Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[RogueHanger]

Positive action - " In the United Kingdom in Harriet Harman's Equality Act 2010 ss 158-159, the term is used in the context of employment to allow selection of a candidate from an "under-represented" group, so long as he or she is no less than equally qualified compared to another potential candidate that is not from the under-represented group."

Which could equate to "We are giving the job to someone else, because you are the wrong gender / colour / race / religion."

If the above is a fair and true representation of PA, I wouldn't support that, either.

It is a fair and true representation, Brigadier, but why would you not support it, bearing in mind the highlighted bit?

 

[Brigadier]

^^^^^Because the two candidates are being assigned to groups (over which neither probably has any control - sexuality, gender, race, religion, colour, etc), and then selecting one of the candidates based purely on their being in that group (which logically means discriminating against the other candidate, based solely on their not being a member of that group.

 

[RogueHanger]

I agree Brigadier. That's why I prefer my take which has a small but significant difference. Gratuitous re-posting...

What I have just seen in an interview from a woman Liberal MP puts it very well. (I wish I’d thought of it). Although she is talking about gender it applies equally here.

She disagrees with positive discrimination saying that it should be Positive Action instead. So, if there are not as many women or minority groups in any particular field or job, those groups should be encouraged or incentivised, (my words), to go into those fields or positions.

That way you have a level playing field with more applicants and a high probability of achieving or exceeding your target without any discrimination whatsoever.

Got it. Her exact word was "encourage".

I don't think this is gratuitous reposting. Sometimes, if something is worth saying, it's worth saying more than once.

But to be fair, BT, (or FMT, as you've now called youself ) there were some other points that you didn't mention, that were covered in that interview:

Joe Swinson was only referring to 'gender specific' postive discrimination/action.

She did state that hopefuly it would not be necessary, ("a necessary evil" was her words) but she recognised that it is.

Being a woman, I can understand why she would not want to accept the concept, (only as far as gender-specific positive action/discrimination(PD/A), which was the only type of PD/A she was referring to.) was necessary. Although she didn't explicitly mention it, she intimated that she was against it for the only salient argument that I can think of.

 

[RogueHanger]

^^^^^Because the two candidates are being assigned to groups (over which neither probably has any control - sexuality, gender, race, religion, colour, etc), and then selecting one of the candidates based purely on their being in that group (which logically means discriminating against the other candidate, based solely on their not being a member of that group.

Even though it has a beneficial effect?
Beneficial to the organisation, the community, the society, etc, which gives rise to further beneficial effects further down the line.

 

[cajar]

^^^^^Because the two candidates are being assigned to groups (over which neither probably has any control - sexuality, gender, race, religion, colour, etc), and then selecting one of the candidates based purely on their being in that group (which logically means discriminating against the other candidate, based solely on their not being a member of that group.

Even though it has a beneficial effect?
Beneficial to the organisation, the community, the society, etc, which gives rise to further beneficial effects further down the line.

Slaves built the railroads.

 

[RogueHanger]

BTW, my sincere apologies if I offended anyone last night during the three pages of alcohol-fuelled drivel. I was quite sober, and unfortunately, as I mentioned last night, to say anything was useless, but to say nothing could be construed as cowardly.

It's so pleasant that this morning we're back to sensible discussion.

 

[RogueHanger]

^^^^^Because the two candidates are being assigned to groups (over which neither probably has any control - sexuality, gender, race, religion, colour, etc), and then selecting one of the candidates based purely on their being in that group (which logically means discriminating against the other candidate, based solely on their not being a member of that group.

Even though it has a beneficial effect?
Beneficial to the organisation, the community, the society, etc, which gives rise to further beneficial effects further down the line.

Slaves built the railroads.

Where?
And if they did, what has it to do with 21st century policies?
Are you sure that you are on the right thread?

 

[Brigadier]

Even though it has a beneficial effect?
Beneficial to the organisation, the community, the society, etc, which gives rise to further beneficial effects further down the line.

So might banning the Roma from coming here.

 

[RogueHanger]

Even though it has a beneficial effect?
Beneficial to the organisation, the community, the society, etc, which gives rise to further beneficial effects further down the line.

So might banning the Roma from coming here.

So sad, Brigadier, you started out so well this morning. Alas, your intellectual stamina didn't last long.

 

[cajar]

^^^^^Because the two candidates are being assigned to groups (over which neither probably has any control - sexuality, gender, race, religion, colour, etc), and then selecting one of the candidates based purely on their being in that group (which logically means discriminating against the other candidate, based solely on their not being a member of that group.

Even though it has a beneficial effect?
Beneficial to the organisation, the community, the society, etc, which gives rise to further beneficial effects further down the line.

Slaves built the railroads.

Where?
And if they did, what has it to do with 21st century policies?

Chinese slaves built the first railroads in america, and my point is that the end result was beneficial (drove the economy, built societies, new towns that could be situated far out as long as they were close to the rail network etc), but the means by which it was achieved was slavery, so do the ends justify the means? and the relevance to 21st century policies is, if we agree that the ideal is to have all ethnicities represented in organisations (which I do), is it acceptable to discriminate on a persons race to achieve this? (I think not, preferring what Tone brought to the discussion ie better equipping under represented groups so that they are selected on merit, and no one is selected or rejected on race.)

So we agree we want a balance of races in organisations (the end result), but roguehanger wants discrimination/racism to be used as the tool to achieve this. I think the better way is Tone's source, as discrimination/racism is not justified, and arguably, not necessary.

 

[Big Tone]

I prefer the term Positive Action but the definition, as it appears to stand, needs tweaking because it's still discrimination in its current form. I.e.

Positive action - " In the United Kingdom in Harriet Harman's Equality Act 2010 ss 158-159,the term is used in the context of employment to allow selection of a candidate from an "under-represented" group so long as he or she is no less than equally qualified compared to another potential candidate that is not from the under-represented group."

Which could equate to "We are giving the job to someone else, because you are the wrong gender / colour / race / religion."

If the above is a fair and true representation of PA, I wouldn't support that, either.

No no no! You encourage, train, fund even. You don't just automatically give someone a job based on their colour.

 

[RogueHanger]

Chinese slaves built the first railroads in america, and my point is that the end result was beneficial (drove the economy, built societies, new towns that could be situated far out as long as they were close to the rail network etc), but the means by which it was achieved was slavery, so do the ends justify the means?

Thank you, it would have helped if you'd explained that in your oiginal post.
But, absolutely NO, the ends do not always justify the means.
But the reverse is not true either.
In other words, it isn't true that the ends never justify the means.

Sometimes the ends do justify the means and soemtimes they do not.

and the relevance to 21st century policies is, if we agree that the ideal is to have all ethnicities represented in organisations (which I do), is it acceptable to discriminate on a persons race to achieve this? (I think not, preferring what Tone brought to the discussion ie better equipping under represented groups so that they are selected on merit, and no one is selected or rejected on race.)

It is another recognised policy, brought by micilin, actually, just to get the detail right. The differences are minor, (if you appreciate what they are. We'd have to refer back to our previous discussion to determine that.)

There are other policies which you may or may not agree with, e.g. apartheid, official discrimination, institutional racism, etc, but they exist.
How strongly do you agree or not agree with those?

So we agree we want a balance of races in organisations (the end result), but roguehanger wants discrimination/racism to be used as the tool to achieve this. I think the better way is Tone's source, as discrimination/racism is not justified, and arguably, not necessary.

You're reverting to absurd claims. Keep it civilised and sensible, please.
If you can't, then leave it to late night alcohol-fuelled nonsensical drivel.

BTW, I'm still waiting for your differentiation between Positive Discrimination and Positive Action.

 

[cajar]

I hadn't anticipated you would struggle to take the point, I will bear in mind you have to have everything spelled out for you in future.

Please explain why a claim you support discrimination is an absurd one, as you said so in your opening post in this very thread, copied below for ease of your comprehension.

Roguehanger said:
"So if a person from ethnicity A and a person from ethnicity B both apply and both meet the minimum requirement, but person from ethnicity B meets the preferred requirement in order to meet or maintain targets, they are employed.

What’s the problem?"

So not only do you support discrimination on a person's race/ethnicity, you don't see the problem with it.

 

[Dextraneous]

Circumference? Or helix?

 

[cajar]

Circumference? Or helix?

On a quick browse back through the thread, looks definitely more like a circle, and not a very large one.