If on-screen is really better balanced than off, despite there being the same people in the same places making all the hiring and firing decisions, that does seem to suggest something.

Would they admit to it?

I read this yesterday, Too many black and Asian faces on TV, says BBC director Samir Shah

“Ever spoken to someone who worked in such a restaurant (apart from ordering that is)? Some of them are there cos’ its one of v few work options.

I am not saying that it is a great job, merely that if we extend the principle of underrepresentation we had better start to discriminate against Asians in the Indian/Bangladeshi curry house business, or the medical profession, and so on. Or is that just silly?

Douglas:

“If everyone acted in good faith, which is what I think you are implying, then it would, of course, be completely unnecessary to do anything at all. The reality is unfortunately a darker place than that. The glass ceiling is cracked, true enough, but it certainly isn’t shattered.”

I don’t think that this is a perfect world, but I am not sure how discrimination helps.

Desi:

You keep asking me what my solution is, and I keep telling you. Select on merit. I don’t know why that is a broken record, as it is you asking the question over and over again. Nor do I think that anyone who benefits from discrimination in the workplace is useless, it’s just that they have been selected in part based on something other than merit. My ultimate dream would be to see a society where people don’t really care what group you belong to, and turning people away from jobs because of their race or religion won’t help. Presumably if you lived in a country where your group was historically on top, you would be happy to be discriminated against? I suspect not. In this country many of the white working class have more economic problems then Asians who live in Kensington and Chelsea. Shuld we start discrimating in favour of them, or would that be racist because they are white?

Ravi:

“Right… but we are talking about people with the same merit and qualifications: at this point, should one choose the under-represented minority?”

But how many situations would there be when both candidates are considered absolutly equal?

Zohra:

“Truly, the problem is discrimination against women candidates at selection stage, where women who merit selection are flat out not selected.”

Exactly, and I believe that the best way to reduce the problem is to stop judging people based on their race and/or gender. If the selection boards saw the candidates as individuals rather than as a particular gener or race, I think we would be seeing more ethnic minority and female candidates.

“You cannot solve 200 years of oppression by quick fixes and affirmative action – it will take time to level the field.”

I totally agree with this, and I stated earlier in one of my comments (#62) that I think affirmative action is a short term solution. Long term would be implementing policies at almost every level to make society equitable socio-economically (which, BTW, ain’t happening).

Still makes no difference.

Simplify things, have a society with 4 people, A to D.
The only source of income in the society is reasonably fair competition. Say a dance marathon, see who can keep moving longest.

The person who comes out on top gets a million quid a week, second gets a million a year, third ten thousand a year, #4 gets shot in the head.

There is no possible change to the judging rules of that contest that will make the slightest bit of difference to the very great inequalities of that society. It doesn’t matter whether you swap A and B, B and C, D and A. It doesn’t matter whether the person who came second was a much worse dancer, a slightly worse one, or separated solely by taste. Calculate the gini coefficient, mortality rate, whatever, it will all be the same.

If the rules for determining the winner are unfair, you need to change them. But if the outcome isn’t to your liking, you need to make a change somewhere else.

Forget america, forget every conversation you ever had with an american – that society is irredeemably fucked. It needs to be pitied, not emulated.

“And BTW, quit thinking that affirmative action is solely based on gender and race. People who do are candidates also have merit, you know.”

Oh please. Affirmative action does put people with less merit in front of those with more merit just because they belong to a minority group. Why hide this? I happen to be against this, as I would hate that my accomplishments in life would be perceived as less worthy if my ethnic group was a recipient of such measure.

Instead, I am for measures that: emphasise social and economic justice, emphasise education in underprivileged communities, and yes, I am for giving a chance to minorities over others if they are of equal merit. By the way, I am including as “minority”, people of poor white backgrounds.

You cannot solve 200 years of oppression by quick fixes and affirmative action – it will take time to level the field. Meritocracy should definitely not suffer because of this.

Are any of the PP bloggers beneficiaries of ‘affirmative action’? Or is it based on merit? Or both?

Is anyone interested in signing a petition to stop the totally unjust extinction of the privileged white male?

We must stop this immediately. We are in grave danger of being managed by a bunch of blacks and women who have only 2 brain cells to their name, but were put in positions of power due to affirmative action. What a careless, and DANGEROUS thing to do! This is a national security threat!

“And you haven’t explained how changing the set of people who emerge on top is even conceivably a solution to that problem.”

Ok, so let me just say that I’m letting my irritation get the best of me, but this is a daft question. Why the hell are you looking at the ‘top’ rather than the people who are the beneficiaries at not only the ‘top’ as you put it, but organizations which may be low, middle AND top?

And you haven’t explained how changing the set of people who emerge on top is even conceivably a solution to that problem.

Something must be done!

This is something!

It must be done!

Broken record.

“Hire the best people for the job, and destroy society’s obsessive need to label people.”

Your adamant stance on being anti-affirmative action is blinding you to the actual facts on the ground, and realities that exist, and so even when you are challenged, you keep repeating, parrot-like, that you stand for ‘hiring the best people for the job’ and to stop fixating on race, blah blah. It almost seems like you haven’t really thought this topic through; you’ve just stopped at the ‘I’m anti-discrimination!” shrill and that’s it.

You still didn’t answer the question of what your proposed solutions are to closing the inequality gaps that exist. You seem to be assuming that there is a level playing field for everyone when this is not true at all, and in every realm.

“I want to move away from a mentality of employing people for reasons other than their ability and potential. Discrimination just makes that harder.”

Still makes no fucking sense. You conceded to my point on how there is inequality in social, economic, and cultural capital, and then you turn around and say “But people’s background should not be taken into consideration!!!!” What kind of circular logic is that?

And BTW, quit thinking that affirmative action is solely based on gender and race. People who do are candidates also have merit, you know. Why are you assuming that people who benefit from affirmative action are a bunch of brainless women and blacks who have been ‘favored’ without any merit? Boxing in people and making– shall I say, racist and sexist assumptions– aren’t we? And yet you are the one saying we shouldn’t label and categorize people!

Thanks for the link. I didn’t know that. I’ll read up on what the EOC said about it.

All women shortlists would be an example of positive discrimination, and thank goodness for them. Women have been able to run for Parliament for 90 years and we’re still ranked 69th out of 192 countries for our level of women MPs (less than 20%). We were 47th five years ago. More info here (pdf). So, we’re doing badly and getting worse. Truly, the problem is discrimination against women candidates at selection stage, where women who merit selection are flat out not selected. More on my opinion about this here.

douglas clark @65, things aren’t much better today. 30,000 women a year lose their job for falling pregnant. More info about Fawcett’s campaign on this here.

PS if you want to read her actual statement (pdf) and proposals (pdf), click on the links.

“Hire the best people for the job, and destroy society’s obsessive need to label people.”

Right… but we are talking about people with the same merit and qualifications: at this point, should one choose the under-represented minority?

Do you guys have anyone in the UK who is the equivalent of our Bushie?

No we don’t.

This is the danger in trying to equate American experience to that of the UK; Universities here don’t have legacy preferences or admissions as in the US, nor it has to be said is the use of ‘sports Scholarships’ anything like it is in America, either in format or in terms of how widespread it is.

With the recent and limited exception of Northern Ireland affirmative action has been illegal in the UK; that lack of politicisation has in my opinion been a crucial factor in the relative lack of tension and conflict between disparate communities. There has certainly been no comparable cases as this (i emphasise his complaint was he wasn’t latino or black, white had nothing to do with it).

As i said i favour the individual so my instinct is always to make the good of ‘society’ subservient to that individual. If a policy increases social tension, well tough. What i don’t do though is pretend that centrally dictated and administered discrimination can lead to equality.

The one notable case of minority conflict in the UK within the last 5 years was of course the Lozells riots in Birmingham. And as was reported at the time but appparently forgotten since; that was very much interwoven with people trying to individually get ahead by emphasising the poverty in their community as opposed to other minorities (when trying to get SRB6 grants etc).

It was a scramble for money, for recognition – for power by self declared community leaders and it was a scramble that did not occur between the whites and ‘the others’ but within an incredibly complex minority social structure.

My problem with these types of schemes isn’t with the banal discussion of two homogenous but distinct groups interacting (the ‘whites’ and the ‘blacks’) but the problems that occur when the government is trying to emphasise and deal with poverty along lines of ethnicity – especially when those lines are far too complex to be dealt with centrally.

I don’t think you can deal with an unequal distribution of social capital by zero-sum swaps of the individuals receiving the big rewards.

For a casino, there are two different considerations:

1. is the wheel fair – is it paying out equally to red and black?

2. are the stakes set at a level where it’s a fun way of spending some money? Or will it destroy the lives of 30% of the people in the room, driving them to bankruptcy and suicide?

If #2 is the problem, it’s true you can’t fix it by simply neutrally recalibrating the roulette wheel.

Problem is, there isn’t any other setting of the wheel that will actually fix the problem either – all you will do is just ove the misery around.

It’s true you can’t fix a problem of skin-colour discrimination by, say, better education – all you get is a bunch of well-educated people who can’t get a job.

But also, vice versa.

This isn’t actually about recruits, it’s about recruiters and their attitudes.

If everyone acted in good faith, which is what I think you are implying, then it would, of course, be completely unnecessary to do anything at all. The reality is unfortunately a darker place than that. The glass ceiling is cracked, true enough, but it certainly isn’t shattered.