RAF positive discrimination was unlawful discrimination
Discussion
The case arose due to a female Group Captain being pressured to discriminate against white men to meet diversity targets set by top brass.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66060490
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66060490
glazbagun said:
I don't really see how positive discrimination can ever be lawful except for some niche roles or maybe sponsored apprenticeships.
Indeed, it's not, but swap in the word action - how generalist can it be, doing anything is an action - and magically it's lawful. HM government playing word games is at the link, see Section 5.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/positiv...
I am a a tax payer. I want the best pilots, engineers and everything else they can find. I don’t came about colour, sex or beliefs.
If the RAF are concerned they are not diverse enough to represent the nation as a whole then go out and actively target those groups with the re routine teams and encourage them to apply. Then select the best.
If the RAF are concerned they are not diverse enough to represent the nation as a whole then go out and actively target those groups with the re routine teams and encourage them to apply. Then select the best.
turbobloke said:
The case arose due to a female Group Captain being pressured to discriminate against white men to meet diversity targets set by top brass.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66060490
This is so widespread its almost laughable that it's been highlighted. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66060490
Exactly the same goes in the rail industry where they're desperate to get more women through the door.
By coincidence the US Supreme Court has just thrown out much of the Universities positive discrimination on admissions. All that critical race theory just got dumped into the sewer. Funny bits in there like 'well, how do you treat Arabs then?' 'Arabs? never 'eard of 'em'.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-119...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-119...
glazbagun said:
I don't really see how positive discrimination can ever be lawful except for some niche roles or maybe sponsored apprenticeships.
In the minds of those doing the discrimination they aren't discriminating "against" anyone, which would obviously be bad, they're discriminating "for" people, which is admirable.The less-favoured might not see it that way but they're not as important as the more-favoured so it's all good.
This short thread has already thrown up the issue here.
All right- minded people will agree that organisations that aspire to be the best should set the pools of people from which they look for talent as widely as possible. They will equally agree that it is worth spending time and money to build connections with historically hard to access groups.
Outreach programmes, champions, affinity groups, targeted campaigns aimed at connecting those pools of people to the organisation are sensible.
Setting targets can also be helpful on the principle of 'what you measure gets done' although this needs close monitoring for the right behaviours.
None of that is positive discrimination.
All right- minded people will agree that organisations that aspire to be the best should set the pools of people from which they look for talent as widely as possible. They will equally agree that it is worth spending time and money to build connections with historically hard to access groups.
Outreach programmes, champions, affinity groups, targeted campaigns aimed at connecting those pools of people to the organisation are sensible.
Setting targets can also be helpful on the principle of 'what you measure gets done' although this needs close monitoring for the right behaviours.
None of that is positive discrimination.
ClaphamGT3 said:
This short thread has already thrown up the issue here.
All right- minded people will agree that organisations that aspire to be the best should set the pools of people from which they look for talent as widely as possible. They will equally agree that it is worth spending time and money to build connections with historically hard to access groups.
Outreach programmes, champions, affinity groups, targeted campaigns aimed at connecting those pools of people to the organisation are sensible.
Setting targets can also be helpful on the principle of 'what you measure gets done' although this needs close monitoring for the right behaviours.
None of that is positive discrimination.
All of the good intentions become useless when you activity ignore a certain set of characteristics though. All right- minded people will agree that organisations that aspire to be the best should set the pools of people from which they look for talent as widely as possible. They will equally agree that it is worth spending time and money to build connections with historically hard to access groups.
Outreach programmes, champions, affinity groups, targeted campaigns aimed at connecting those pools of people to the organisation are sensible.
Setting targets can also be helpful on the principle of 'what you measure gets done' although this needs close monitoring for the right behaviours.
None of that is positive discrimination.
How do you find the best person for the job when you exclude some people for their skin colour and gender?
ClaphamGT3 said:
This short thread has already thrown up the issue here.
All right- minded people will agree that organisations that aspire to be the best should set the pools of people from which they look for talent as widely as possible. They will equally agree that it is worth spending time and money to build connections with historically hard to access groups.
Outreach programmes, champions, affinity groups, targeted campaigns aimed at connecting those pools of people to the organisation are sensible.
Setting targets can also be helpful on the principle of 'what you measure gets done' although this needs close monitoring for the right behaviours.
None of that is positive discrimination.
Agreed. It's fair enough to address why certain demographics don't apply for certain jobs, but not to change the selection criteria to favour particular demographics.All right- minded people will agree that organisations that aspire to be the best should set the pools of people from which they look for talent as widely as possible. They will equally agree that it is worth spending time and money to build connections with historically hard to access groups.
Outreach programmes, champions, affinity groups, targeted campaigns aimed at connecting those pools of people to the organisation are sensible.
Setting targets can also be helpful on the principle of 'what you measure gets done' although this needs close monitoring for the right behaviours.
None of that is positive discrimination.
You should always employ the best person for the job.
98elise said:
You should always employ the best person for the job.
The person who will do the job best tomorrow, because they've had the advantage of the right background and have been able to focus on getting the right skills, right now, because they haven't had to think about where their next meal is coming from?Or the person who might do the job best in ten years time, even though right now they look the weaker candidate because they grew up in a rough neighbourhood and have had to work three jobs to support themselves to even get into the selection process?
As with all these things, it's really not that simple.
deckster said:
The person who will do the job best tomorrow, because they've had the advantage of the right background and have been able to focus on getting the right skills, right now, because they haven't had to think about where their next meal is coming from?
Or the person who might do the job best in ten years time, even though right now they look the weaker candidate because they grew up in a rough neighbourhood and have had to work three jobs to support themselves to even get into the selection process?
As with all these things, it's really not that simple.
Armed forces recruitment is traditionally a working class occupation and the army also recruits a number of officers from ethnic minorities who are from heavily upper middle class backgrounds in the commonwealth. Or the person who might do the job best in ten years time, even though right now they look the weaker candidate because they grew up in a rough neighbourhood and have had to work three jobs to support themselves to even get into the selection process?
As with all these things, it's really not that simple.
So in this case it really isn't the case that white=privileged, which is where crude racial quotas fall down when you start to use arguments such as yours. Race alone does not prove in the slightest that someone is from a "posh" or "disadvantaged" background in the army.
Leaving aside the race quotas the RAF weren't actually that out of line with the ethnic minority presence in the army, which is around 10% of all the armed forces, many of whom though are recruited from commonwealth countries not the UK.
Where it is widely out of line is on female recruitment and it seems rather ludicrous to think the armed forces would ever be 40% female, given both the physical requirements for most roles and the relative desirability of the job between the sexes.
JagLover said:
Armed forces recruitment is traditionally a working class occupation and the army also recruits a number of officers from ethnic minorities who are from heavily upper middle class backgrounds in the commonwealth.
So in this case it really isn't the case that white=privileged, which is where crude racial quotas fall down when you start to use arguments such as yours. Race alone does not prove in the slightest that someone is from a "posh" or "disadvantaged" background in the army.
Leaving aside the race quotas the RAF weren't actually that out of line with the ethnic minority presence in the army, which is around 10% of all the armed forces, many of whom though are recruited from commonwealth countries not the UK.
Where it is widely out of line is on female recruitment and it seems rather ludicrous to think the armed forces would ever be 40% female, given both the physical requirements for most roles and the relative desirability of the job between the sexes.
I do agree that crude measures like race and gender are blunt tools, at best, and if enforced as hard-and-fast rules are both inappropriate and counter-productive.So in this case it really isn't the case that white=privileged, which is where crude racial quotas fall down when you start to use arguments such as yours. Race alone does not prove in the slightest that someone is from a "posh" or "disadvantaged" background in the army.
Leaving aside the race quotas the RAF weren't actually that out of line with the ethnic minority presence in the army, which is around 10% of all the armed forces, many of whom though are recruited from commonwealth countries not the UK.
Where it is widely out of line is on female recruitment and it seems rather ludicrous to think the armed forces would ever be 40% female, given both the physical requirements for most roles and the relative desirability of the job between the sexes.
But equally, "I just want the best person for the job" is a naive statement and rarely does it come from somebody who has carefully thought through exactly what it means.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff