positive discrimination and quotas - right or wrong? And how do you justify it?

I don't think it's necessarily about introducing more discrimination though (and this is probably why the term 'positive discrimination' is so inadequate and problematic).

In the paper I was talking about earlier, McHugh poses two different scenarios: one to do with triage following an accident and another to do with slavery ending. He argues that in the first situation treating everyone equally according to the clear principles of triage is the most equitable thing to do. However, in his end of slavery scenario, there are two choices in allocating jobs and educational opportunity. One is to treat everyone equally according to a single set of rules. The other is to treat people differently depending upon whether they'd been slaves or not, so as to ensure that each group is proportionally represented in all areas. He argues that this latter scenario is more equitable (if not more equal) because it takes into consideration the very simple fact that some people have been systematically denied education and training (and a whole host of other skills that are highly valued in society). This is the more just because it affords opportunity to everyone rather than further entrenching an inequitable system.

So, while quotas and such like may seem clumsy and unfair on an individual level. They are designed to ensure a collective good.

Thanks KRITIQ that makes complete sense to me. I knew a bit about the police (again academic work rather than hands on) and had been pondering on why they might be different and had considered the points you made so good to get another opinion

Going back to the op I'm still not convinced on the quota idea though simply from a behaviour begets behaviour point of view and more discrimination just seems a bad idea.

Ironically positive action is allowed so offering a training programme for women to become managers to address a lack of women managers in your organisation is legal in UK.

I'm very late back to the thread and I realise it's moved on somewhat, but my view on quotas has got nothing to do with revenge and plenty to do with levelling the playing field by whatever means necessary. As the second part of my post makes clear: groups that aren't white and male have been losing out for years even when their qualifications are identical.

The system is unfair and unbalanced to begin with. Quotas and positive discrimination do not introduce unfairness; they level out a playing field that is, and always has been, unfair.

Katie, it might be possible that if the Fire Service recruited for more specific roles rather than a one-size-fits-all job spec as fire fighter women would be more likely to apply. I have to say that, imho, the reason they have trouble recruiting and retaining women and minority ethnic staff is down to institutional discrimination.

Although the Fire Services have progressed considerably in the past couple decades, they are still quite traditional in culture and trying to modernise practice can be like pulling teeth. My hunch is it's because they haven't really had to change much.

The police have been open to criticism due to cases were women (e.g. victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking, etc.) have been treated crappily and where Black and minority ethnic citizens have got a shabby deal. Things like the Lawrence Report have meant that while they haven't completely moved with the times, they have been pushed into some changes, and most forces have put more "welly" into recruiting from minority ethnic communities and amongst women.

The Fire & Rescue Service, on the other hand, haven't been under any such pressure. Everyone loves fire men (and women,) and most folks rather assume that gender or race discrimination isn't an issue when you just want someone to put out a fire / safe you from a fire. But, as mentioned, they do lots, lots more than that and there are situations where having a bigoted "firefighter" can mean a bad/lesser service. Also, because they really haven't been pushed to be more inclusive and accessible in service provision, they haven't really done much along those lines in recruitment and retention, either.

My friend is a firefighter. There are many examples where she was / is the best person on the team to deal with the task on front of them. Small spaces / elderly lady stuck in the bath etc. I'm under the impression that the fire service is actually really badly named! She has to be physically and mentally up to the task. It would be da gerous otherwise !!!! One of the first shouts involved several of them transferring a deceased obese man from the morgue to an undertakers. She was one of the few that didn't vomit.

That sucks so badly. Not just from the POV of female teachers, but the message it sends to the kids.

I don't think it's your imagination at all.

Damsel - yes...I think there's probably a strong element of, 'we could do with a bloke...role model...footie' so whether deliberate policy or not, I wouldn't be suprised if more of them make the first cut. And is it my imagination or do a disproportionate number of the males who do enter primary education seem to end up as head/deputy head masters?

I went for an interview for early years teacher training many years ago and I came away with the impression that they were discriminating in favour of male applicants. The ratio of applications for the course (I learned from published figures) was c. 95% female, 5%, but more than half of the other applicants at my interview session were male. If the gender mix at my interview was representative of the others, then they must have been interviewing every male applicant. I'd imagine they were offering places purely on merit after interview (and I was offered one, so i have no reason to be bitter about it).

I was (and still am) ambivalent about the possibility that they may have been 'positively' discriminating towards men. On one hand, I can see that it would be very valuable to have more men working (in all roles) in the early years. But it still felt very wrong to start discriminating against women, particularly in one of the few careers in which we don't tend to be discriminated against (or at least one that is stereotypically seen as 'women's work', and which is relatively undervalued in society). Also, given that the area doesn't attract many male applicants, it's unlikely that their under-representation in the workforce is due to discrimination.

This, of course, is a very different situation from positive discrimination in favour of women in very male dominated jobs where they are under-represented because of discrimination (both overt and more subtle).

I read an interesting paper by Peter McHugh about affirmative action recently, and the need to distinguish between equality and equity in a just society. I'll come back when I've properly considered what I think about this in relation to this topic.

Ahh right!

I am right in thinking that if a candidate doesn't pass the physical that's it for a firefighter role? Although there are many roles within the fire service for all sorts of people regardless of physical capabilities.

HandDived I think that's what I was trying to say before. Women are capable but the old rules used to rule out capable women.

Women are capable of lifting deadweights and pulling people out of buildings though. We aren't that less strong than men. There seems to be a misnomer that women can't do physical work. Women have been doing hard physical work for centuries. If they can't physically do it then they would use other methods/tools to do it - just as men would.

KRITIQ may I ask you a question please? I should caveat it by saying I think the recruitment process for firefighters on the face of it does a lot to avoid discrimination which is why I am curious, but my information is purely academic and anacdotal so your experience is interesting.

Do you think an inclusive recruitment process (ie one where men and women candidates for firefighter roles are treated exactly the same) has hindered the recruitment and retention of women by making a blanket standard? And that if they were to divide the job up into those who go out on shouts and those who do education/home visits and other non-physical work there would be more women? I can see why from an anti-discrimination point of view it would probably not be encouraged but I just wondered if you thought, on a practical level, it would help?

'The discrimination has already happened in a thousand ways before anybody applies for a job, the only differernce in postive discrimination is that it would be obvious instead of hidden.'
Very much agree. Also, I want my family to be treated by the best doctor regardless of gender, colour, sexuality or ideology and not the one which ticks all the relevant boxes on the HR papers.

Recruitment is not where these wars should be fought strategically.

I am aware that they do more than carry people. I am also aware that they do lots of other things but they still need to pass the physical and male or female makes no difference. As I understand it every place on the crews that go out is essential and all members of the team need to be highly skilled firefighters because there just isn't enough room for somebody who isn't pulling their metaphorical weight and possibly somebody's actual weight if required

I'm not sure the chimney comparison is relevant? We have tools that can clean chimneys as effectively as children could (as I understand it. I have not been up a chimney nor sent a child up one) but I don't think there's any subsitute for a person when it comes to being able to react quickly and maneouver safely in a rescue situation.

I have also met some firefighters who would struggle to pass the current recruitment physical who don't go out on shouts but do the education bit.

The link was partly to illustrate female firefighters exist and partly to illustrate the point, as made in an earlier post, that good recruitment methods can help attract minority candidates by showing them role models. That's why there's two women, one ethnic minority and one white man on that link.

Katie, lifting and carrying is only a small part of what fire fighters do these days. They are more often engaged in fire prevention activities - speaking to groups, inspecting premises and making home fire safety checks in people's homes. Thankfully, fires are fewer and further between these days because the Fire Service places more emphasis on fire prevention.

I used to work extensively with 3 big fire authorities and they were pretty poor at attracting and retaining women, as well as minority ethnic firefighters. Lots of issues as to why, but we are talking no more than about 5% of firefighters being female anyhow. With respect of alot of their fire prevention activities, we found that there were many families who preferred to have women firefighters coming into their homes over male ones - particularly lone elderly people and sometimes young mothers with children.

Sorry - I should qualify as I sound a bit arrogant - DH is a firefighter. We have had many many interminable discussions on this in the past!

IrmaLittleteapot is right with regards firefighters. If anything discrimination has been removed. They do have recruitment drives for women and ethnic minorities but that is at the "encouragement to apply" level rather than the picking level.

Katie - there are plenty of other jobs for firefighters to do other than carry people out of burning buildings. The drivers of the engines for example very rarely enter a fire as they are co-ordinating outside. And I disagree it is a major part of their job. The number of fires that occur now has been drastically reduced. Firefighters are much more often to be found at the scenes of car crashes, machinery accidents, lift problems etc. And believe me there are a few men who can't bash down doors either, for example - especially the younger ones.

And skrumle ios correct - if all firefighters were women then they would use other tools such as chairs to carry out people from burning buildings - a common way of doing it anyway. It is hard work for a man to carry a deadweight all by themselves and there are often occassions where the person being rescued is bigger than the rescuer!

"Forgive me but firefighters have to be able to lift people and carry them distances."

because that's the way the system has been set up - what i'm suggesting is that it may not be the best way of ensuring everyone's safety... we used to send children up chimneys too

i have no alternative solution to put forward, i don't think the fire fighting system as it currently works is particularly flawed but i think the idea that women can only do a job currently done by men if they do it as well in exactly the same way is flawed.

and i'm not sure what the point of your link was? i'm aware that female fire fighters exist - i'm just not convinced that there are so many of them we need to fret over the issue! am LOVING the first woman's name though - i wanted to call my imaginary son storm or lightning when i was a teenager!

Forgive me but firefighters have to be able to lift people and carry them distances. That's a major part of the job so it's right to have a process that ensures they can do that.

They are also highly trained and continuously monitored. I dare say banks (where most of my experience is) attract plenty of thieves but we try to screen those out during the recruitment process and have other mechanisms in place to deal with those who slip through.

Some female firefighters here

i think the firefighter example (which always seems to get brought up on threads like this - interestingly i've never actually met/seen a female firefighter so clearly they're hardly taking over the world) is a bit of a red herring as well because you are working on the basis that the best possible way of saving someone from a fire is in a big-strong-man kind of way. if fire fighting had always been done by women presumably we would have worked out a different way of doing it?

i'm pretty sure i've read a few different places (but can't be arsed to google) that one of the main recruitment issues for fire fighting is trying to avoid men with a hero complex, who want to drag everyone to safety all on their own which works sometimes but other times results in someone else having to rescue them - diverting resources from the people who needed them in the first place...

The target should be to ensure that the best candidate gets the job, not that employment be based upon sexist or racist criteria

yes, absolutely. Two wrongs don't make a right, positive discrimination does not balance negative discrimination. No discrimination is the only target really worth aiming at.

To this end, employers should perhaps be called to account if there does appear to be bias in their hiring - but if it can be justified, so be it.

They are called firefighters and recruitment practices have already been adjusted to remove any discrimination. For example minimum height requirements which can indirectly discriminate against women and some ethnic groups have been removed and replaced with task based requirements like being able to carry a weight of Xkg over a distance of Xm and climb a ladder measuring X length in X seconds.

Quotas at initial recruitment would mean of applicants meeting the required standard would be selected for interview/the job based on their gender. An unqualified/inadequate applicant would not get through.

I still don't like it and would prefer blind recruitment practices but just wanted to point out the "quotas lead to incompetent recruits" argument is baseless.