nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Positive Discrimination - Just as bad?

RefulgentGnomon

I was struck by something that Morgan Freeman said recently "The best way to get rid of racism is to stop talking about it" and I wondered what proportion of people believe that positive discrimination/affirmative action/reverse discrimination can often be just as bad as discrimination itself?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

coolhandluke

RefulgentGnomon wrote:

I was struck by something that Morgan Freeman said recently "The best way to get rid of racism is to stop talking about it" and I wondered what proportion of people believe that positive discrimination/affirmative action/reverse discrimination can often be just as bad as discrimination itself?

Of course it is,a bag of ****e.If you can't get there on merit you don't deserve it,end of story.

larryone

Positive discrimination???
Care to explain? All I heard there was some sortof bull**** buzzword...

ApeXaviour

larryone wrote:

Positive discrimination???
Care to explain? All I heard there was some sortof bull**** buzzword...

It's where a company or group is required by law or policy to have a certain percentage of minority or women employees / members.

This is inspite of the fact that a white male could be more qualified to do the job. While having good intentions it only fixes the problem cosmetically. Leaving the roots untouched (education, integration etc.). It also causes other nasty side-effects such as resentment. An us against them sentiment, furthering sectarianism.

Terry

positive discrimination is basically political correctness gone mad.
it's hiring minorities to fill a quota and the bad aspect of it is that there may be someone more qualified and better suited to a job, but it's given to a minority to shut the extreme left wing people up.

larryone

Aah. Hadnt heard that label put on it.

Manic Moran

It's also known as 'affirmative action'

Some Canadian government body got into a lot of trouble a week or two ago by basically saying 'White men aged 21-60 need not apply' to a particular job advert because they had reached their 'quota' of white males.

Anti-discrimination laws should be enough. No need to require quotas, to my mind.

NTM

JohnK

As far as I'm concerned racism is racism. This positive racism crap is just that.

0utshined

Positive discrimination is an oxymoron. It's all discrimination and using a term to sugarcoat it doesn't make it any better.

I agree with Manic Moran, If anti-discrimination laws are needed then have them but there should be no quotas, let everyone get by on their own merit.

Cake Fiend

0utshined wrote:

Positive discrimination is an oxymoron

Well, discrimination can just mean distinguishing based on category; it's not an inherently negative word, it's just thought of that way because it's so often associated with negative prejudice.

But yeah, it's just as bad as your more run-of-the-mill racism IMO. I very much agree with the Morgan Freeman quote in the original post.

Setun

Manic Moran wrote:

Some Canadian government body got into a lot of trouble a week or two ago by basically saying 'White men aged 21-60 need not apply' to a particular job advert because they had reached their 'quota' of white males.
NTM

That's ridiculous. "Quotas" make it sound like farming or something

it's a horrible recruiting requirement. Whoever invented that shot themselves in the foot, because as someone said it could only further sectarianism.

0utshined

Sico wrote:

Well, discrimination can just mean distinguishing based on category; it's not an inherently negative word,...

It is in this context.

Litcagral

Daddio wrote:

That's ridiculous. "Quotas" make it sound like farming or something it's a horrible recruiting requirement. Whoever invented that shot themselves in the foot, because as someone said it could only further sectarianism.

In Northern Ireland, the PSNI positively discriminate in favour of Roman Catholics when recruiting.

The Irish Government strives to ensure that 2% of public sector positions are given to people with disabilities.

The Gardai are attempting to encourage more recruits from ethnic minorities. Only 2 Gardai in Ireland come from the travelling community.

ApeXaviour

Litcagral wrote:

The Gardai are attempting to encourage more recruits from ethnic minorities.

There's a difference between encouraging and actively discriminating. Everyone should encourage minorities to hold a similar percentage in certain jobs as they do in general population. But to hire someone less qualified because of their race is ridiculous and patronising. However w.r.t. the gardai, being able to speak mandarin chinese or polish would be a significant qualifying ability to have.

Litcagral wrote:

In Northern Ireland, the PSNI positively discriminate in favour of Roman Catholics when recruiting.

The PSNI is an extreme case that requires extreme measures. They are almost a representative body. It can be liked to belgian politicians, equal amounts required from both wallonia and flanders. Or in the US, 2 senators per state regardless of their population. Granted the PSNI are not politicians, but there are historical reasons for this to be the case. It's the lesser of two evils in this anomalous instance.

Litcagral wrote:

The Irish Government strives to ensure that 2% of public sector positions are given to people with disabilities.

I was unaware of this and would disagree with it if it's as you describe.

Stark

I don't know of any Irish companies who have a positive discrimination policy. It's a major thing in the US though. Irish companies will actively encourage minorities to apply, but at the end of the day, successful applicants are chosen based on merit. I'm not even sure if positive discrimination is legal here.

pontovic

In South Africa, if you come from the black community, you get a college education for free, whereas if you are white, you have to pay fees.

ApeXaviour

pontovic wrote:

In South Africa, if you come from the black community, you get a college education for free, whereas if you are white, you have to pay fees.

Can you provide references? As far as I can tell that is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

From what I found* the free fees are socio-economically based, much like the Irish grant system. It just so happens that the majority of people who get them are black because they happen to be the poorest (a result of segregationism and apartheid).

*http://www.studysa.co.za/studysa.htm, http://www.southafrica.info/ess_info/sa_glance/education/higheredplan.htm

Linoge

Stark wrote:

I don't know of any Irish companies who have a positive discrimination policy. It's a major thing in the US though. Irish companies will actively encourage minorities to apply, but at the end of the day, successful applicants are chosen based on merit. I'm not even sure if positive discrimination is legal here.

Positive discrimination can happen more than you might think. Like a pregnant woman going for a job. If they don't get the job, "its only because they're pregnant" so more often than not they will be given the position.

Its a horrible postion to put employers in.

Devon

There's a brilliant movie out called "Crash" in which these, and other social taboo subjects are explored. Especially the so-called "positive discrimination" where a black lady is in a job, and a white man says something to her like: "I can't help wondering how many white men were passed over for your job even though they were more qualified than you."

the_syco

Stark wrote:

I don't know of any Irish companies who have a positive discrimination policy.

Man versus a woman. If the company wants to have a more family friendly image, the woman will have a very good chance of getting in.

GLaDOS

This just means some other race is discriminated against in order to suit the 'minority'

Manic Moran

ApeXaviour wrote:

Can you provide references? As far as I can tell that is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Not South Africa, but a case has just hit the courts in California this week. It's a class action suit by a bunch of American students complaining that California law requires that illegal immigrants attending a CalState college is exempt from certain fees/costs, to the tune of about $6,000 a head, while the American students do not receive such exemption. The theory, best I can tell, is that given that illegals have a much harder time earning money, they deserve to be given a break in order to get a chance at a college education.

NTM

ApeXaviour

Manic Moran wrote:

Not South Africa, but a case has just hit the courts in California this week. It's a class action suit by a bunch of American students complaining that California law requires that illegal immigrants attending a CalState college is exempt from certain fees/costs, to the tune of about $6,000 a head, while the American students do not receive such exemption. The theory, best I can tell, is that given that illegals have a much harder time earning money, they deserve to be given a break in order to get a chance at a college education.

NTM

Well this has me very confused. How can an illegal immigrant attend college? Wouldn't they require a student visa? In which case they wouldn't be illegal...

[Deleted User]

Positive discrimination is usually retarded. Deals with consequences rather than the root of the problem.

Linoge

Deleted User wrote:

Positive discrimination is usually retarded. Deals with consequences rather than the root of the problem.

lol, I'm sorry but that made absolutely no sense. Maybe about as much sense as illegal imigrants going to college!

Kernel32

Manic Moran wrote:

Not South Africa, but a case has just hit the courts in California this week. It's a class action suit by a bunch of American students complaining that California law requires that illegal immigrants attending a CalState college is exempt from certain fees/costs, to the tune of about $6,000 a head, while the American students do not receive such exemption. The theory, best I can tell, is that given that illegals have a much harder time earning money, they deserve to be given a break in order to get a chance at a college education.

NTM

The issue is in state versus out of state tuition. In the US you pay less to attend a college in the state you reside versus a different state. The difference can be considerable. What has happened is that children of illegal immigrants who have attended high school and graduated with a high school diploma are being allowed to avail of the in state tuition costs rather than pay for out of state costs. Students who reside in California would pay the same as they have always done and students from outside California who wish to attend CalTech would continue to pay out of state tuition as they have always done.

Illegal Immigration in the United States is very complicated. I never fully understand it myself. It's misrepresentations like this that make it even worse.

Personally I am torn over the need for affirmative action. One part of me says its not the answer. Another part says, well, the scales were heavily weighed to one side for many generations. Sometimes in order to balance the scales you need to push down really hard on the other side. It may cause an imbalance to the other side for a while but eventually it will level out.

patzer117

Hmm I happen to believe it's acceptable in many situations.

Take for example a Nigerian opening an ethnic Nigerian restaurant in Dublin. What do you want the staff to be - Lithuanian, Russian, Irish, Chinese? Or would you prefer that they are Yoruba, Ibo or Hausa-Fulani? And when you go to a Japanese restaurant, wouldn't you prefer to be waited on by a Japanese waiter - or "wait-person" as the politically cretinous expression now goes? You would? You racist! As far as JohnK is concerned racism is racism. This positive racism crap is just that.

Or lets say Sinn Fein are looking for a new administrator to take up Denis's job. Is it ok for them to put in somebody from the party, or should they consider applicants who are more qualified, but are also members of the british special forces? What's that? They should pick the person who is a Republican? But that's discriminatory?!?

And surely you can't discriminate against rich people? Or as we like to say pro poor people? I personally think Bono should be entitled to the social housing he applies for, and that he should be allowed accept social welfare. And we can't discriminate against bad singers either, that poor person on social welfare has as much right to do a gig in Croker as Bono does, even if he can't sing or play an instrument.

Face it, discrimination exists, and in many cases it's a good thing to positively discriminate. There's nothing wrong with it, and it's certainly not racist

simu

MorganFreeman wrote:

"I have to remind myself that some birds aren't meant to be caged. Their feathers are just too bright. And when they fly away, the part of you that knows it was a sin to lock them up DOES rejoice. Still, the place you live in is that much more drab and empty that they're gone. I guess I just miss my friend."

So, yeah, it's kinda good but kinda bad too. You can prove many theorems with MF quotes too!

Manic Moran

ApeXaviour wrote:

Well this has me very confused. How can an illegal immigrant attend college? Wouldn't they require a student visa? In which case they wouldn't be illegal...

You only need a student visa to enter the country with the intention of staying legally and studying. Once you're in the country, you're sorted.

As mentioned above, the illegal immigration thing is incredibly complicated. You would think it would be simple: Anyone found to be in the country illegally gets thrown out again. (Unless they can claim extreme hardship, persecution in the home country, etc). The primary proponents of this point of view tends to be the conservatives. The recent vote this week to put up a 700-mile Berlin-wall style barrier between Texas and Mexico was highly controversial. The argument against it was that it would force illegal migrants to take more dangerous routes into the country, and increase the chance of their dying. Indeed, there are government-provided water-points for those crossing the border on the sly, to make sure they don't die of thirst.
Similarly, you have the Minutemen group, basically a bunch of volunteers who sit near the border with cellphones, binoculars and night vision, and call the Border Patrol in on anyone they happen to see crossing the border. They are labelled as racists. A few weeks ago, Governor Schwarzenegger stated that the illegal immigration issue cost the State of California billions of dollars a year. The catch is that once they're in the country, the State becomes liable for them. For example, they won't have health insurance, but if they show up at a hospital injured in a car crash, they will get treated, just the State will pick up the tab.

By law, the only people who are empowered to enforce the federal immigration laws are the federal agencies such as the Border Patrol, the INS, and so on. On occasions where local law enforcement such as State or City police pick them up and attempt to get them deported, the courts have slammed them down. There have even been creative attempts, such as 'trespassing in the State of New Hampshire', which also failed. So, the theory goes, if you can't do anything about it once they're in, might as well make the best of it and give them all the rights of being local inhabitants. On occasion, the Feds do the odd sting, but it's not exactly an all-out effort.

For example, one of the current stinks is about issueing 'illegal immigrant driver's licenses'. They are licenses which by colour look different to normal ones, and would be issued by the State. A couple of States have started issueing them, most times the suggestion gets shot down. The theory, again, being 'They're in the State, we can't do anything about it, so we might as well make sure they can drive so they don't kill other people on the road.'

Advocates of illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico, state that America's economy depends on low-paid workers. President Fox drew the ire of the black community by saying that "Mexicans take the jobs that even black people won't touch" earlier this year. Personally, I think the cheap labour force argument reminds me a lot of the arguments in favour of slavery in the 1860s. The Mexican government actually produces pamphlets explaining the best way to get into the US illegally. (There is a disclaimer on it saying 'it is far better to enter legally if possible')

There is also the perception of vote-winning. The theory is that if you want to get into power, you need to have the Hispanic vote, and they won't vote for anyone who will restrict the opportunities of fellow Mexicans to get into the country. Curiously, many Hispanics do not agree with this point of view, but it is the perception.

What I found most amusing was that when Schwarzanegger voiced his approval of the Minutemen, he was labelled as unsympathetic to immigrants. He's a bloody immigrant himself.

My personal opinion is they should expand the wall the length of the country. The costs of building it are less than the costs of leaving things as they are, from the figures I've seen. At the same time crack down on people employing illegals. I see nothing wrong with enforcing the laws of the land, for a change.

NTM

Tha Gopher

patzer117 wrote:

Hmm I happen to believe it's acceptable in many situations.

Take for example a Nigerian opening an ethnic Nigerian restaurant in Dublin. What do you want the staff to be - Lithuanian, Russian, Irish, Chinese? Or would you prefer that they are Yoruba, Ibo or Hausa-Fulani? And when you go to a Japanese restaurant, wouldn't you prefer to be waited on by a Japanese waiter - or "wait-person" as the politically cretinous expression now goes? You would? You racist!

Personally I think the world is gone mad, now that these days Chinese lads deliver pizza, East Europeans run alot of Italian chippers, Pakistanis run Burger King/Supermacs and old Irish men deliver Chinese food

Re reverse discrimation, the anti Irish racism shown by Irish Ferries shows its a major threat to our livelihoods.

rubadub

I don't see positive or negative discriminaton, if discrimination exisits there is usually one person who views it as postive and another as negative.

Is the fact that women drivers get lower car insurance positive or negative discrimination? What about a woman getting paid less than a man?
There are good reasons for both situations.

It reminds me of the other term "reverse racism", racism is racism end of story.