Should we Embrace Positive Discrimination?
By Emma Horton - May 2021
If I were to ask you to picture the CEO of a company, what would they look like? They may have some variable characteristics, perhaps donning an expensive suit or a mildly stern expression but, chances are, they are also a white male. Hopefully, this confronts you with the alarming nature of our entrenched preconceptions surrounding success and power, something which must be combatted with urgency to achieve true progression.
Ostensibly, the phrase positive discrimination appears completely oxymoronic in its construction; ‘discrimination’ surely epitomises the intolerance and deplorability of human nature, a concept entirely detached from anything ‘positive’. However, these incongruous terms collide to define an emerging conduct which has increasingly been observed with contention since becoming illegal in the 2010 Equality Act. It occurs as the favourable treatment of someone on the basis of the characteristics which they possess, associated with groups who have historically been subject to disadvantageous opportunities, often regarding race, sexuality or gender.
Many were quick to weaponise the notion of positive discrimination, dismissing it as a symptom of excessive political correctness and a transcension of true societal equity. Whilst the vehemency of these claims is often overwhelming, it is perhaps unfortunate that the affordances offered by positive discrimination are frequently forgotten. Besides, would you ever agree that the current operation of society provides equal opportunity for all its members? Maybe positive discrimination should be viewed more temperately as a remedy to this injustice.
With most discourse around positive discrimination concerning its implementation within recruitment, the appearance of the meritocracy argument is inevitable. In many ways, this is valid. The idea of people being credited in correspondence with the skills and qualifications they have acquired is certainly a palatable one. However, a world where this actually exists is the same world where the clouds are made from candy floss and England has a chance at winning the World Cup. Instead, this idealist concept is undermined by the inescapable presence of unconscious bias within employers, in which their judgements are often unintentionally obscured by internalised prejudices. This renders many standard recruitment processes inherently flawed.
We see this in the division of labour. According to the McGregor-Smith review, for instance, the employment rate for BME groups is just 62.8%, compared to 75.6% for white workers. These statistics are especially worrying when you begin to consider the paramount importance of diverse representation in the workforce. In occupations such as the police force, to illustrate, introducing greater inclusivity is imperative for reducing discriminatory practices in systems of authority and justice, the requirement for which has been tragically highlighted on numerous recent occasions. In a broader sense, however, you have to imagine that facilitating the contribution of more varied voices and perspectives would be in the interest of maximising attainment in all sectors of the workforce.
In the meantime, the rigidity of power structures which currently exist in society are staggering. Just take a look at the fact that FTSE 100 has more CEOs called Steve than from
all ethnic minorities combined. To challenge this, the necessity for increased social mobility is undeniable. Positive discrimination could potentially act as a short term stimulator of this as, by more evenly distributing higher paying jobs across minority groups, not only will the empowerment of communities be increased, but access to high quality education and subsequent prospects will become more attainable. Through this, the ‘level playing field’ which is valued so heavily by opponents to positive discrimination could eventually be achieved. Until then, positive discrimination is perhaps a necessary evil which will not, contrary to popular belief, create a workforce rife with mediocrity, but assist in one day obtaining some semblance of systemic balance.
Ostensibly, the phrase positive discrimination appears completely oxymoronic in its construction; ‘discrimination’ surely epitomises the intolerance and deplorability of human nature, a concept entirely detached from anything ‘positive’. However, these incongruous terms collide to define an emerging conduct which has increasingly been observed with contention since becoming illegal in the 2010 Equality Act. It occurs as the favourable treatment of someone on the basis of the characteristics which they possess, associated with groups who have historically been subject to disadvantageous opportunities, often regarding race, sexuality or gender.
Many were quick to weaponise the notion of positive discrimination, dismissing it as a symptom of excessive political correctness and a transcension of true societal equity. Whilst the vehemency of these claims is often overwhelming, it is perhaps unfortunate that the affordances offered by positive discrimination are frequently forgotten. Besides, would you ever agree that the current operation of society provides equal opportunity for all its members? Maybe positive discrimination should be viewed more temperately as a remedy to this injustice.
With most discourse around positive discrimination concerning its implementation within recruitment, the appearance of the meritocracy argument is inevitable. In many ways, this is valid. The idea of people being credited in correspondence with the skills and qualifications they have acquired is certainly a palatable one. However, a world where this actually exists is the same world where the clouds are made from candy floss and England has a chance at winning the World Cup. Instead, this idealist concept is undermined by the inescapable presence of unconscious bias within employers, in which their judgements are often unintentionally obscured by internalised prejudices. This renders many standard recruitment processes inherently flawed.
We see this in the division of labour. According to the McGregor-Smith review, for instance, the employment rate for BME groups is just 62.8%, compared to 75.6% for white workers. These statistics are especially worrying when you begin to consider the paramount importance of diverse representation in the workforce. In occupations such as the police force, to illustrate, introducing greater inclusivity is imperative for reducing discriminatory practices in systems of authority and justice, the requirement for which has been tragically highlighted on numerous recent occasions. In a broader sense, however, you have to imagine that facilitating the contribution of more varied voices and perspectives would be in the interest of maximising attainment in all sectors of the workforce.
In the meantime, the rigidity of power structures which currently exist in society are staggering. Just take a look at the fact that FTSE 100 has more CEOs called Steve than from
all ethnic minorities combined. To challenge this, the necessity for increased social mobility is undeniable. Positive discrimination could potentially act as a short term stimulator of this as, by more evenly distributing higher paying jobs across minority groups, not only will the empowerment of communities be increased, but access to high quality education and subsequent prospects will become more attainable. Through this, the ‘level playing field’ which is valued so heavily by opponents to positive discrimination could eventually be achieved. Until then, positive discrimination is perhaps a necessary evil which will not, contrary to popular belief, create a workforce rife with mediocrity, but assist in one day obtaining some semblance of systemic balance.
Other Sites |
|
