Positive Discrimination

[paigetheoracle]

Positive discrimination leads to resentment as it's not earned and works against the group or individual, therefore, selected. Equal treatment is truly fair and not resented. It's like suing someone for millions of dollars for damages, for a fault partially you're own (Choice - you didn't have to be where you were, doing what you were doing and adult responsibility is accepting this). Yes, support someone who supported you as an individual or member of your society and became ill or injured through this sense of duty, until death but not over the top 'whinging' (me over all others - I get millions, they get left to rot in the gutter with no help): This is a follow up to another thread on political correctness that I erroneously posted on The Philosophy and Humanities forum (should have been here too).

[InfiniteNow]

First point: Discrimination is discrimination. It's silly to say "positive" or "negative."

Second point: There are already two PC threads on this site. Why did you open a third?

[hallenrm]

The title of this thread touched me indeed! let me explain why.

In the part of the world that is the abode for my body, a certain class of people have enjoyed positive discrimination for ages, only because they were born in certain families.

simultaneously there were/are others, perhaps much more numerous, who have suffered negative discrimination.

the result is the glaring social inequalities.

what is still more disturbing is the trend where the members of the majority community claim that they are suffering because of positive discrimination that the minority communities enjoy in the modern political state.

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

First point: Discrimination is discrimination. It's silly to say "positive" or "negative."

Second point: There are already two PC threads on this site. Why did you open a third?

I didn't invent the terms, just used them to delineate something I wanted to say or haven't you heard them before? (I live in Britain and if you're an American [or from somewhere else] they might not be used over there, where you live).

I opened this thread to make this particular point - why did the other two open their threads and did you complain about the second or just the third?

[Racoon]

right paigetheoracle.. Its a British thing.
I researched it a bit, and found a few articles on it.. here is an abrreviated explanation/analysis...

Heres the Url, but I am unsure if you can view it, its from Infotrac database

http://web5.infotrac-college.com/wadsworth/session/458/382/89451807/18!xrn_3_0_A140959241

Personnel Today, Jan 17, 2006 p10
Is there a case for positive discrimination? Michael Millar.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2006 Reed Business Information Ltd. Positive discrimination is illegal. But could it make our workforces more representative of society? Michael Millar investigates.

Last week, Personnel Today revealed that Trevor Phillips, the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), was backing a recruitment company that was catering for graduates from a "visibly non-white background". This was a clear case of positive discrimination, which is contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976.

The firm, Rare Recruit-ment, subsequently changed the wording on its website and declared its services were open to all. But while Rare's 'cut-off point' for applicants breached the Act, it is not difficult to see the merit in what it was trying to do: give employers the opportunity to search a pool of talent that traditionally they may have ignored.

The official Labour Force Survey shows that, for men, the difference in employment rates between ethnic minority groups and the general population is just under 20%. This means services provided by the likes of Rare are vital, according to the firm's backers.
...
But employers with similarly honourable intentions have found themselves on the wrong side of the law.

Somerset and Avon Police is being investigated by the CRE after reports revealed it had rejected 186 white applicants because its workforce was "over-represented by white men".

Would it be so bad to allow positive discrimination if it helps to create a workforce that is more representative of the community?

This is particularly relevant for public sector services such as the police, which face tough government targets on the number of officers with ethnic minority backgrounds they should employ.
...
Positive discrimination in job selection because of gender is unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act (1975). But this begs the question again of whether or not discriminating against male candidates would be a 'quick-fix', allowing women to rapidly occupy jobs they thought would never be available to them.

This argument doesn't hold water with Alison Hodgson, chairwoman of the Association of Graduate Recruiters. She believes it is much more constructive and healthy to base recruitment decisions on talent.

"Quotas are the stuff of last century. The world of work has moved on so much," she said. "Colour is a red herring - what should be important is what skills you need to build your business."
...
Disincentive

However, Bothwick believes this still doesn't make a case for allowing positive discrimination, which she said could actually act as a disincentive to those it is trying to help.

"Most organisations won't support positive discrimination and most candidates won't either. Would you like to know you're only in a job because of the colour of your skin?" she asked.

"Where businesses have identified a gap in the reach of their recruitment and there is specialist advice available it is worth pursuing, but not to the detriment of anyone else. It's about finding the brightest talent from the biggest pool."

Even the EOC, despite its damning survey findings, agrees that positive discrimination should give way to positive action.

[paigetheoracle]

what is still more disturbing is the trend where the members of the majority community claim that they are suffering because of positive discrimination that the minority communities enjoy in the modern political state.[/quote]

Do you mean the majority are discriminated against by the minority? (Rich by poor I assume you mean). Well I personally don't want much out of life and hey presto haven't got it either! (big houses/fast cars/million dollars in the bank etc). The thing is that the rich may well not suffer from problems of deprivation but they can suffer from overindulgence. A modest life leads to modest problems and a wanton one to large problems. I personally just want to sit and think about things in thoughtful meditation but have noise pollution inflicted on me from outside by those who want you to know what they have (more is less). This is a psychological problem for me and a psychiatric one for them but they don't realize it (projection based on feelings of inferiority). Understanding their situation doesn't help mine. Sorry this is getting too wordy for me. Soyanara!

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

I didn't invent the terms, just used them to delineate something I wanted to say or haven't you heard them before? (I live in Britain and if you're an American [or from somewhere else] they might not be used over there, where you live).

That's a good point. I was using short hand to indicate that the descriptor at the front of the term is not always appropriate. Another example is people saying "reverse psychology." There's nothing reverse about it... it's all just psychology. Same with discrimination.

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. Separation of objects based on characteristics believed to be common among those objects.

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

I opened this thread to make this particular point

Which is what?

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

why did the other two open their threads and did you complain about the second or just the third?

Simply trying to guide you into becoming a better poster. One of the previous threads was closed due to lack of scientific input and general emotional ranting. The other thread I referenced remains open.

If the purpose of this thread is unique, please make more clear what the difference is. Otherwise, the moderators may join the two into one.


Cheers.

[munch]

Just wanted to remind everyone that discrimination isn't by itself a bad thing. Remember back when people used "good discrimination" instead of "good judgement?" Admittedly, the modern use of the word is mostly negative, but it's still ok to discriminate based on talent, history, work ethic, etc.
In its usual context, sex, age, race, whatever, I agree that discrimination is usually a bad thing. I say usually because I can think of a few examples where this kind of discrimination would be useful. Say for example a doctor of some sort needed a receptionist for his clinic in Chinatown, and he had a choice between a Chinese and a white woman with equal abilities. He would want to hire the Chinese woman so his clients would feel more comfortable. That's racial discrimination, but both the receptionist and clients would be better for it. Or consider an Express (trendy 20-something clothing) store. I'd rather buy a revealing halter top from someone my age than from someone older than my grandma. (Not that I would, I'm just saying.)
In short, there is such a thing as positive discrimination.

[InfiniteNow]

Interesting point munch, but I do not really think your examples made clear the positive aspect of it.

Another potential route might be to discuss the classification of things. All the way back to the first few life forms distinguishing between ouch and not ouch, the ability to identify and attribute meaning to things, to "discriminate" between them is very beneficial. This is easily noticable when discriminating between food choices as something potentially poisonous or something potentially healthy.

This is a bit more abstract, however, from the discrimination being discussed here, but is worthy of discussion all the same.

It's when discrimination is done with no real information about the object of discrimination that it causes problems. To believe that one can be pidgeon holed by their appearance, their gender, their religion, their location, the car the drive or the shirt they wear or the food they eat... that's just wrong.

We'll always have more in common than we have different.

[munch]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

It's when discrimination is done with no real information about the object of discrimination that it causes problems. To believe that one can be pidgeon holed by their appearance, their gender, their religion, their location, the car the drive or the shirt they wear or the food they eat... that's just wrong.

I agree with you there. The point I was trying to make is that in certain rare cases, discrimination can be helpful. In most cases, though, discrimination is a bad thing.