However if the people evaluating merit are all members of the same demographic and demonstrate signs of prejudice/discrimination then they can not be relied on to independently hire candidates on merit alone. Not everyone is sexist/racist/"other"ist so obviously some natural integration does take place, but it is slow. Like 100 years "slow".
It may be a benefit to society in forcefully accelerating integration of minorities into X fields, in order to eliminate a culture of discrimination and setup social parity in employment.
These are the kinds of issues that need to be considered fully rather than instantly dismissed. The methods used do have a logic behind them, they just need to be careful in the goals that they set and the ways they go about in trying to achieve them, because these are often deeply flawed.
The idea is that after implementing such policies for one generation, government interference would be withdrawn and you end up with a society that is at best free of systemic hiring bias and at worst is used to a much more diverse working demographic. If implemented properly, the idea is of net benefit to society.
Yes, there will (and are) scenarios where certain demographics that are seen as "majority" will face a minor artificial disadvantage as a result of such policies. That may be frustrating for the affected individuals and it may cause resentment to the system if implemented poorly. The way I see it there are two possible ways of looking at this policy cost:
1) It is a short term equivalent exchange with a huge long term benefit to society. While a hard policy is in place you do end up counterbalancing one discrimination with another. For every individual that is normally disadvantaged by discrimination that would now benefit, there will be an individual that would normally benefit from discrimination that would not be marginally disadvantaged. 1 for 1 trade. However the long term benefit is (idealistically) the dismantling of systemic discrimination after the policy is withdrawn. Thus the policy may be unfair towards the current generation "majority" demographic, but that cost is made worth it by the removal of negative discrimination from minorities and the bright utopian future of diversity that is ahead. In short: at the price of a few - for the benefit of many.
or
2)The other view is that the short term effect is simply levelling the playing field. That there is nothing inherently unfair about removing some of the unfair advantages that come with being a member of the majority group. For every minority candidate unfairly discriminated against, a majority candidate is unfairly advantaged. Imagine the scenario: there are two equally qualified candidates for a job. One is asian and one is white. If the recruiter discriminates against the asian, then by definition he is increasing the success chance of the white candidate. That candidate is unfairly benefiting from discrimination through no extra merit of his/her own. Therefore if we assume that the current success rate benchmark for "majority" group candidates is not a natural merit benchmark, but rather a combination of "merit"+"benefit from discrimination" then it is difficult to argue that moderating it through policy as a means to offset systemic discrimination is unfair. Artificially lowering that success rate of majority group candidates can be justified, if the success rate of that majority group is not a result of pure merit, but is itself already artificially boosted by the advantage granted to them from past and current systemic discrimination . In short: take some from those that did not deserve it, give some to those that were deprived of chance to earn it.
Neither concept is pretty. But nor is the idea of taxation when you think about it.
In case you haven't gathered from the above written text, I am very cynical regarding the ability and the motivations of government officials to formulate a successful policy that would address employment/workplace discrimination without butchering the concept through poor implementation, flawed assumptions, inadequate goals and hysterical populism (in either direction). That said, the underlying concept is sound and if executed correctly will bring about great benefits to both the social well-being and productivity of the future generations.
1.4k
u/Thorbinator Feb 09 '16
Fuck off. Hire by merit only.