When I first came across this concept, during my student years, the subject of positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in the British workforce was discussed. It was argued that, because of the raw deal the minorities reportedly receive, they should be compensated by being given job placements even if there is a more suitable white person for the role. This is against the backdrop of statistics showing that (per head) unemployment in the UK is greater among ethnic minorities than it is among whites. The idea is that: Firstly, someone from an ethnic minority can be trained to the necessary standard; secondly, it will go some way towards encouraging a greater level of integration; and thirdly, it will go some way towards compensating for the decreased opportunities the ethnic minorities undoubtedly have (mainly due to negative discrimination). I've greatly shortened the discussion here, but I hope I've given you the gist.

Being a member of this forum has given me the ideal opportunity to discuss certain issues (e.g. the rich & poor division, racism etc.) with people who have been (or still are) on the other side of the fence than the one I was born into. I would therefore like to hear what the 'ites have to say about the subject of "positive discrimination". Does it benefit whatever culture practices it? Is it morally right? What consequences do you think it brings? Etc...

Peace

Hope life's treating you well Slade.

But then don't NOT give it to me BECUZ me Black!

What u did say about that Gigo, a forget the valid point u made. Sorry...

But then there's the other flip side...Where if it wasn't for Affirmative Action half a we wouldn't get chance at nuff things.

I said what u said Herbie, if life was fair and everybody's heart was in the right place we wouldn't need any of this in the first place. But I guess it does serve a purpose.

I guess I am saying what Slade already stated.

same thing, but the last one sounds like an oxymoron to me

I am currently applying for my first teaching posts and on every form there is a 'equal opportunities' form on which to state race/ethnicity. This practice in itself suggests that somewhere along the line my ethnicity is being considered alongside my abilties as a teacher. Is it then a possibility that i may be turned down for a job because my employment would not be providing an equal opportunity for someone else? Interestingly, you are not asked to state your faith/religion. Surely a more important factor, in the case of teaching, as you may be asked to teach in a faith/denominational school.

Is all this another case of political correctness gone mad?!

Andy Flower was quoted in the magazine, Wisden Cricket Monthly, describing the quota system being pursued by the ZCU which seeks to fit at least three non-white players in every team, as being "crazy."

He told the magazine that while he understood the arguments that favoured the quota system, he did not agree with them. He was cited as saying: "I think it's crazy.

"There is definite scope for integration from the B-side downwards but not on the international stage." Flower was said to have described ZCU's plans to have a non-white captain at the 2003 World Cup as "disgusting."

But the ZCU yesterday claimed that Flower told them that he was quoted out of context and they were in agreement with him. A ZCU statement said: "He regrets the inconvenience and reaction that the article has caused and reasserts his commitment to serve the cricket fraternity and his country to the best of his utmost ability.

Last November, another national team batsman and former captain, Alistair Campbell, was slapped with a wholly suspended four-match ban after making similar remarks in an interview with a British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph

When i look around the world, the majority of the people marginalised for their colour or their religion are not White and/or not Christian.

How people are judged in this world is still based heavily on their race.

It has only been about 40 years since the civil rights movement in the USA.

Britain for all its claims of being a multi-cultural nation still has a long way to go. People who live in the British cities are drawn into a false sense of security as to how discriminatory Britain can be.

These two countries along with their European cousins still have not owned up fully to their role in slavery and the 100 years of segregation/colonisation has played on peoples lives.

Whatever name you give to it, the process of redressing the balance is not just about levelling the playing field, it is all about repaying a debt owed to the descendants.

Most of what is being said about asylum seekers in Europe now was said about Blacks and Indians no more than 20 years ago.

Lessons have not been learned.

This is not to demonise white people as the only racists or inherently racist.

That would be silly and racist

But whilst racism exists in all societies, none has been more destructive than that exhibited by the European/American elite on the African in the last 500 years or so.

The bloodshed, sufffering and social reengineering whereby a whole race of people lost their idnetity/culture/language has a massive impact.

As horrible as the Nazi Holocaust was, and I mean to belittle it in no way, the Jews always knew they were Jewish. Their culture remained intact.

They knew their family history, traditions and from whence they came. Relative luxuries, blacks were not allowed.

many of the problems of black people stem from that situation where youths have no identity.

For years blackness was deemed inferior.

Ask most people for famous black people and 90% or more of the time, it will be a famous singer/sportsperson/entertainer or musician.

These were roles that were permitted by the establishment.

The more cerebral occupations are still deemed a bit "out of our reach".

Does anyone believe that the populaces of USA and Britain, say, would elect a Black President or Prime Minister??? And yes that does include Colin Powell

I don't.

It was affirmative action for white people which lead them to believe they could get black slaves to do their hard work for nothing.

During WW2 it was "affirmative action" for whites that made the British government make it illegal for white females to marry Black US Servicemen in Britain, by placing segragative US law over the non-discriminatory law of Britain.

In the USA, from the 1930s to about the 60s, "affirmative action" for whites motivated racially restrictive housing policies whereby 15 million white families procured homes with federal loans while blacks were virtually excluded.

I could go on about nepotism and blatant racism.

Since much of the power/wealth and assets are in the hands of white people, then logic would suggest it will pass forwad to their white descendants.

Much of that wealth was accumulated at a time when blacks could get none. In fact the current generation of baby boomers, I've read, is in the process of inheriting about USS7-10 TRILLION of assets from parents and grandparents.

That is more than:

all the outstanding mortgage debt,
all the credit card debt,
all the savings account assets,
all the money in IRAs and 401k retirement plans,
all the annual profits for U.S. manufacturers,
and the entire US merchandise trade deficit combined.

If life was a 400m race black people have just got out of the blocks whilst white people are turning into the back stretch!!!

The single biggest recipient of "affirmative action" in the 500 years is the white race. Ain't no use arguing about it.

The doors and opportunities open to amamber of that race outstrip those open to a black person by factors open factors.

Nearly all indicators we use to judge people's lives show that blacks are not doing anywhere as well.

How long ago was "seperate but equal" in America?

How long ago was the notion that blacks "needed" to be governed by whites, a guiding philosophy of European Empire?

No more than about 40-50 years ago on both counts.

Hell you even get many people, black and white, say things like "It was better off when the British ran it!"

A very simplistic and racist viewpoint beacuse by British he really means WHITE men!!!

On top of that you get an absurd situation where you met white people who believe that black people are the reason they are held back like we are going to our fancy houses and multi million pound/dollar jobs and laughing.

Amongst all people you will find those who fail and then blame ithers for their failure, black and white

To get much of their civil rights people in the US had to go through lynchings (Willie Lynch rass!!!) and all manner of hell just to get EQUAL treatment.

In Europe, nothing on a racial level has happened unless some black people die or there is a riot.

Much of what has changed in black peoples lives in Britain has come from the Brixton Riots and the death of Stephen Lawrence and other similar cause celebres.

In this world right now it is not WHAT you know but WHO you now.

Those with the power and influence know those with the power and influence.

Power is never ceded only titles change hands!!!

If you removed all the safguards the system has, the society would in some parts slowly go back to what it was not so long ago.

In my short time on this earth I've met lots of people who are nice to you if you are black because if they aren't it would be all hell to pay.

But let them have a couple of drinks or get back to their natural habitat and it's a different matter.

What the basic premise of Employment Equity stated is that if 2 or more are Equaly qualified for the same position, the person who is part of an underrepresented group should be given the position. However, like all things which are ment to create some sort of equality, it was looked upon negatively by the powers that be. Since these powerful people control the media they were able to make it look like reverse discrimination. When it was enacted the media jumped on it printing untruths such as whites would be overlooked even if they are more qualified. Eventually people started to believe it cause anything that is printed in the media must be true (whatever!). Politicians ran their campaigns based on the elimination of Employment Equity and they eventually won and that was the end of Employment Equity.

The moral of the story is not that those who have wealth and power are unwilling to share or give it up. The moral is that no matter what is said and done, those who are in power will do what favors them and theirs because they are human and human nature is to what more for yourself than you want for others.

There are many forms of discrimination but let us focus only on race discrimination for a minute.

This form of discrimination comes about simple because - “One race thinks that it is superior to another race”. So it really doesn’t matter whether a victim benefited from anti- discriminatory’ laws , because as along as that victim is considered inferior he/she is still in the struggle. He has probably gotten himself deeper into the “struggle” when he becomes a recipient.

As Bob Marley say :

“Until the philosophy which hold one race Superior and another inferior
Is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned
Everywhere is war, me say war
That until there are no longer first class
And second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes
Me say war “

People who are asking why is affirmative action necessary and why can’t everybody be judged based on their ability to performed – should answer these questions first.

Why do civil rights leaders have to fight so hard and suffer and die to get the white man to treat the black man as equal?

Why the hearts of some men are so wicked? Is there just a thing as equal opportunity or equal justice across race? Why are we so selfish, greedy and brutish against each other?
Why do we need to enact laws to protect one race from another? Which race is the endangered specie?

Even if you believe that someone has ‘benefited’ from certain ‘anti- discriminatory’ laws, there is still no positive in it because most times the deed was not done willingly. Nine times out of ten the person who benefited from these ‘laws’ is never happy because he/she was never the intended recipient. This person will now get caught up in an enormous emotional battle – something I like to describe as ‘psychological warfare’. – as long as that person continues to be benefit from these ‘anti- discriminatory’ laws.

If you applied for a job and got it ONLY because the employer was forced (by Government Laws) to hire you, would you feel comfortable in that job? I know that I wouldn’t. It doesn’t matter whether I am qualified for the position or not I would still feel uncomfortable.

Is Negative Discrimination the new phrase for Affirmative action

Then like day follows night Positive Discrimination must be the new phrase for Legacy Entitlement

so we have a negative and a postive so we are still left with Discrimination

but how come no one speak on the hiring decisions they have had to make????
u all Do the Right Thing??

quote:

---

so DB u think it is possible Justice Thomas may be uncomfortable in his job???

---

No matter how we try the world is just not level and when people get a chance to step up whether it is affirmative action etc. I have no problem if they make the best use of it. I heard David Gergan(name maybe be spelt wrong) who was adviser to Clinton and Bush(he is White) say if it wasn't for affirmative action he as a rural kid couldn't go to Havard, so it doesn't just help blacks, many people have a little slice of the cake but we don't accept it.
Many curse black for been on Welfare, well we have the highest unemployment rate so they can't have it both ways. Curse us for not wanting to work and at the same time quarrell when one gets an oppurtunity.

Do you have a neigbour or a aunt or uncle who can get you a job?

Are you a part of a group or club that have influence or is highly recognised?

Are you from a school which has a tradition and is well recognised?

Are you from a group of people, that people don't question where you are from and where you grow up and people don't wonder if you came from the best part of town?

I am not and it is only fair that a company look at my resume and give me a fair shot not because of who they think I am. This is what affirmative action is about but if the politians put a spin on it then it is on them to deal with it.
I only want what I heard Martin Luther, Marcus Garvey, etc. asked for, a chance to be a regualar human.

Why harp then on the entry criteria, it is the exit criteria that really matters.

(From Cambridge International Dictionary of English):

(British) Positive discrimination is the practice of giving advantage to those groups in society which are often treated unfairly, usually because of their race or their sex.

I'm leaning towards the idea that positive discrimination has more benefits than drawbacks.

If you were the head of admissions for an engineering college in either the US or W Europe - and you had 100 places on a course available, and 100 black applicants and 1000 white applicants - would you give the majority of placements to the black applicants to help go some way towards providing more blacks with job opportunities?

H

This topic...

And is like all di big guns deh pon dah one yah..

More reason why unuh fi let go Zouse mek him give the Jamaican Perspective.

Cat... I only wish U was gonna be a teacher down here in London so my little bwoy could go to ur school just so I could argue with U.. Girl U need fi learn bout non white people... Fast....

Next time unuh must hide these topics from chez.... coz when him talk, I have no further points to make unless I do my utmost not to be as eloquent as he...nuh tru Bolivar... heh heh...

Wicked topic Herb luva and I like your approach this time... Yu sound more like U talking to black people now rather than at them....

Only that U missd the point...

There is no such thing as positive discrimination... discrimination as we know it is a negative and always will be a negative vibe/trait displayed by all classes and races. Hence your description or meaning of this word/phrase is bogus or invalid.

Your phrase is more something dreamed up by someone displaying thier fears and issues and bcoz most white societies are institutionally racist they lap up that garbage quickly.

Its not reversed discrimination that was the intent but more discrimination amendment but people with fears and issues maybe like cat turn it around....

A bit like the man that made the difference about weapons of mass destruction and weapons of defence and security...

US are going to attack with their weapons of defence a less equipped country Iraq with their weapons of mass destruction. Even me confused after writing it..

quote:

---

Originally posted by jt:

Cat... I only wish U was gonna be a teacher down here in London so my little bwoy could go to ur school just so I could argue with U.. Girl U need fi learn bout non white people... Fast....

---

I'm eager to learn, so teach me. I've e-mailed you.

Cat >^..^<

let me say when I graduated at the top of my college class an member of many organization, i was not one of the first one of my classmate to get a job. It felt bad when people who you help and people you know can't walk in your shoes walking in big job, but I started at the bottom working a low wage for my field, so too did my friend from St.Lucia but I have proven myself on in my job. I have no hate because Jimmy Ciff say "You can get it if you really want, but you must try, try, and try". All I ask for is an oppurtunity and when you are affected by affirmative action we point on the others but if we look why there had to be some laws for affirmative action, hopefully we can empathize.

quote:

---

Originally posted by assasin:
Cat if you teach in the schools in London maybe you will see affirmative action a little different but nothing can stop you, maybe you were turned down as that job wasn't really for you, just maybe you ended up doing better -

---

Sorry Assasin you misunderstand me, the situation i was describing was purely hypothetical. My point being that by attempting to rectify this situation by discriminating against white people for the benefit those previously discriminated against is not a solution it is reversing the problem.

Despite the fact there are loads of teaching jobs in London i've got no intention of moving there. It's far too expensive and too far from Bolton!

i have a feeling sey if u look from cover to cover you wont find an entry for:

the practice of giving advantage to those groups in society which are always treated fairly, usually because of their race or their class

yes DB Clarence appointment did turn out to be more than a quota fulfillment but more like a, no disrispeck, HNIC, Head Negro In Charge
i think AA(affirmative action) was a means to an end, that end being to remove the bias in selection, opportunities and resources

But the powers use AA to make appointments and put people of color who turn around and cut the very lifeline they benefited from

A even heard speculation that Thomas may be comsidered for the Chief Justice position
I wouldnt be surprised

Some people use such appointments to come to the masses and say "look we are promoting diversity, vote for me" and then the masses erupt with joy and proclaim "he is our saveyour"

U have been willie lynched and will continue to be.......again and again

Here is an example of Thomas voting to curtail the privilige of habeas corpus to inmates

What is primary ethnic group of Death Row

And of all the justices CT wants to make sure his own do not have a sliver of chance to appeal.....affirmative Inaction???

Yet it took a Governor Ryan to give DR inmates, A Chance by commuting the death sentences of 156 DR inmates.......when he saw the evidence of the massive numbers of wrongly convicted DR inmates

a tell u

New York Times

Justices Again Rebuff Lower Courts to Give State Inmates Wider Access to Appeals

April 27, 2000

Justices Again Rebuff Lower Courts to Give State Inmates Wider Access to Appeals

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
WASHINGTON, April 26 -- For the third time in a week, a Supreme Court ruling today kept the federal courthouse doors open to appeals by state inmates, with the justices overturning a lower court's decision that, in the majority's view, had closed those doors prematurely.
Interpreting the newly amended law governing habeas corpus petitions, the court ruled 7 to 2 that an inmate could not be barred from raising a constitutional challenge to his conviction simply because a lower federal court had previously dismissed an earlier habeas corpus petition on procedural grounds.

"The writ of habeas corpus plays a vital role in protecting constitutional rights," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote today for the majority.

In setting new preconditions for appealing a federal district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition, Justice Kennedy said, "Congress expressed no intention to allow trial court procedural error to bar vindication of substantial constitutional rights on appeal."

The dissenters were Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

quote:

---

My point being that by attempting to rectify this situation by discriminating against white people for the benefit of those previously discriminated against is not a solution it is reversing the problem.

---