• ???@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Exactly, can’t solve discrimination with more discrimination.

    • grozzle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Questionable. In Northern Ireland, the police used to be something like 7% Catholic, policing a population that was over 40% Catholic. It was controversial at the time, but a 50:50 recruitment policy was put in place in the mid to late 90s, until the balance of the police force matched the wider community.

      This is now very broadly accepted as a necessary and beneficial move. The current police force is generally seen as impartial (in terms of this one issue) while the old one was generally not trusted by the minority, to put it mildly.

      • ???@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s a good example, maybe I need to look more into this. I saw this story at some point last year and just flipped, especially having been a teacher myself at some point. I couldn’t stomach it… it felt like it would breed segregation rather than diversity and rob children of their teachers. It felt weird to me that a teacher and student would need to be of the same color to understand each other. Isn’t it enough that a teacher is part of the community and the area?

        Anyway, that being said, it’s rash for me to draw conclusions on this, but it felt like a lot of what happened in the US with these policies caused harm more than good.

      • Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it’s important to look at the broader scope of affirmative action policies on a case by case basis. One the one hand sometimes it’s just random chance. In theory any given workplace should represent the local demographics, but if you get too granular(workplace, department, specific job title, etc.) then it can become impossible to represent everybody, or just one or two employees can skew the whole demographic.

        Where they are a good idea is when you have a group that’s been marginalized over generations that often leads to standards with inherent bias. We could say that college admissions based solely on grades are fair, but that assumes that the process of achieving those grades was fair. In reality, you get situations where people of generational wealth have better access to educational resources, and people from communities that aren’t marginalized find it easier to get higher paying jobs which lets them live in higher income areas with more well funded schools.

        That said, there are some inherent biases that are more difficult to overcome. Women are generally less physically capable than men, native English speakers will always have an advantage in some fields over people who have English as a second language. There’s a fine line between unreasonably lowering standards to support minority groups, and taking steps to overcome unfair biases present in those standards.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a bit more nuanced than that. Affirmative action was never meant to “solve discrimination”, it was meant as a step towards correcting systematic bias. Even if discrimination disappeared today, the socioeconomic situation certain minority groups face makes it impossible for them as a collective to get out of the hole they’re in without additional opportunity.

      Problem with affirmative action is that it treats people’s livelihoods as data points in a metric. These groups should get more opportunities, but in this case they’re directly taking opportunities away from others and, like you said, that’s discrimination. Can selective racial discrimination solve for systematic bias? Maybe. Should it? Probably not.

      • ???@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Problem with affirmative action is that it treats people’s livelihoods as data points in a metric. These groups should get more opportunities, but in this case they’re directly taking opportunities away from others and, like you said, that’s discrimination.

        Agreed, seems like the intentions were good but the desired effects were not realised.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t correct discrimination with discrimination since that just maintains the whole foundation of categorising people and seeing them as inherently different from others, purelly because they were worn born with differences in a handful of genes with highly visible expression and which are totally irrelevant for who they are as persons.

        In this I always go back to what I learned when it came to the treatment of homosexuals in The Netherlands: when people treat something as normal there is no descrimination - when homosexuality is “just another sexuality”, homophobia is as senseless as discriminating against people for having blue eyes or thicker eyebrows.