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

    You likely won’t agree with me, but I don’t believe it’s morally right to combat the effects of racism with what some these days call “positive discrimination.” It creates a myriad of negative societal effects, from upsetting those who feel they’re being discriminated against (i.e. some White men) and creating the impression (accurate or not) that the person given the position isn’t competent. So, I do think there are negative consequences to doing this and I don’t think they’re worth it, as I don’t think inserting people into top positions actually does all that much to hasten the process of integration. Yes, the appearance of diversity might inspire some, but if they too know the person was shoed-into the spot by a diversity effort, that effect will also be diluted. The reason Barrack Obama’s win in 2008 was so inspiring and great was because it signaled to the rest of the African-American community that enough barriers had been broken down in society that this could happen. It was a sign of progress because Obama won the election the legitimate way. If he had somehow been ushered into the spot in some fashion that made it even just seem like he was given preferential treatment, it wouldn’t have had the same effect.

    • LimitedDuck@septic.win
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nobody is “inserting” or “shoe-horning” anyone anywhere they don’t belong. My argument has always been that systems of power have artificially, non-meritocratically, prevented competent and able people from gaining positions of power or influence because of their membership to a particular group. They’re just not given a fair shot.

      Now depending on how used to the traditional landscape of power some people are, a legitimately fair shot may appear like some sinister replacement theory-like plot, but that’s not justice and you can’t please everyone anyway. There’s only so much identity a group can strategically yield before they’ve lost the issues they originally wanted solved.

      America voted for Obama in part because he was an actual option. When people are made aware there are options for better representation, they’ll take them.

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

        Nobody is “inserting” or “shoe-horning” anyone anywhere they don’t belong. My argument has always been that systems of power have artificially, non-meritocratically, prevented competent and able people from gaining positions of power or influence because of their membership to a particular group. They’re just not given a fair shot.

        I understand the problem, but pressuring employers to meet quotas for diversity goals absolutely does result in employees being selected at least in part based on their demographic characteristics, which is not meritorious either.

        I don’t think we’re going to see eye-to-eye on this. So, thanks for the conversation, but we’re going to have to agree to disagree.