09:22 am (UTC)

the common life experiences

But this is what I am trying to say: Arguing that all women or all black people or whatever necessarily have common life experiences is complete and utter bollocks. Lots of women have no idea what it's like to be a mother, and lots of black people have no idea what it's like to be poor, but that does not stop them from empathising with mothers or poor people, and it doesn't stop them from representing them.

And this shit about women being very different is what causes the problem. The average woman IS a BIT different from the average man, yes. But there is miles more variation within women and within men than there is between the two groups. Anyone who doesn't understand this has read men are from mars too many times, and looked at the headline averages, and not the standard deviation.

but your argument here is not against positive disrimination per se but against diversity

No it is isn't. I am simple arguing for diversity of INDIVIDUALS.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)

~ - (Anonymous) on July 31st, 2008 11:05 am (UTC)

~ -

miss_s_b on July 31st, 2008 05:54 pm (UTC)

~ - (Anonymous) on July 31st, 2008 09:52 pm (UTC)

~ -

miss_s_b on July 31st, 2008 10:02 pm (UTC)

~ -

joeotten.blogspot.com on August 7th, 2008 03:20 pm (UTC)

perlmonger on July 30th, 2008 08:48 am (UTC)

It's not in any sense a level field now: we have positive discrimination in favour of (perm from) unambiguously male, white, able-bodied, young people from a subset of social, cultural and educational backgrounds. I agree with your arguments, but there are biases in formal and informal selection criteria that demand attention. People who perceive themselves, their own, or their preconceptions threatened by such adjustment are likely to react, which is where many (not all) arguments against positive discrimination outside our little echo chamber come from.

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)

rhythmaning on August 1st, 2008 02:15 pm (UTC)

I can't make up my mind!

I think that people shouldn't be seen as part of a group, but as themselves; and I think positive discrimination is discriminating against others.

But then I am fortunate enough to be a middle class white male who went to university when there weren't any fees - and I can afford to think like that.

Perhaps if there are two equally skilled candidates, positive discrimination is a viable way of making up one's mind - but imagine the fuss if one did that on "negative" discrimination.

I don't think one can win this one whichever way it goes.

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)

po8crg on September 8th, 2008 11:30 am (UTC)
Lib Dem Blog Posting of the Year Nomination

This posting has been nominated for Posting of the Year in the LDV blog of the year awards.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/blog-of-the-year-awards-2008-the-shortlists-3575.html

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)

miss_s_b on September 8th, 2008 11:32 am (UTC)
Re: Lib Dem Blog Posting of the Year Nomination

WOO HOO!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)

(Anonymous) on December 3rd, 2008 12:26 am (UTC)