Positive action vs Positive discrimination
Discussion
My company has started running a sponsorship programme which has the aim of supporting progression into senior management roles. The sponsorship programme is open to those who identify as the following: women, Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic and people with disabilities or long term health conditions.
Only one demographic is excluded from being applicable to apply: white male.
This is under the guise that white males are overrepresented in senior management roles so they're trying to balance it out.
In the old days, people would call this 'positive discrimination', but on the FAQ about the programme the company said 'it is not positive discrimination, but positive action'.
This 'positive action' is a term I was not familiar with. Is this the woke way of getting positive discrimination through and rebranding it?
It does seem a little unfair that just because other white males had the opportunity to progress into senior management at some point in time down the line, I am now being held back and not being offered the same opportunities. Not all white males have enjoyed such 'privilege' and have Oxbridge degrees and able to ascend the corporate ladder with ease.
I am all for meritocracy and believe the best candidate should get the job, rather than meeting a certain criteria as they're underrepresented for a whole number of potential reasons.
Only one demographic is excluded from being applicable to apply: white male.
This is under the guise that white males are overrepresented in senior management roles so they're trying to balance it out.
In the old days, people would call this 'positive discrimination', but on the FAQ about the programme the company said 'it is not positive discrimination, but positive action'.
This 'positive action' is a term I was not familiar with. Is this the woke way of getting positive discrimination through and rebranding it?
It does seem a little unfair that just because other white males had the opportunity to progress into senior management at some point in time down the line, I am now being held back and not being offered the same opportunities. Not all white males have enjoyed such 'privilege' and have Oxbridge degrees and able to ascend the corporate ladder with ease.
I am all for meritocracy and believe the best candidate should get the job, rather than meeting a certain criteria as they're underrepresented for a whole number of potential reasons.
Terminology
‘Black, Asian and minority ethnic’ (BAME) is an umbrella term and can include the following ethnic origins:
Arabs
Asian or Asian British people
Black or Black British people
People of mixed heritage
Roma, Gypsies and Travellers
The grouping can also sometimes include people who are ‘other White’ e.g. White Irish, Australian, French, Polish etc., or this may be reported on separately.
Buy a caravan.
‘Black, Asian and minority ethnic’ (BAME) is an umbrella term and can include the following ethnic origins:
Arabs
Asian or Asian British people
Black or Black British people
People of mixed heritage
Roma, Gypsies and Travellers
The grouping can also sometimes include people who are ‘other White’ e.g. White Irish, Australian, French, Polish etc., or this may be reported on separately.
Buy a caravan.
Absolutely, and white working class men are statistically achieve lowest grades at school.
It isn't especially fair on anyone who does get a job ostensibly on the basis of positive discrimination, as they may well be perceived to have won the job on the basis on attributes other than their competence and ability to do the job.
I'm very much a believer in the idea that class and education (or more precisely place of education) are far more significant in how you get on in the UK than race or gender. A well spoken, Oxbridge educated man or woman of black or Asian background will generally be accepted much more readily than a white man or woman perceived to be from a lower class with no qualifications. Compare and contrast David Lammy, or Rishi Sunak with John Prescott or Angela Rayner, in the British political sphere.
It isn't especially fair on anyone who does get a job ostensibly on the basis of positive discrimination, as they may well be perceived to have won the job on the basis on attributes other than their competence and ability to do the job.
I'm very much a believer in the idea that class and education (or more precisely place of education) are far more significant in how you get on in the UK than race or gender. A well spoken, Oxbridge educated man or woman of black or Asian background will generally be accepted much more readily than a white man or woman perceived to be from a lower class with no qualifications. Compare and contrast David Lammy, or Rishi Sunak with John Prescott or Angela Rayner, in the British political sphere.
I'm hard working, talented, credible, qualified, experienced... etc. But I've struggled to get anywhere in the workplace in more than two decades because loud, bombastic, extroverted narcissists get all the breaks while introverts like me are perpetually overlooked. Now, I find myself having to bite my tongue while a torrent of rhetoric suggesting that because I'm white and male my life is overflowing with privilege and opportunity is spewed out.
g4ry13 said:
a sponsorship programme which has the aim of supporting progression into senior management roles.
The knee jerk reaction is to consider this as positive discrimination but it isn't. The company is right to call it positive action.What they are doing is enabling groups of people that for a myriad of complex reasons have been denied pathways to achievement by enabling the means for them to play on a level field - from which the best are selected to higher positions. Meritocracy still applies.
Now if Black, Asian, Disabled, etc candidates were offered positions over more suitable candidates regardless of race, then that would be positive discrimination. But that doesn't seem to be what's going on here.
StevieBee said:
g4ry13 said:
a sponsorship programme which has the aim of supporting progression into senior management roles.
The knee jerk reaction is to consider this as positive discrimination but it isn't. The company is right to call it positive action.What they are doing is enabling groups of people that for a myriad of complex reasons have been denied pathways to achievement by enabling the means for them to play on a level field - from which the best are selected to higher positions. Meritocracy still applies.
Now if Black, Asian, Disabled, etc candidates were offered positions over more suitable candidates regardless of race, then that would be positive discrimination. But that doesn't seem to be what's going on here.
The organisation I work for has a policy that they want more female / BAME staff in senior positions and as a result have sought to promote them despite there being better candidates in the running. It becomes a case of box ticking.
It would always be hard to prove it was discrimination because the interviewer will say 'the other candidate performed better in the interview on that day' or some other subjective metric.
g4ry13 said:
If it was a case of meritocracy, the development opportunities should be available to all staff?
Absolutely. It's hardly meritocracy when the field of candidates has been artificially reduced to only include BAME employees.Where I work did something very similar. It's even worse than positive discrimination because at least with that they pretend they would consider caucasian males. In your case they are outright denying their applications in the first place.
Should be illegal. I'd welcome it being tested in the courts. Tokenism and box ticking at the very worst.
g4ry13 said:
My company has started running a sponsorship programme which has the aim of supporting progression into senior management roles. The sponsorship programme is open to those who identify as the following: women, Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic and people with disabilities or long term health conditions.
Only one demographic is excluded from being applicable to apply: white male.
This is under the guise that white males are overrepresented in senior management roles so they're trying to balance it out.
In the old days, people would call this 'positive discrimination', but on the FAQ about the programme the company said 'it is not positive discrimination, but positive action'.
This 'positive action' is a term I was not familiar with. Is this the woke way of getting positive discrimination through and rebranding it?
It does seem a little unfair that just because other white males had the opportunity to progress into senior management at some point in time down the line, I am now being held back and not being offered the same opportunities. Not all white males have enjoyed such 'privilege' and have Oxbridge degrees and able to ascend the corporate ladder with ease.
I am all for meritocracy and believe the best candidate should get the job, rather than meeting a certain criteria as they're underrepresented for a whole number of potential reasons.
Out of interest why do you think white males are over represented in senior management?Only one demographic is excluded from being applicable to apply: white male.
This is under the guise that white males are overrepresented in senior management roles so they're trying to balance it out.
In the old days, people would call this 'positive discrimination', but on the FAQ about the programme the company said 'it is not positive discrimination, but positive action'.
This 'positive action' is a term I was not familiar with. Is this the woke way of getting positive discrimination through and rebranding it?
It does seem a little unfair that just because other white males had the opportunity to progress into senior management at some point in time down the line, I am now being held back and not being offered the same opportunities. Not all white males have enjoyed such 'privilege' and have Oxbridge degrees and able to ascend the corporate ladder with ease.
I am all for meritocracy and believe the best candidate should get the job, rather than meeting a certain criteria as they're underrepresented for a whole number of potential reasons.
Dromedary66 said:
g4ry13 said:
If it was a case of meritocracy, the development opportunities should be available to all staff?
Absolutely. It's hardly meritocracy when the field of candidates has been artificially reduced to only include BAME employees.Where I work did something very similar. It's even worse than positive discrimination because at least with that they pretend they would consider caucasian males. In your case they are outright denying their applications in the first place.
Should be illegal. I'd welcome it being tested in the courts. Tokenism and box ticking at the very worst.
The catch? Applications are only open to candidates that are of Afro-Caribbean descent.
If you're of any other ethnicity you're screwed. Doesn't matter if you're an underprivileged council estate caucasian person working 2 jobs to put yourself through uni and help out family - not eligible because you don't tick the box.
Countdown said:
g4ry13 said:
My company has started running a sponsorship programme which has the aim of supporting progression into senior management roles. The sponsorship programme is open to those who identify as the following: women, Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic and people with disabilities or long term health conditions.
Only one demographic is excluded from being applicable to apply: white male.
This is under the guise that white males are overrepresented in senior management roles so they're trying to balance it out.
In the old days, people would call this 'positive discrimination', but on the FAQ about the programme the company said 'it is not positive discrimination, but positive action'.
This 'positive action' is a term I was not familiar with. Is this the woke way of getting positive discrimination through and rebranding it?
It does seem a little unfair that just because other white males had the opportunity to progress into senior management at some point in time down the line, I am now being held back and not being offered the same opportunities. Not all white males have enjoyed such 'privilege' and have Oxbridge degrees and able to ascend the corporate ladder with ease.
I am all for meritocracy and believe the best candidate should get the job, rather than meeting a certain criteria as they're underrepresented for a whole number of potential reasons.
Out of interest why do you think white males are over represented in senior management?Only one demographic is excluded from being applicable to apply: white male.
This is under the guise that white males are overrepresented in senior management roles so they're trying to balance it out.
In the old days, people would call this 'positive discrimination', but on the FAQ about the programme the company said 'it is not positive discrimination, but positive action'.
This 'positive action' is a term I was not familiar with. Is this the woke way of getting positive discrimination through and rebranding it?
It does seem a little unfair that just because other white males had the opportunity to progress into senior management at some point in time down the line, I am now being held back and not being offered the same opportunities. Not all white males have enjoyed such 'privilege' and have Oxbridge degrees and able to ascend the corporate ladder with ease.
I am all for meritocracy and believe the best candidate should get the job, rather than meeting a certain criteria as they're underrepresented for a whole number of potential reasons.
The organisation I work for alluded there is an over representation. They are rolling out a sponsorship scheme to assist other demographics and the only excluded category is white males.
Countdown said:
g4ry13 said:
Not my words.
The organisation I work for alluded there is an over representation. They are rolling out a sponsorship scheme to assist other demographics and the only excluded category is white males.
Do you not think it's true?The organisation I work for alluded there is an over representation. They are rolling out a sponsorship scheme to assist other demographics and the only excluded category is white males.
If it just so happens that a certain category is more skilled to do the job I would not call that over represented. There are many variables to factor in.
StevieBee said:
g4ry13 said:
a sponsorship programme which has the aim of supporting progression into senior management roles.
The knee jerk reaction is to consider this as positive discrimination but it isn't. The company is right to call it positive action.What they are doing is enabling groups of people that for a myriad of complex reasons have been denied pathways to achievement by enabling the means for them to play on a level field - from which the best are selected to higher positions. Meritocracy still applies.
Now if Black, Asian, Disabled, etc candidates were offered positions over more suitable candidates regardless of race, then that would be positive discrimination. But that doesn't seem to be what's going on here.
It's like saying you will strive to improve public transport, and then the only improvement you bring is to ban cars.
tstorm if I had said that to her... Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff