• Welcome to PASOTI (Sponsored by GA Solictors and Lang & Potter)
  • Hello guests - don't forget that by registering and signing up for Pasoti you'll see less adverts plus receive extras like free match tickets, taking part in polls, joining in the chat room and more. Come and join us!

Positive discrimination

Sep 2, 2008
1,792
23
Guiri Green":34pvfcax said:
Pogleswoody":34pvfcax said:
GreenThing":34pvfcax said:
So you think that excluding people from applying because of their ethnicity, in this case white, is acceptable? How can racism be stamped out when racism can be allowed under certain circumstances?

House of Commons: Education Committee
The forgotten: how White working-class pupils have been let down, and how to change it
First Report of Session 2021–22


Well Greeny, I guess these white kids just need to just suck it up?
Shame we can't do anything to help them but that wouldn't be 'fair', would it? :think:

http://news.sky.com/story/terms-such-as ... s-12337996

That awful phrase "white privilege" may not have helped, apparently. In trying to equalise, maybe occasionally, a bit too much weight is put on one end of the see-saw ?

Agreed or are we seeing the spawning of a new term ‘BAME privilege’ :think:
 

GreenThing

Administrator
Staff member
Schuey Sponsor
NHS Volunteer Supporter
Pasoti Donor
Foodbank Donor
Sep 13, 2003
4,115
420
Plymouth
themightykeithfear":1nxob2wu said:
Potty either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand that this policy has been introduced by the Equalities Commission because the best person for the job wasn’t always being selected because of the colour of their skin.

Fight racism with a different form of racism. Fantastic idea.
 
Nov 15, 2011
2,293
434
So you think that trying to readdress the imbalance resulting from inequality by allocating some apprenticeships to those previously excluded is racism? That's some mental contortion.
 

GreenThing

Administrator
Staff member
Schuey Sponsor
NHS Volunteer Supporter
Pasoti Donor
Foodbank Donor
Sep 13, 2003
4,115
420
Plymouth
Exclusion of someone from applying for a job because of their skin colour is racist. If there are no black people getting the jobs because they are not good enough, the reason for that needs addressing. If the best candidate for the job is black but he’s overlooked then that also needs looking at. Making jobs available for only certain ethnic groups to redress the balance is not the way to do it, it’s racist.
 
Nov 15, 2011
2,293
434
You've hit the nail on the head, certain jobs have only been available for certain ethnic groups, this is trying to redress the balance.

racism is defined as "policies, behaviours, rules, etc. that result in a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race" - this policy is objectively the opposite of racism, by allocating a position to those that were previously excluded it's a move towards equality.

And it's not a full time job, it's an apprenticeship the conditions of which are set out in the Equality Act. Such positions are advertised all the time but the usual suspects picked on this particular one because it's the BBC who are the enemy of the people to some because they are a public service broadcaster that doesn't reflect their particular world view.
 

GreenThing

Administrator
Staff member
Schuey Sponsor
NHS Volunteer Supporter
Pasoti Donor
Foodbank Donor
Sep 13, 2003
4,115
420
Plymouth
Unfair advantage you say? Well excluding white people from applying for a job gives the ethnic minorities an unfair advantage as it reduces the chances of a white person getting the job to zero. It’s racist by your definition.
 
Nov 15, 2011
2,293
434
You didn’t even read what I wrote did you. It’s a policy to try and redress the previous inequality. It’s the opposite of racism. You can keep saying black is white if you like it doesn’t make it true.
 

GreenThing

Administrator
Staff member
Schuey Sponsor
NHS Volunteer Supporter
Pasoti Donor
Foodbank Donor
Sep 13, 2003
4,115
420
Plymouth
I did read what you posted, I just don’t agree that employing racist tactics is the right way to redress the balance.
 
Nov 15, 2011
2,293
434
So you think if you mug me and take £50 out of my wallet but I manage to grab a tenner back that makes me a mugger?

As the definition says racism is doing something that makes society less equal, this makes it more equal. Btw I haven’t heard anyone say they were discriminated against because they wanted to apply for this apprenticeship. The only people getting furious are those it doesn’t affect whatsoever.
 
Sep 2, 2008
1,792
23
GreenThing":35zttn8w said:
themightykeithfear":35zttn8w said:
Potty either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand that this policy has been introduced by the Equalities Commission because the best person for the job wasn’t always being selected because of the colour of their skin.

Fight racism with a different form of racism. Fantastic idea.

Omg. Sad to see that you (TMKF) are still talking drivel.

You probably don’t even realise that by saying that the best person for the job wasn’t always being selected because of the colour of their skin, you’re saying that the BBC is a racist organisation.

Like I say, still talking drivel. ( please try not to quote him folks - I’ve blocked him so I don’t see the dross he spouts. When you quote him I can’t help but see it :facepalm: )
 

Pogleswoody

Kate Sponsor
Schuey Sponsor
Pun Master
50/50 Sponsor
NHS Volunteer Supporter
NHS Cake Donor
T.O Support
Foodbank Donor
Jul 3, 2006
17,454
932
70
Location Location
Pottypilgrim":1p4wnom5 said:
GreenThing":1p4wnom5 said:
themightykeithfear":1p4wnom5 said:
Potty either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand that this policy has been introduced by the Equalities Commission because the best person for the job wasn’t always being selected because of the colour of their skin.

Fight racism with a different form of racism. Fantastic idea.

Omg. Sad to see that you (TMKF) are still talking drivel.

You probably don’t even realise that by saying that the best person for the job wasn’t always being selected because of the colour of their skin, you’re saying that the BBC is a racist organisation.

Like I say, still talking drivel. ( please try not to quote him folks - I’ve blocked him so I don’t see the dross he spouts. When you quote him I can’t help but see it :facepalm: )

So, if the BBC (for example) wasn't being racist and if the best candidate for any job was always being selected regardless of race, gender or religion (for example), why did the Equalities Commission (for example) have to introduce the policy to overcome a problem that never existed? :think:
 

Frank Butcher

Foodbank Donor
Oct 9, 2003
3,761
153
Gairloch
'Equal Opportunities For All' was something of a maxim I stood by when in a hiring capacity. Never concerned with what people looked like or what their preferences were. The company I worked for was very much of the same mind. This policy oversteps the mark in my opinion but is typical of what happens when we attempt to address imbalances or discrimination.

I always think of it as a pendulum - for a balanced society the pendulum should be stuck at the vertical, but for eons the pendulum has been stuck way over to the right (no political reference intended). So what we do is push it all the way over to the left because we think that will equalise or make things better. It's misguided.

There are examples of this in other forms of historical discrimination as well, one that springs to mind immediately is the gender balancing going on in boardrooms and other senior positions - particularly in large tech companies. Is this earned, or is it about perception and targets?

Whatever, I hope - and think - that we eventually get it right. The pendulum swings back to the vertical and it's on to the next cause.
 
Sep 2, 2008
1,792
23
Frank_Butcher":1hcyd16j said:
'Equal Opportunities For All' was something of a maxim I stood by when in a hiring capacity. Never concerned with what people looked like or what their preferences were. The company I worked for was very much of the same mind. This policy oversteps the mark in my opinion but is typical of what happens when we attempt to address imbalances or discrimination.

I always think of it as a pendulum - for a balanced society the pendulum should be stuck at the vertical, but for eons the pendulum has been stuck way over to the right (no political reference intended). So what we do is push it all the way over to the left because we think that will equalise or make things better. It's misguided.

There are examples of this in other forms of historical discrimination as well, one that springs to mind immediately is the gender balancing going on in boardrooms and other senior positions - particularly in large tech companies. Is this earned, or is it about perception and targets?

Whatever, I hope - and think - that we eventually get it right. The pendulum swings back to the vertical and it's on to the next cause.

Agree with everything you say.

Other examples can be seen throughout public service like Police and Armed Forces. In order to meet targets, real compromises have been made as far as standards are concerned which has had a very detrimental effect on quality. These compromises have also contributed to some inequality being introduced as well which is the very thing the more awake of us want to eradicate :roll:
 
Apr 15, 2004
2,933
278
East Devon
The problem here though is that just because the person or organisation hiring may be genuinely non-discriminatory, and they may genuinely strive to treat everyone who applies in the exactly same way and select the person for the job purely on ability to perform that role – it can still have the effect of putting minorities at a distinct disadvantage. The reasons for this can be quite subtle and difficult to overcome. For example, current employees will inevitably encourage people to apply and/or recommend people they know (my own company actually offers us financial rewards for this). Now there is nothing wrong with that per se – but it does mean you are likely to keep recruiting disproportionately from the same social and ethnic pool.

In the news this morning Buckingham palace are admitting they have a very poor record of diversity in their recruitment and even if we ignore some disturbing stories of discriminatory attitudes and give them the benefit of the doubt it is very easy to see how this might come about. White, upper class, public-school educated people working at the palace will know good people who may well be excellent for the role but who just happen to also be white, upper class and public school educated. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are in any way racist or wouldn’t be willing to hire a black or asian person from a poor background who went to state school but it is much, much less likely to happen. I have to hold my own hand up here as I helped get my own son a really good work experience placement at my own company – which was great for him and it enormously helped his application for a university placement which in turn means he is now holding offers from good universities as he awaits his A-level results. Now he was interviewed very fairly along with others but for a start he knew there was a placement available through me and obviously he knew more about the company through me, and (even putting natural bias aside) he was a good fit. There will be many others though who would have benefitted equally but they weren’t ‘in the know’ like he was.

So how can you get around this kind of engrained bias ? Well for start let’s recognise it and admit that it will take many generations to disappear naturally without some form of ‘positive discrimination’ (I can hear Potty falling off his chair as I write). That doesn’t have to mean we “lower standards” or discriminate against people who through no fault of their own just happen to be white and from a middle/ upper class background. It can mean we have to work hard to ‘reach out’ by actively encouraging people to apply from communities that are under- represented ….let them know they are really wanted. Psychologists have long told us (as if we didn’t know) that role models have a big impact and we all tend to favour people we can identify with – which means we must also recognise we are all likely to have an unconscious bias, so wouldn’t it make sense that if we genuinely want to select from a wider talent pool to have more people from the under-represented communities actually doing the recruitment and interviewing? That’s the sort of ‘positive discrimination’ I want – it isn’t discriminating against anyone. It is recognising some people have disadvantages and trying to rebalance things to some extent and yes, if someone demonstrates they have overcome obstacles and significant disadvantages simply to be in the interview chair then why not give them credit for that when making the final decision who to hire? Nothing to do with being ‘woke’ – just common sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shadowknight
Sep 2, 2008
1,792
23
Ave_IT":2cm411ak said:
The problem here though is that just because the person or organisation hiring may be genuinely non-discriminatory, and they may genuinely strive to treat everyone who applies in the exactly same way and select the person for the job purely on ability to perform that role – it can still have the effect of putting minorities at a distinct disadvantage. The reasons for this can be quite subtle and difficult to overcome. For example, current employees will inevitably encourage people to apply and/or recommend people they know (my own company actually offers us financial rewards for this). Now there is nothing wrong with that per se – but it does mean you are likely to keep recruiting disproportionately from the same social and ethnic pool.

In the news this morning Buckingham palace are admitting they have a very poor record of diversity in their recruitment and even if we ignore some disturbing stories of discriminatory attitudes and give them the benefit of the doubt it is very easy to see how this might come about. White, upper class, public-school educated people working at the palace will know good people who may well be excellent for the role but who just happen to also be white, upper class and public school educated. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are in any way racist or wouldn’t be willing to hire a black or asian person from a poor background who went to state school but it is much, much less likely to happen. I have to hold my own hand up here as I helped get my own son a really good work experience placement at my own company – which was great for him and it enormously helped his application for a university placement which in turn means he is now holding offers from good universities as he awaits his A-level results. Now he was interviewed very fairly along with others but for a start he knew there was a placement available through me and obviously he knew more about the company through me, and (even putting natural bias aside) he was a good fit. There will be many others though who would have benefitted equally but they weren’t ‘in the know’ like he was.

So how can you get around this kind of engrained bias ? Well for start let’s recognise it and admit that it will take many generations to disappear naturally without some form of ‘positive discrimination’ (I can hear Potty falling off his chair as I write). That doesn’t have to mean we “lower standards” or discriminate against people who through no fault of their own just happen to be white and from a middle/ upper class background. It can mean we have to work hard to ‘reach out’ by actively encouraging people to apply from communities that are under- represented ….let them know they are really wanted. Psychologists have long told us (as if we didn’t know) that role models have a big impact and we all tend to favour people we can identify with – which means we must also recognise we are all likely to have an unconscious bias, so wouldn’t it make sense that if we genuinely want to select from a wider talent pool to have more people from the under-represented communities actually doing the recruitment and interviewing? That’s the sort of ‘positive discrimination’ I want – it isn’t discriminating against anyone. It is recognising some people have disadvantages and trying to rebalance things to some extent and yes, if someone demonstrates they have overcome obstacles and significant disadvantages simply to be in the interview chair then why not give them credit for that when making the final decision who to hire? Nothing to do with being ‘woke’ – just common sense.

I did actually spit out some coffee :shock:

Can’t disagree either with what you’ve said about your approach to dealing with it :problem: