Is this descrimination legal?

BillJones

Buellguy wrote: »

SO, let me get this right, you want to deny someone an opportunity because of their skin colour/ethnicity to 'correct' any implied racism. Nice and logical that!!!!!

That is exactly what they want, and they want it because at some other time, in some other place, some other person was apparently treated the same way, but was a different colour.

It is imbecilic, yet that is precisely what they believe.

Mishomeister

BillJones wrote: »

That is exactly what they want, and they want it because at some other time, in some other place, some other person was apparently treated the same way, but was a different colour.

It is imbecilic, yet that is precisely what they believe.

A good point! If someone of the same color as me has descriminated against someone of a different color, then it is a good reason to descriminate against me even though I didn't descreminate against anyone. If some industry is ful of people of my race I should be happy that someone else who is of a different colour to be given a job.

All the royal family is white? Does it makes my chances to become Royal better than someones who is black if I went to ordinary free school and haven't got a digree from London School Of Economics?

kwmlondon

Buellguy wrote: »

SO, let me get this right, you want to deny someone an opportunity because of their skin colour/ethnicity to 'correct' any implied racism. Nice and logical that!!!!!

People get denied opportunities every day because of their skin colour. Balance it out.

It's the most logical thing to do.

Until you've got a better solution to inequality I think this is the most fair and even way to solve the problem.

And I'm not the one being childish and stamping my feet because there's a terrible chance that black people may actually start getting some of the privileges white people get. I've got a job and a career and I'm not scared of someone taking mine. If someone gets a preferential leg-up into a job I'd like then there I'll just apply for one of the others, no big deal for me. I know I'll stand a better chance of getting most jobs as I'm white, male, middle-class and speak nice so I've got nothing to worry about. I can afford to share a bit of that without any problem.

mattcanary

kwmlondon wrote: »

People get denied opportunities every day because of their skin colour. Balance it out.

It's the most logical thing to do.

Until you've got a better solution to inequality I think this is the most fair and even way to solve the problem.

And I'm not the one being childish and stamping my feet because there's a terrible chance that black people may actually start getting some of the privileges white people get. I've got a job and a career and I'm not scared of someone taking mine. If someone gets a preferential leg-up into a job I'd like then there I'll just apply for one of the others, no big deal for me. I know I'll stand a better chance of getting most jobs as I'm white, male, middle-class and speak nice so I've got nothing to worry about. I can afford to share a bit of that without any problem.

The solution to perceived inequality is not to say you can't appoint someone because they are supposedly "privileged".


They may not be in some career fields, as already stated in this thread.


In my opinion, poor people face bigger barriers simply because they are poor, than black people may have for being black. Let alone gay people - most employers wouldn't know if someone is gay or not anyway.


So should all richer people be barred from applying for some jobs that have good long-term prospects? And how would you measure if someone would be classed as poor or not?


Men face barriers when to comes to gaining custody of their children, compared to women.
Should artificial measures be introduced to correct this as well?

Bantex_2

I wish it was simpler.
Either make discrimination legal or not. Seems mad to me that some people/organisations are allowed to discrminate on the grounds of race etc, whereas others can be prosecuted for it.

BillJones

kwmlondon wrote: »

People get denied opportunities every day because of their skin colour. Balance it out.

And the proxy that you use, to work out who is privileged or not, is skin colour. That's simply moronic.

You want to randomly discriminate, based on melanin content, not on whether someone is genuinely privileged or not. This is like me going out and punching a belgian, any belgian, because my wife was once harassed by one.

lukerichardson40

kwmlondon wrote: »

People get denied opportunities every day because of their skin colour. Balance it out.

kwmlondon wrote: »

It's the most logical thing to do.

Until you've got a better solution to inequality I think this is the most fair and even way to solve the problem.

It is most definitely not the most logical thing to do! One group of people perceive to have being wronged by another group of people... so in turn we will do the same to them? That is not logical, that is playground pettiness.

A better solution... treat everyone fair regardless of race,sex etc.

To balance, as I pointed out before regarding the difference in race of trainee doctors; if an advert stated 'WANTED. Trainee doctors. White British males only please' would that be acceptable because there is evidenceto show they are a minority in this area?

The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction now and it isn’t right no matter how you try to justify it.

kwmlondon

mattcanary wrote: »

The solution to perceived inequality is not to say you can't appoint someone because they are supposedly "privileged".


They may not be in some career fields, as already stated in this thread.


In my opinion, poor people face bigger barriers simply because they are poor, than black people may have for being black.


So should all richer people be barred from applying for some jobs that have good long-term prospects? And how would you measure if someone would be classed as poor or not?


Men face barriers when to comes to gaining custody of their children, compared to women.
Should artificial measures be introduced to correct this as well?

Excellent point. Good question.

My answer would be we should be looking very differently at the whole idea of how we interview people and assess success or potential.

When someone comes from a poor background they have not had the chance to earn the kind of academic achievements that someone from a private school would obtain easily.

If someone achieves two B grades from a school where the average is just a pass then they are a high achiever. If somebody gets an A level in night school while being employed full time then they are way more driven than somebody who gets the same grade as a teenager.

Where I work we made it a rule that every interview board had to have at least three people on it, and one needs to be a woman. Our rates of female appointments grew immediately as a result.

I worked in an engineering department where they deliberately recruited 5 women academics with posts that were only open to female applicants (some men still applied, natch). That was four years ago. They've gone from 15% female students to 45% now. One piece of "sexist" recruitment has resulted in a balancing of the intake of students and despite no further "discriminatory" recruitment they now have a pretty even number of male and female applications for positions, which is a huge achievement in engineering.

Oh, sure, some men will have been naffed off when they saw that advert, and maybe some excellent people were lost to rival institutions but those men will have easily found other jobs and the women that were recruited met all the standards required of them. If anything, they have proven to be the most driven and high-performing members of the department.

My experience of positive discrimination is overwhelmingly that it works.

BillJones

The argument seems to be that you correct for a person being discriminated against by discriminating against someone else, completely unconnected to the first person. As with my belgian example above, it makes no sense, and fortunately no-one in any serious position of responsibility is likely to ever do anything so foolish. You always get the odd idiot who is determined to push a stupid agenda out to the world, but they are rare, and don't last long in positions of responsibility.

dippy3103

You know when we will have achieved true equality? When organisations like the agency whose name escapes me mid rant ceases to exist because we no longer need them. When the colour of someone's skin becomes an irrelevance. I think Barack Obama was a case in point- when he was running for President people spoke of how he could be the first black President. Now he is the President of the US (arguably the most powerful man in the world) and nobody mentions his colour. Why? Because history will judge him on the decisions he made and the actions he took and not the colour of his skin!

Of course people that do not meet the criteria to apply will feel excluded, that's human nature.

I hope that made sense, I just think it's sad that such decisive rules are ever needed.