158c does not mean correcting an imbalance and its only lawful if all other criteria have been met. i.e. two candidates of equal merit.
Agreed. Except I disagree with your use of the word "correcting". That implies use of your strawman argument (see below).
I said addressing the imbalance, not correcting it. But I can see how you are trying to insert your strawman argument.
If you have two students who meet the criteria for uni entry, and have been offered a place, and possibly cannot afford to go, irrespective of what their protected characteristics are, it is fair, legal, and morally justified to apply Positive Action in recruitment, or in providing financial assistance.
Stormzy is financially assisting two students who have qualified by their own merit and have been offered a place.
His offer to assist, helps to highlight the imbalance, and possibly encourages some to apply for that uni, thereby, possibly, probably increasing the applications and addressing the imbalance.
Do you financially assist your children to go to uni?
Is this situation any different?
It does not allow you to target those with protected characteristics in order to level up the playing field.
No-one has suggested it did. You are creating a strawman argument.
google EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway which is an example how it can go too far.
Sorry not interested.
