A&H

Diversity

The Referee Store
haywain said:
I reckon that applies to about 50% of the replies on refchat, Dan
Click to expand...
The rest of the replies don't involve race or religion though Haywain! Also, they don't involve attempting to put another member down by having a go about being unsuccessful in a job application...but that's by the by. Situation over. Back on topic, all of us :)
 
McTavish - one of the best posts I think I've ever read on refchat - thumbs up emoticon
 
Positive discrimination is a disaster. Not needed and is nonsense. People are built differently, why force a % to satisfy a nonsense statistic?

All this lark is getting horrendous.

In a truly equal society, NO job application or similar would even ask the question of ethnicity!
 
This one, Dan

McTavish said:
Under-representation is not something you can believe in or not believe in - it is just a fact. If 10% of the population have a name beginning with J and only 1% of top referees have names that begin with J then the Js are under-represented. The important thing is if you think that the under-representation is important and if anything can or should be done about it.

To me it seems strange that there are not more high-level, black and other ethnic minority referees in this country. Is this a problem and if it is what can be done about it? With a general shortage of referees and with concerns (rightly or wrongly) about the standard of top referees in the country then it would make sense to have the widest possible pool of talent available from which to pick the top referees. If there is an under-representation from a significant part of society, this means that it is possible that some potentially exceptional referees are not reaching their correct level. So yes - there probably is a problem

The answers to this sort of thing are seldom simple or straightforward. Are black referees are under-represented on basic courses - if so why? Is it justified fear of racism; is it unjustified fear of racism; is it something else? Or are a representative number of black referees taking the basic course but dropping out later or not dropping out but simply failing to progress. If so why?

It is all very well to say,
but when there are obstacles for one group that don't exist for another, if you ignore those obstacles you will not end up with the best refs.

It is not about moving someone up the ladder faster because of the colour of their skin, their gender or their sexuality - it is about addressing specific problems that one group may have that another doesn't and trying to produce the equality of opportunity that will really allow the best talent to progress.
Click to expand...
 
HertsFinest said:
Positive discrimination is a disaster. Not needed and is nonsense. People are built differently, why force a % to satisfy a nonsense statistic?

All this lark is getting horrendous.

In a truly equal society, NO job application or similar would even ask the question of ethnicity!
Click to expand...
Positive discrimination is necessary to counteract negative discrimination, because we don't have a truly equal society.
When white, male, older, heterosexual, Christian-raised, neurotypical people from certain areas of the country and with higher education are not considered normative and anything else considered alternative, then we will not need to concern ourselves with ensuring that people are fairly provided with the opportunities available to others.
Your perspective is (near-)fully normative as per the above. So of course positive discrimination isn't necessary for you. But a transsexual woman with bipolar, or a young Muslim man, or a gay black person, faces a hell of a lot more difficulty purely for being who they are than you'd be aware of - because you don't have to face that difficulty, and it's almost invisible to you as a result. If it seems nonsensical to you that positive discrimination exists, imagine how any and all other people feel about the fact that negative discrimination exists, in general and particularly towards them.
Unless of course by "disaster" you mean "leading to notable increase in representation of traditional minority groups", in which case there are several words I'd like to use. But then that would be derided as "too PC" as per most complaints regarding such things as respecting the human rights of all people.
 
Just because negative discrimination exists and some minorities suffer as a result of it doesn't mean we should become a nation where by we over emphasis people's religion etc in some wired attempt to over compensate. That doesn't solve the root cause of the problem, just makes people appear to be doing something about it. It has been brought on by a leftist attitude that if two people were considered for a job and the Muslim person was rejected it must be because of their religion rather than the fact that they weren't the better option for the job.

The answer always is and always will be simple, do not discriminate between people. If you don't do it then there is no reason for anyone to consider positive discrimination. They both have the word in it and both are equally as bad, they are discrimination.

Rather close this thread can it not be moved to a general discussion forum?
 
matty639 said:
Just because negative discrimination exists and some minorities suffer as a result of it doesn't mean we should become a nation where by we over emphasis people's religion etc in some wired attempt to over compensate. That doesn't solve the root cause of the problem, just makes people appear to be doing something about it. It has been brought on by a leftist attitude that if two people were considered for a job and the Muslim person was rejected it must be because of their religion rather than the fact that they weren't the better option for the job.

The answer always is and always will be simple, do not discriminate between people. If you don't do it then there is no reason for anyone to consider positive discrimination. They both have the word in it and both are equally as bad, they are discrimination.

Rather close this thread can it not be moved to a general discussion forum?
Click to expand...
Actually it was a Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Black, White, Asian, European, Irish or any other under represented minority that wasn't getting the job. Positive discrimination is a rushed attempt at re-dressing the imbalance of the previous 600 years. I personally don't agree with it as I believe the best candidate should always be recruited. The problem is that process will take a generation or three and I don't think today's society is very patient regarding change. It wants everything now. This creates a sense of imbalance and injustice in the people in whose favour the scales have been tipped by discrimination for the last 600 years.
 
Spot on @Brian Hamilton.

Surely this 'positive discrimination' business always needs a negative to counter balance it.....

If I went for a job where I got to the last two where it was between me and another chap who happened to be a black Muslim, the job was given to him due to these 'diversity' rules, surely I have been discriminated against??

My colour, religion, background has been taken into account and used as a reason not to give me the job, just because I happen to be in the majority??

That's prejudice in action.

Surely in this country, as a white, Christian, heterosexual male (ie the majority) that should not count against me.

This 'evening up' of past injustices will not change the past.

If we expect to move forward in a multicultural society where EVERYBODY if accepted then nobody should be isolated. That includes the majority.

There is no place for any prejudice, be it positive or negative, and for no reason whatsoever - colour, religion, sexuality, race, background, parentage, sex, age or otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top