"Affirmative Action" is often the term used in the US for the concept more accurately called "Positive Discrimination" sometimes in the UK. The concept is that intentional, official discrimination now and into the future, is a helpful part of the cure for both official and unofficial discrimination in the past or present"
"Affirmative Action" is often the term used in the US for the concept more accurately called "Positive Discrimination" sometimes in the UK. The concept is that intentional, official discrimination now and into the future, is a helpful part of the cure for both official and unofficial discrimination in the past or present"
Yes, sadly there's a lot of confusion around the terminology. So much so that it's often used incorrectly. Affirmative action, properly speaking, is the name for efforts to make hiring and admission practices colourblind. As you can see in the legislation from which it came, the idea was to hire people "without regard to race, national origin, etc." It was about recognising that racial bias was a thing and simply ending the practice of *excluding* black people wouldn't be enough.
But as I mention, there soon came the question of how to ensure that "affirmative action" was being taken. Do you just take employers' word for it? In such a racist climate, that would be foolish. So quotas and concepts like diversity began to creep in as a way of checking that concrete efforts were being made. Not terrible ideas in and of themselves, but clearly a slippery slope. Positive discrimination is a little different, the UK's racial issues are different from those in the US, but similar in end result.
Eventually, those checks became synonymous with the anti-discrimination. And that's when the metaphorical thumb began to sit heavier and heavier on the scale. Organisations that couldn't get enough black people or women had to find ways of engineering the result. And so, there were lowered entry requirements, treating race as a positive factor, and somewhere along this timeline is where I would place the switch from AA to DEI.
AA and DEI are often used synonymously but they shouldn't be. The presence of the word "equity" in the initialism is the clearest evidence of this.
I didn't suggest that concern about lowering standards was a desire to keep minorities oppressed. Not sure if that was directed at me specifically. But the people talking about "DEI ..." are clearly not just expressing their concern for lowered standards. The accusation of being a DEI mayor, for example, IS prima facie ridiculous, and would never be levelled at an elected official who wasn't black. And, of course, there's the fact that there are many, many people who are incompetent at their jobs or who just make mistakes, many of them white, who are rarely if ever accused of not deserving their position. And never accused of attaining it on the basis of their skin colour by the people railing against DEI. The double standard should be obvious.
Perhaps the fundamental mistake here is the idea that prior to AA or even DEI, hiring/admissions practices were purely merit based. This is incredibly obviously not true. I have no problem with people objecting to unfair race-based hiring practices as regards DEI. I object to them too. But I do definitely look askance at people who think that the only example of unfair hiring practices based on race are found in DEI. Or who are deafeningly silent except on the issue of practices designed to benefit minorities.
So if they find themselves being "excommunicated" for questioning DEI, which, obviously, I object to (both the excommunication and the discriminatory aspects of DEI), it might benefit them to ask themselves whether the reason people call them racist/sexist is that they never, ever, *ever* bring that same vigour and thirst for fairness to practices that benefit white men like themselves. Because the fact remains, even today, that the only reason we need to talk about these practices is that minorities do face obstacles in many areas. And let's not forget, the overwhelming majority of them get no benefit from DEI.
What are some ways we could end "practices that benefit white men"? Definitely end legacy admissions. But what are some other examples and ways around them?
I like the idea of color blind admissions and job applications, but as I said in another comment, the inequality begins in early childhood with an unequal school system and unequal resources at home, and it compounds every year. By the time it comes time to apply for college, the gap is far too wide and color blind admissions would result in underrepresentation of black and latino people.
"Affirmative Action" is often the term used in the US for the concept more accurately called "Positive Discrimination" sometimes in the UK. The concept is that intentional, official discrimination now and into the future, is a helpful part of the cure for both official and unofficial discrimination in the past or present"
Yes, sadly there's a lot of confusion around the terminology. So much so that it's often used incorrectly. Affirmative action, properly speaking, is the name for efforts to make hiring and admission practices colourblind. As you can see in the legislation from which it came, the idea was to hire people "without regard to race, national origin, etc." It was about recognising that racial bias was a thing and simply ending the practice of *excluding* black people wouldn't be enough.
But as I mention, there soon came the question of how to ensure that "affirmative action" was being taken. Do you just take employers' word for it? In such a racist climate, that would be foolish. So quotas and concepts like diversity began to creep in as a way of checking that concrete efforts were being made. Not terrible ideas in and of themselves, but clearly a slippery slope. Positive discrimination is a little different, the UK's racial issues are different from those in the US, but similar in end result.
Eventually, those checks became synonymous with the anti-discrimination. And that's when the metaphorical thumb began to sit heavier and heavier on the scale. Organisations that couldn't get enough black people or women had to find ways of engineering the result. And so, there were lowered entry requirements, treating race as a positive factor, and somewhere along this timeline is where I would place the switch from AA to DEI.
AA and DEI are often used synonymously but they shouldn't be. The presence of the word "equity" in the initialism is the clearest evidence of this.
I didn't suggest that concern about lowering standards was a desire to keep minorities oppressed. Not sure if that was directed at me specifically. But the people talking about "DEI ..." are clearly not just expressing their concern for lowered standards. The accusation of being a DEI mayor, for example, IS prima facie ridiculous, and would never be levelled at an elected official who wasn't black. And, of course, there's the fact that there are many, many people who are incompetent at their jobs or who just make mistakes, many of them white, who are rarely if ever accused of not deserving their position. And never accused of attaining it on the basis of their skin colour by the people railing against DEI. The double standard should be obvious.
Perhaps the fundamental mistake here is the idea that prior to AA or even DEI, hiring/admissions practices were purely merit based. This is incredibly obviously not true. I have no problem with people objecting to unfair race-based hiring practices as regards DEI. I object to them too. But I do definitely look askance at people who think that the only example of unfair hiring practices based on race are found in DEI. Or who are deafeningly silent except on the issue of practices designed to benefit minorities.
So if they find themselves being "excommunicated" for questioning DEI, which, obviously, I object to (both the excommunication and the discriminatory aspects of DEI), it might benefit them to ask themselves whether the reason people call them racist/sexist is that they never, ever, *ever* bring that same vigour and thirst for fairness to practices that benefit white men like themselves. Because the fact remains, even today, that the only reason we need to talk about these practices is that minorities do face obstacles in many areas. And let's not forget, the overwhelming majority of them get no benefit from DEI.
What are some ways we could end "practices that benefit white men"? Definitely end legacy admissions. But what are some other examples and ways around them?
I like the idea of color blind admissions and job applications, but as I said in another comment, the inequality begins in early childhood with an unequal school system and unequal resources at home, and it compounds every year. By the time it comes time to apply for college, the gap is far too wide and color blind admissions would result in underrepresentation of black and latino people.