Printable View
Is positive discrimination in jobs, a good idea or bad idea.
Does it actually help minorities to fill out quotas or is it still discrimination against those who could fill the place who are not part of the required type.
Are there any jobs where positive discrimination should be encouraged or should all jobs be based on merit?
I'm in favor of positive discrimination where educational opportunities are concerned; if we really want things to change from this generation to the next, that's the place to attack it. A university education can change not only a person's own prospects for life, but the expectations for their children.
On the job, I'm more wary of it, especially where people who serve the public safety are concerned. I would like my firefighter, or the person monitoring the safety whatevers at my local power plant, to be the best qualified person for that job regardless of demographics. If that means my whole fire department is lily-white male rednecks, so be it.
I'm less certain I agree with OCS about the merits of positive discrimination at all levels of education. In particular there are training tracks that I want to believe require a certain minimum competence. Medicine is the big example I can think of, now. Within that competence, however, once proven, I'm less concerned about having the best possible candidate, than simply making sure that the position is filled by a competent candidate.
However, this is also a bit of sliding scale: At the high school level, I'm not about to fight positive discrimination; at the 2 year and 4 year college level, I'd want certain programs to be able use a probationary admittance - allowing people in who may not have the full background, yet, but who also are getting remedial help to bring them up the standards that would be the norm for the degree program; at the graduate level for something like MD, or pharmacy, if you can't prove the minimum aptitude and training, I'm not going to advocate waving those away.
Which also is my opinion towards positive discrimination in field like law-enforcement, or firefighting. Firefighting in particular is a rigorous physical workout, and ISTM that reducing the minimum standards for that part of the job qualifications based on sex is not going to do anyone a service in the long run. However, once a candidate has proven the competence for both physical aptitude and knowledge required for a position, I'm not all that worried about making sure every candidate is the absolute best possible.
Or to link back to the real world, I've always been more than a little skeptical of the decision in the case brought against the Hartford, CT firefighting department because their tests were deemed discriminatory. I don't know that the tests were fair, but I'm also not convinced that they were unfair, and would really like to see an in depth discussion of how they were biased.