affirmative action/positive discrimination

[Comrade J]

I was just wondering what your thoughts were on so called 'positive discrimination.'

For example, here is an example of a UK police force accused of selecting new officers not based wholly on their abilities, but because of their race and gender.

Obviously I am in favour of a mixed police force here in the UK, but surely to select new officers based on their ethnic background creates more harm than anything else? It only breeds contempt amongst the right-wingers who feel ethnic minorities are given preferential treatment, and rather than increasing acceptance, it in fact reduces it for this reason?
On the other hand, perhaps creating larger numbers of ethnic and female officers will help to promote acceptance amongst sexist or racist people, who can see that large numbers of a supposed 'inferior' type of people are perfectly able to perform their duties and serve the public?
Any thoughts on this?

[Kittie Rose]

Positive discrimination, on it's own, sounds like a bad idea. However the fact remains that it is just balancing out other forces that are working against those minorities in certain areas.

[coda]

Hi. I didn't get to read the article -- rushed for time. But I believe "Positive discrimination" is called Affirmative Action in the US. I fully support it as otherwise, minorities would most likely be barred and discriminated from being hired in those job, as they certainly were before Affirmative Action was legislated.

[boosh logic]

I'm agreed to that in theory, but couldn't it breed more prejudice and bitterness, if say, a brilliant standard policeman/woman was denied a job because an ethnic minority policeman was of a certain race?

It's a very strange issue though, as although it does aim to balance things out, this is in itself can cause problems as well.

[RedGeorge]

Personally, I feel that no discrimination is good. I appreciate that all kinds of people were discriminated against in the past, but does reversing that really make things any better? Surely it's just stooping to the same level, so to speak.

I think that, when it comes to selecting people for jobs etc. it should always go to the person who is best for the position, regardless of race/gender/sexuality... although I appreciate that a lot needs to be done in terms of representation of people who are not white and middle class (esp. in UK, where I live). I'm not really sure what the answer is, but I'm sure it is not 'positive' discrimination.

[coda]

Without Affirmative Action policies, there would probably be wide spread discrimination, just like there was before it.

It isn't "reverse discrimination"at all, because it assumes the minority "candidate", for lack of better word, would have similiar or equal qualifications as his counterpart, (white male) and fit the requirement description such as experience, education background. More importantly. apart from qualifications, it is based on proportion (I don't know the exact ratio), but If a job company has 75 employees, there had better be a few blacks, women, hispanics, among them. If there isn't, that is discrimination.

So, in practice it works like this: a white man and a black man both apply for the same job, they have both worked the same amount of years prior in the same field, they both have the same educational degree. They are both qualified for the job. If the employer hires the white man there would be grounds for discrimination if the companies racial demographics showed there are only all white employees. If demographics show there is a proportionate racial and gender diversity, it is not discrimination.

The "positive" or "reverse" discrimination seems to wrongly imply that the white person should be given the job over the minority, that his qualifications or education is better or above the minorities, though they are similiar or the same, thus he feels he has been reversely discriminated against when a minority is hired because he believes he is always better for the job and therefore should get the job. That is acutally the racist discriminatory thinking. Otherwise, skin color or ethnicity wouldn't factor in and be the complaint -- it would be accepted that someone else, in that case, a minority got the job over him because they were suited for the job. According to the twisted philosophy of "Positive Discrimination" when exactly would it be okay to hire a minority for a job where it wouldn't be considered reverse discrimination? Only when a white person doesn't want the job????

The Affirmative Action policy also works very well for getting admission into Unversities. As we know, a lot of minorities come from inner cities and those schools are unable to compete with the preferred suburban or private schools. So,prior to Affirmative Action, the discrimination worked in the same way, allowing the student with the A- average who went to a preferrred suburban or private school with better school budget, funding, and extra-curricular activities, chosen over the minority student with the A- average who went to over crowded, under supplied, inner city schools although they both have exact SAT and other qualifying test scores and maintained same grade average. Affirmative Action allows people who did not go to the choicest highschools to get into decent univiersites or colleges if there grade point average merits it.

And of course, Affirmative Action also greatly benefits women, who it was previously thought and part of the norm, that women should only be educated for cultural purposes until she were to marry the man who would eventually finanically support her throughout life. in those cases, men were getting into Universities disproportunetely over woman because their educations were deemed as more important.

So, briefly, that's how it all works. Unfortunetly, those safeguards need to be in place for the time being, to prevent these things from happening.

[Janus]

The example you have has more to deal with pragmaticism. It is necessary for the city to have employees from diverse ethnic and gender backgrounds because of the different benefits they can contribute. For example, most developed nations have more and more diverse ethnicities so city officials need people of the same backgrounds who understand the language and culture better. If a police officer wasn't familiar with a person's language or culture, then negative results could occur. The city needs to adapt to the changing climate so this situation has more to do with the practicality but unintentionally became a discrimination issue.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Simply put, if I (as a white heterosexual male) 'tie' somebody in a job application or something, and they're a minority, then give it to them. However, if I beat them, I say damn right I get the job/acceptance.

[Severian]

Originally posted by RedGeorge@Jan 20 2006, 12:07 PM
Personally, I feel that no discrimination is good. I appreciate that all kinds of people were discriminated against in the past, but does reversing that really make things any better?

Not just in the past. Racist and sexist discrimination exists today, and affirmative action is needed to combat it.

It's not enough to say on paper that racist and sexist discrimination is illegal. That's almost impossible to enforce, because it's so hard to prove why somebody didn't get hired.

[Abood]

I do not believe in such thing as positive discrimination. if u wanna balance out the races/genders etc. just have no preference in the job, and obviously if women wanna join the police force, then they will.. if black ppl, etc wanna join, they will.. eventually, "organically" it all will balance out as much as it could.

[Black Dagger]

I'm agreed to that in theory, but couldn't it breed more prejudice and bitterness, if say, a brilliant standard policeman/woman was denied a job because an ethnic minority policeman was of a certain race?

First off, how many 'brilliant' police officers do you know?

P.S say Police officers if you want to avoid typing policeman/woman.

if u wanna balance out the races/genders etc. just have no preference in the job, and obviously if women wanna join the police force, then they will.. if black ppl, etc wanna join, they will.. eventually, "organically" it all will balance out as much as it could.

I believe the situation you are describing was not ocurring 'organically' - because of racism/discrimination, hence this thread :P

Without Affirmative Action policies, there would probably be wide spread discrimination, just like there was before it.

You make it sound like AA policies have reset society.

There still is widespread discrimination in all spheres of life, legislating equality is a fundamentally bourgeois approach to social change. It shifts around the stuff on the surface, changes some faces, but it doesn't challenge the core of the issue - in fact, it obscures it. Yes - AA policies are needed, but they're not an end, they're not even a great means to change, companies/institutions are still finding ways to discriminate, because the people running them are still prejudiced - something that legislated 'equality' doesn't challenge sufficiently. This were the liberals and radicals part company, ths is where social, rather than legal change is required - and social change is something that doesn't come easily in capitalist society, it takes long hard struggles.

[coda]

Yo., hold on there black dagger. no one said that Affirmative Action laws should be in place of revolution. And to say that they count for shit is where privileged white society and minorities part. Those laws came about through long, hard fought battles by the civil rights and women's movements. They weren't just given over through the kindness of the liberal bourgeoisie's heart. Without the civil rights laws we'd still be living under Jim crow and segregation policy. You would know it's a fact that society is more diverse and inclusive if you've lived long enough to have some hindsight in perspective. But, again someone comes parroting along about stuff they don't know about. yeah, of course there is still discrimination and racism present. anything that changes the basic denominator in the status quo is going to bring to the surface a lot of personal prejudices--- but tough shit. Racial Minorities and women need to have jobs and feed their families too and that applies to before and as well as after the revolution.

[Black Dagger]

And to say that they count for shit is where privileged white society and minorities part.

I didn't say that they 'count for shit' - merely that they are insufficient when one wants to effect meaningful, i.e. real social change, i never said i was against them or that they were not needed:

Originally posted by Black Dagger
Yes - AA policies are needed

Those laws came about through long, hard fought battles by the civil rights and women's movements.

Yes, yes, i know that, but these same movements were also co-opted by the bourgeoisie, whilst more radical figures such as Malcolm X, Huey Newton & the Black Panther Party were marginalised in favour of the 'acceptable' social reformers.

You would know it's a fact that society is more diverse and inclusive if you've lived long enough to have some hindsight in perspective.

*Yawn* ad hominem's are not valid arguments, where have i demonstrated a lack of perspective on present society? How old are you by the way? 40? 50? Where you even alive during the 'civil rights era'? Stop being so patronising.

but, again someone comes parroting along about stuff they don't know about.

What don't i know about? Where am i showing my ignorance? You actually have to point out specifics, otherwise this is just hot air.

Racial Minorities and women need to have jobs and feed their families too and that applies to before and as well as after the revolution.

Of course, no one in this thread disagrees with that, well maybe Socialist Advocate...

[coda]

I'm not trying to be patronizing, sorry, just annoyed. but I think you have depreciated the significance of the civil rights struggle. It was hugely meaningful social change, atleast and especially to blacks, even it it didn't institute a communist revolution. The long continuous struggle of human beings former slaves, now treated no better as sub-humans 90 years after slavery was abolished, rising up together to take for themselves the dignity and full equal rights of citizenship that the white ruling class had kept exclusively for themselves --- That is no small feat. Even if it only seemed a legal pretense of equality -- the principle and the victory was there. To have waited until the social changes of racial prejudices to be cast off, --- we'd still be waiting. Right Now. Still.

I don't really know who you are referring to when you say the movements were co-opted by the bourgeoisie and the radical social reformers were marginalized in favor of the acceptable social reformers. If you mean, King. I don't think he was acceptable either. He was seen as extremely subversive and dangerous to the status quo, wire tapped by the FBI and assassinated as well. So, also Medgar Evers before him. Maybe the reason people followed King and his nonviolent resistance is because King was out in the forefront of the civil rights movement before Malcolm and a decade before the Panthers were formed.

So, I don't view it as bourgeoisie reforms, but as part of the whole long struggle of emancipation leading up to the revolution. When the world-wide communist historical time line is written, I hope to see the civil rights movement right up there with the rest of the struggles.

[boosh logic]

First off, how many 'brilliant' police officers do you know?

Yeah I couldn't think of any other example!

It could happen... couldn't it?

Anyway, the way to put right previous (and current) discrimination is not to give the advantage to the minority, but to put them exactly equal - which I'm sure many people will agree, as if minorities were seen to be treated better just because of their race then there would be a lot of resentment - which is pretty much the basis of most stereotypical racism today.

[rioters bloc]

affirmative action is basically an attempt to rectify the situation society is currently in where wom*n, people of different ethnicities/races, and disabled people are often passed over for jobs despite having the same qualifications as a man/white person/able-bodied person who's trying out for the same job, which is active discrimination [assuming that the disabled person's diability does not affect their work]. companies/educational facilities/etc may have a certain quota that they need to fill of minorities or marginalised peoples. some people feel that this is discimination in and of itself, as people with lower qualifications may sometimes get the job over a white/male/able-bodied person.

do you think that it's the right way to go about things, or that its counter-productive?

[patrickbeverley]

As I understand it, AA is designed to ensure that the number of people from these minority groups getting jobs is in proportion to the number applying. I see nothing wrong with that, particularly considering the number of employers who would not employ black/female/disabled workers given the choice.

Someone is bound to say "you want disabled people doing jobs, but they're disabled, they can't do it". Because they always do. But as rioters bloc has pointed out, "disabled" here means disabled in a way that does not hinder the person from doing their job, eg a computer programmer in a wheelchair, not disabled in a way that would make them unable to do the job properly, eg a blind football referee.

Until discrimination is eradicated from our society, AA is an essential part of fighting against it. And discrimination will never be eradicated from our society.

[drain.you]

What rioters bloc described seems fair enough but AA is also used by political parties to increase the amount of females elected as MPs by only having females to choose from and some american colleges put preference to Afro-Americans even if they have worse grades than other ethnic groups.
Dunno what to think about it really, I can see where its coming from and I guess it means well but it could easily get out of hand and start to become counter-productive. I want everyone to have equal opportunities and everything but by putting prefences to disabled people because they are disabled or giving a college place to someone because of their ethnic background is just wrong. Dunno an alternative way to make it equal but I wouldn't encourage AA.

[Body Count]

White males have had a monopoly on business and industry in amerika for centuries.....minorities and females didn't hardly have a fucking chance until what....1970? There is a few success stories here and there, but to deny that a mass scale oppression didn't occur in that country is a lie.

Now you've got an entire ethnic group, with no WEALTH whatsoever, struggling to gain equality....something I fear they will never get AS A WHOLE trying to work under the capitalist system.

I don't understand why some people think that nearly half a millenium of oppression can be fixed in a few decades.