It appears that they are failing to do this by playing fairly (possibly for the reason you have suggested), so effectively want to cheat by weighting the selection process.
FWIW the Metropolitan Black Police Association think that the Met is still institutionally racist:
looking forward to peoples day round the corner like a hole in the head, the smell of weed and pricks with there ass hanging out being searched for knifes as they go in and the helicopters above, not really like Danson parks version
looking forward to peoples day round the corner like a hole in the head, the smell of weed and pricks with there ass hanging out being searched for knifes as they go in and the helicopters above, not really like Danson parks version
Not an aggresive question, more for my understanding, but how does this relate to the thread topic?
so "positive" disrimination is Ok as long as its aginst white people ?
" sorry Mr/Miss Smith you cant apply to be in the Met your the wrong ethnicity -- but no need to get the lawyers involved its all POSITIVE discrimation"
'Metropolitan Black Police Association'...surely descrimination in itself.
I don't think you quite understand what discrimination is.
Is having a Black Police association (or Black Lawyers Association) not treating people differently on the basis of their skin colour/race then?
Nope. Do you actually believe having a body which represents the interests of a demographic which has historically been discriminated against by their employer is discrimination ?
so "positive" disrimination is Ok as long as its aginst white people ?
" sorry Mr/Miss Smith you cant apply to be in the Met your the wrong ethnicity -- but no need to get the lawyers involved its all POSITIVE discrimation"
What a ridiculous and inflammatory interpretation.
Literally no one is being barred from joining the Met.
I am legitimately looking forward to it. Neville Staples played at the (free) festival last time (2011) and you could bring in your own cans. Last time I went to Danson Park they had a tent dedicated to a will writing service. The security is similar to an airport though.
When speaking of positive discrimination in a different context for example following Lord Neuberger proposals to improve representation of supreme court, where currently only 1 women is part of it. In this context I can see the benefits especially in a political context, but do acknowledge the point that a lesser candidate may get the job at expense of a stronger candidate.
'Metropolitan Black Police Association'...surely descrimination in itself.
I don't think you quite understand what discrimination is.
Is having a Black Police association (or Black Lawyers Association) not treating people differently on the basis of their skin colour/race then?
Nope. Do you actually believe having a body which represents the interests of a demographic which has historically been discriminated against by their employer is discrimination ?
"Nope"?...surely there should only be one association? A 'police association' or 'lawyers association'..not white, brown, black or any other colour. If there is a problem within then that needs to get resolved without causing further segregation.
Just so people are clear, positive discrimination does not mean that lesser candidates are employed because they are from a minority.
People apply and if two candidates are both equally qualified for a job, the person that is from a minority picks up the job.
If the person from a majority race is better, he(or she) picks up the job anyway.
Thanks for clarifying this. I'd been assuming that if, say, the pass mark is 6/10, majority race candidate gets 8/10 and minority group candidate gets 7/10 then, under positive discrimination, the 7/10 candidate may be offered the job in preference to the 8/10.
If the 8/10 will always get the job then what is it that positive discrimination does that changes the current methods of recruitment?
Just so people are clear, positive discrimination does not mean that lesser candidates are employed because they are from a minority.
People apply and if two candidates are both equally qualified for a job, the person that is from a minority picks up the job.
If the person from a majority race is better, he(or she) picks up the job anyway.
That is how it is intended to work but with a percentage quota set, some organisations are actively seeking to employ minorities. They do this by selective advertising. Is the company wrong for doing this? Depends on your viewpoint, will say that legislation is backward though. Punitive regulations that punish outdated thinking is how I think discrimination should be handled.
Just so people are clear, positive discrimination does not mean that lesser candidates are employed because they are from a minority.
People apply and if two candidates are both equally qualified for a job, the person that is from a minority picks up the job.
If the person from a majority race is better, he(or she) picks up the job anyway.
Without the process being more open that sounds naively optimistic. I'm sure if there is a large disparity between two candidates then the better candidate will always get the job. But when the candidates are closer, and with targets to be hit, I'm sure it becomes an unequal contest.
Also, a lot of the recruitment process is largely discretionary and subjective. Two candidates with similar qualifications will be judged on references and personal statements. Plus the police have essay questions as part of the recruitment process, these are all open to interpretation by the recruiters. There's no guarantee at the moment that given two similar candidates that the best will get selected. Add in the political pressures and it seems highly unlikely that candidates will be facing a level playing field.
Also, if there are targets, and if we accept the police are institutionally racists (something impossible to prove, so easy to throw around as an accusation), then you may see very well qualified applicants from ethnic backgrounds brushed to one side because this months/quarters/years targets have all ready been met.
It doesn't give the quick results wanted for political reasons, but the only correct path is to encourage more ethnic applicants, and to judge every application fairly on it's merits. Anything else will do a disservice to someone.
Just so people are clear, positive discrimination does not mean that lesser candidates are employed because they are from a minority.
People apply and if two candidates are both equally qualified for a job, the person that is from a minority picks up the job.
If the person from a majority race is better, he(or she) picks up the job anyway.
But that's not what's being proposed in this case. The proposal is that the Met won't be able to employ a White British officer unless they can also employ a BME officer at the same time. This could have a whole host of unintended consequences.
Just so people are clear, positive discrimination does not mean that lesser candidates are employed because they are from a minority.
People apply and if two candidates are both equally qualified for a job, the person that is from a minority picks up the job.
If the person from a majority race is better, he(or she) picks up the job anyway.
Thanks for clarifying this. I'd been assuming that if, say, the pass mark is 6/10, majority race candidate gets 8/10 and minority group candidate gets 7/10 then, under positive discrimination, the 7/10 candidate may be offered the job in preference to the 8/10.
If the 8/10 will always get the job then what is it that positive discrimination does that changes the current methods of recruitment?
Basically just makes sure a candidate is picked on merit and not the fact that they 'seem more trustworthy' or another poor reason to pick a white candidate over a minority.
Ethnic minorities are clearly underpresented in the Met given that London is a multicultural and multiethnic city. Now why is that?
Perhaps there is discrimination at the selection process?
Exactly what I said in my earlier post - the Met needs to be asking itself these questions (and understand the answers) before it calls for a change in the law.
If there is still "institutonal racism" in the Met perhaps some positive discrimination can go some way to unwinding the generations of racism?
Perhaps, but I think the risks of doing it the 'wrong' way outweigh the benefits.
I still think the Met is coming at this from the wrong angle. If they can work out the answers to the above questions, then applications from ethnic minorities may increase, without the need for positive discrimination.
Just so people are clear, positive discrimination does not mean that lesser candidates are employed because they are from a minority.
People apply and if two candidates are both equally qualified for a job, the person that is from a minority picks up the job.
If the person from a majority race is better, he(or she) picks up the job anyway.
But that's not what's being proposed in this case. The proposal is that the Met won't be able to employ a White British officer unless they can also employ a BME officer at the same time. This could have a whole host of unintended consequences.
I agree that percentage quotas and stuff like that isn't really 'positive discrimination' in its true form (and think it's a bit much). Without opening up completely the employment process of every company it's difficult for governments to really do anything except for quotas and stuff like that.
Ethnic minorities are clearly underpresented in the Met given that London is a multicultural and multiethnic city. Now why is that?
Perhaps there is discrimination at the selection process?
Exactly what I said in my earlier post - the Met needs to be asking itself these questions (and understand the answers) before it calls for a change in the law.
If there is still "institutonal racism" in the Met perhaps some positive discrimination can go some way to unwinding the generations of racism?
Perhaps, but I think the risks of doing it the 'wrong' way outweigh the benefits.
I still think the Met is coming at this from the wrong angle. If they can work out the answers to the above questions, then applications from ethnic minorities may increase, without the need for positive discrimination.
Yes but that will take time - 'forcing' the mix through positive discrimination will surely help realise these answers quicker
Comments
FWIW the Metropolitan Black Police Association think that the Met is still institutionally racist:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/21/metropolitan-police-institutionally-racist-black
This retiring police officer claims that the Met don't understand the need for more black and Asian recruits:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21317806
Ethnic minorities are clearly underpresented in the Met given that London is a multicultural and multiethnic city. Now why is that?
Perhaps there is discrimination at the selection process?
If there is still "institutonal racism" in the Met perhaps some positive discrimination can go some way to unwinding the generations of racism?
" sorry Mr/Miss Smith you cant apply to be in the Met your the wrong ethnicity -- but no need to get the lawyers involved its all POSITIVE discrimation"
Literally no one is being barred from joining the Met.
Back to the topic, all discrimination is wrong.
People apply and if two candidates are both equally qualified for a job, the person that is from a minority picks up the job.
If the person from a majority race is better, he(or she) picks up the job anyway.
If the 8/10 will always get the job then what is it that positive discrimination does that changes the current methods of recruitment?
Without the process being more open that sounds naively optimistic. I'm sure if there is a large disparity between two candidates then the better candidate will always get the job. But when the candidates are closer, and with targets to be hit, I'm sure it becomes an unequal contest.
Also, a lot of the recruitment process is largely discretionary and subjective. Two candidates with similar qualifications will be judged on references and personal statements. Plus the police have essay questions as part of the recruitment process, these are all open to interpretation by the recruiters. There's no guarantee at the moment that given two similar candidates that the best will get selected. Add in the political pressures and it seems highly unlikely that candidates will be facing a level playing field.
Also, if there are targets, and if we accept the police are institutionally racists (something impossible to prove, so easy to throw around as an accusation), then you may see very well qualified applicants from ethnic backgrounds brushed to one side because this months/quarters/years targets have all ready been met.
It doesn't give the quick results wanted for political reasons, but the only correct path is to encourage more ethnic applicants, and to judge every application fairly on it's merits. Anything else will do a disservice to someone.
I still think the Met is coming at this from the wrong angle. If they can work out the answers to the above questions, then applications from ethnic minorities may increase, without the need for positive discrimination.
Without opening up completely the employment process of every company it's difficult for governments to really do anything except for quotas and stuff like that.