tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448735657556520092.post3677996581688030727..comments2023-05-12T12:07:51.601+01:00Comments on Dom Raab's Blog: Positive DiscriminationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448735657556520092.post-87665612223571728512011-06-28T02:28:52.127+01:002011-06-28T02:28:52.127+01:00So true. Manufacturing outcomes is a pernicious en...So true. Manufacturing outcomes is a pernicious endeavour. To bring in more of one group because they are under-represented is to assume that all groups are equal. And I'm sorry to say that that is clearly not true. Not every group skews equally across all fields of endeavour - be it arts, sciences, mathematics, business. Equal opportunities are key to ensuring we, as a country, remain competitive. But precluding or including people based on gender, religion or race can only undermine this. It can only result in people being short-changed due to factors that have nothing to do with their innate skill. It's the comfortable face of discrimination. The frustrating thing is this form of 'PC science' seems to be seeping into all parts of society. It seems people prefer to believe the palatable lies (we are all different, but somehow also all equal), rather than face the ugly truths and consider how we create a society that works best given these truths.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448735657556520092.post-18817829336024398022011-06-27T08:56:45.351+01:002011-06-27T08:56:45.351+01:00Not totally relevant to the thread, but of interes...Not totally relevant to the thread, but of interest too me, is the way in which the meaning of words changes through use. 'Discrimination' and 'discriminating' used to be positive not pejorative words - as in 'a person of discrimination' or 'a discriminating connoisseur.' I do find it unsettling when the language is insidiously inflected by politics so that 'the ability to perceive distinctions' becomes code for 'the selective application of advantage/disadvantage'.Keith Evettsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448735657556520092.post-11825083833746777522011-06-26T08:45:40.438+01:002011-06-26T08:45:40.438+01:00That sounds like a recipe for a bunch of very subj...That sounds like a recipe for a bunch of very subjective non-meritocratic factors to be taken into account, and a burden on employers. In my view, if we are worried about disadvantage, we should focus on improving state schooling and family breakdown, rather than corrective social engineering.Dom Raabnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448735657556520092.post-28192444590946772722011-06-26T08:34:32.071+01:002011-06-26T08:34:32.071+01:00The critical issue is assessing 'merit' - ...The critical issue is assessing 'merit' - whether this should be achievement itself or whether it should take into account the context in which the achievement is made. If it is the achievement itself, then we have the problem that for the well advantaged, the achievement is easier. This is where the well-intentioned 'positive discrimination' stems from. I think that it is when 'positive discrimination' becomes codified and institutionalised that its obnoxious aspects arise. As we will never be able to ensure that all have equal advantages, it would be better to concentrate on assessment of merit in its fullest context and - perhaps - require employers to take context into account?Keith Evettsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448735657556520092.post-16071355508271412012011-06-25T12:56:49.170+01:002011-06-25T12:56:49.170+01:00It depends what we are talking about. You can'...It depends what we are talking about. You can't blame parents for trying to set their children up with work experience. That said, I think any recruitment decision should be on merit. I run a work placement/ volunteer scheme in my office, and would only ever offer the position based on merit.Dom Raabnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3448735657556520092.post-79813265238921894322011-06-25T12:43:50.795+01:002011-06-25T12:43:50.795+01:00Good speech. I largely support. How about the kin...Good speech. I largely support. How about the kind of discrimination where bigwigs in companies or the professions give a hand to their relatives or the offspring of their friends, or on the hallowed system of mutual back-scratching? Clegg says he opposes (but seems to have profited from it); Cameron says he's in favour. Where do you stand o9n that, Dom?Keith Evettsnoreply@blogger.com