Is all discrimination unfair?
Discussion
In the "Why should University Educated people pay more tax" thread, this was thrown up as an issue needing its own thread.
Well here goes:
My premise is that discrimination in itself isn't inherently bad; in fact it is fundamental to a healthy society.
It is unfair discrimination that is the problem.
Imagine, if you will, you are a construction company that is hiring a structural engineer to design a bridge. Do you want to be able to choose the best person for the job? Sure you do!
You don't want to be forced to take some 3 legged purple alien from the planet Zarg, just because they are today's Poster Child oppressed minority.
When you go shopping for groceries, do you want to be forced to take whatever mouldy fruit is given to you, or do you want to choose the freshest ones?
On a broader canvas, society that doesn't select for the "best" in whatever measure is appropriate to that society, is a society that is actively encouraging its own self destruction (you could argue that this is happening today)
The problem is that tribalism and nepotism, which are good in small groups of people that need to be fairly self reliant, tends to harm larger societies. Alas the other side of this is racism, which can be destructive to a multi-cultural populace.
Edited to make the words betterer
>>> Edited by CraigAlsop on Monday 30th December 17:11
Well here goes:
My premise is that discrimination in itself isn't inherently bad; in fact it is fundamental to a healthy society.
It is unfair discrimination that is the problem.
Imagine, if you will, you are a construction company that is hiring a structural engineer to design a bridge. Do you want to be able to choose the best person for the job? Sure you do!
You don't want to be forced to take some 3 legged purple alien from the planet Zarg, just because they are today's Poster Child oppressed minority.
When you go shopping for groceries, do you want to be forced to take whatever mouldy fruit is given to you, or do you want to choose the freshest ones?
On a broader canvas, society that doesn't select for the "best" in whatever measure is appropriate to that society, is a society that is actively encouraging its own self destruction (you could argue that this is happening today)
The problem is that tribalism and nepotism, which are good in small groups of people that need to be fairly self reliant, tends to harm larger societies. Alas the other side of this is racism, which can be destructive to a multi-cultural populace.
Edited to make the words betterer
>>> Edited by CraigAlsop on Monday 30th December 17:11
Completely agree. I think that there are some cases for positive discrimination - state school applicants into Oxbridge is the first one that comes to mind, as the applicants do have a pretty steep slope of a playing field without it. This should not be policed by targets however, if the state school applicant can make a very good case for admission dispite lesser teaching and can demonstrate the required ability, then give them a hand up by dropping the entry level by a grade or so.
My premise is that discrimination in itself isn't in itself bad; in fact it is fundamental to a healthy society.
It is unfair discrimination that is the problem
Employers should be able to chose the best person for the job. Sure, if an applicant can reasonably show that they were overlooked purely because they are of ethnic minority, male, female etc, then the employer should be in trouble. They shouldn't be forced to take the lesser applicant just because they are from some minority or other.
O/T - how does wanting to employ a sexy young female receptionist fit into all this
.
daydreamer said:Completely agree... This should not be policed by targets however, if the state school applicant can make a very good case for admission dispite lesser teaching and can demonstrate the required ability, then give them a hand up by dropping the entry level by a grade or so.
Disagree entirely. If you want to set a standard, set a standard, and base your judgements on that standard. If you allow anyone of a lesser standard through - presumably at the expense of someone else who meetsthat standard, then you are unfairly discriminating against them.
In the case of Oxbridge, the unfair discimination is largely against those who do meet the required academic standard, but are unproportionally represented in spite of that, i.e. the discrimination is on other grounds - which may indeed be unfair.
I hate positive discrimination - because, by definition, it is unfairly discriminating against another valid candidate.
O/T - how does wanting to employ a sexy young female receptionist fit into all this
Thats OK - she is almost certainly the best fit for your requirements
Do accept what you are saying SNE. I support this particular case because, having been there, the better public school pupils were a year ahead of us state numpties at the start. They gradually dropped back until there was no way of spotting the background by the end.
Problem here is potential may be equal or better in the state school applicants, but they simply don't have access to the kind of teaching that the 'S-levels' and 'STEP papers' require (which are usually a requirement). This teaching disparity can be put right by a year at a top universtiy, but left unchecked, then the whole of Eaton would be admitted before anyone from a state background. Therefore it is not correct to say that you are depriving a more deserving canditate, just one that has traditionally had access to better teaching, primarily though their parents' ability to pay!
It is difficult to set a limit however. It may be fairer to say no positive discrimination in any case and accept that this will be particularly unfair in certain cases.
Problem here is potential may be equal or better in the state school applicants, but they simply don't have access to the kind of teaching that the 'S-levels' and 'STEP papers' require (which are usually a requirement). This teaching disparity can be put right by a year at a top universtiy, but left unchecked, then the whole of Eaton would be admitted before anyone from a state background. Therefore it is not correct to say that you are depriving a more deserving canditate, just one that has traditionally had access to better teaching, primarily though their parents' ability to pay!
It is difficult to set a limit however. It may be fairer to say no positive discrimination in any case and accept that this will be particularly unfair in certain cases.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff