The Equality Act has transformed Britain’s understanding of equality from individual rights to group identity

[IwantToRetire]

This segmentation of the citizenry has come about not as a result of popular pressure or grass roots campaigning, but under the influence of the Equal Rights Trust — a clique of academics and international human rights lawyers seeking to supplant formal equality with their idea of “transformative equality”.

By such means, the 60-year-old tradition of anti-discrimination legislation in Britain has been transformed into a legal minefield which undermines the basis for informal social bonds as people come to face each other with suspicion rather than trust.

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-injustice-of-the-equality-act/

Came across this by chance, not sure I even understand it, but thought as the EA comes up on many FWR threads, some might find this interesting.

I think as with most things in the UK, what starts as being something with good intentions and worthwhile objectives get caught up in the standard "couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery", to the tendency to manipulate to score points and make your way up the greasy pole.

But the problem as the moment is that everything is weaponised. Often by the media, who are usually the least educated about work place practices etc., and what started out as a "good thing" becomes something that is divisive.

I wonder if other countries other countries have also fallen foul in terms of how they implement something created to do good.

Could someone who knows, and has the time, expand on the difference between equality and equity.

Or is this again more about how something is put into practice.

Well, the men affected by the RAF quotas for a start. If you do a search you will find people using the Equality Act to sue for discrimination.

A quota is someone/HR saying "we need to hire/promote X number of this group" and then presumably hiring people from that group even if they are less qualified than people that don't bump up the quota. Any HR who announced they were going to hire according to quotas would be mad to do so because it's illegal. It's illegal because of the EA. Of course, it's not always possible to prove if a company is secretly hiring according to quota, anymore than it's not always possible to prove if a company is secretly not hiring black people. Both types of discrimination are hard to prove if they aren't being written down, in those cases there would need to be a secret understanding between all hirers that they were going to use racist hiring practices. But just as the Equality Act doesn't tell people they shouldn't hire black people because black people are lazy, it also doesn't tell people they should create quotas to ensure racial justice. It's a complete hallucination to say it does either of those things.

Some people steal. The laws we have in this country do not order people to commit theft. The fact that theft exists is not a reason to get rid of property law because it tells people to commit theft.

But, that italicised quote is talking about the paper that the quote itself is (part of) an introduction to.
Eg "In this essay I will show that a major cause of the English civil war was the English taste for Unicorn meat".... "In conclusion, in this essay I have shown that Unicorn meat and the sacred position of Unicorns in Scotland specifically caused major confrontations...." And in a later article "In Persephone's paper she emphasises clearly how important Unicorn meat was to conflict in the early modern period. Clearly this proves beyond doubt my assertion that Unicorn meat was an important source of protein"
Neither the intro quote or the conclusion in themselves provide any proof of the assertion. They aren't meant to. Likewise a quote saying that the paper demonstrates something does not actually demonstrate anything in itself. If you can find anything in the full report that actually explains why the Equality Act specifically is encouraging the use of quotas please share. The closest I can find is an asset ion that people are applying American academic ideas to UK law. But that's specifically not about the law itself. Alternatively If anyone can find anything in this document that tells employers to enact quotas, or positive discrimination or indeed the word Equity then please let me know. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/5
Unlike the article/academic paper it's designed to be clear and easy to understand (although it's long) so I don't think it's "above anyone's pay grade" (quoting PP not patronising) to read and understand.

Sorry I reread, and I think my last post did come across as patronising. It wasn't meant to.
But the article itself is written in a confusing, quite circular way. And the actual report uses a mixture of waffle, long words, and observations about the problems with equity which may/may not be accurate but aren't relevant to the EA itself. Its not quite as sophisticated as Judith Butlers writing. But it's very much the same technique being used albeit for a different purpose.
Whereas anyone can look at the EA and see what it does/doesn't say. Where parts are open to interpretation there are legal judgements etc. It isn't like a piece of English literature which is open to multiple interpretations according only to the imagination of the reader.

It would be like me saying the written rules of Association Football say Argentina should always be helped to win by the referees and (without referencing where the rules say that) going onto a long-winded verbose spiel about how it isn't right that Argentina always be allowed to win. The fact is the rules don't say they should. If a referee is biased towards Argentina then that's bad, but it's not a reason to get rid of the rules of Association Football.

Here's a link to an article that could explain it, at least through a conservative lens.

How the diversity industry jettisoned ‘equality of opportunity’ for ‘equality of outcome’

I don't know how to acjive it I'm afraid.

The report is 50 pages long, so I haven't read it carefully because I don't have the intellectual background to care enough do so.

"Group inequality replaces individual equality
In theory, protected characteristics are neutral. However, in practice, the Act’s wider architecture—principally section 1’s instruction to “reduce… inequalities of outcome” rather than ensure equality of opportunity —means that protected characteristics function as an ideological mechanism, dispensing with the notion of individual equality and replacing it with the notion of group inequality, with the Act making it the business of the state to both mitigate against and “correct for” this supposed inequality. This has had numerous deleterious effects, most notably in the realm of employment."

Tokenism is the same a quota's, DEI hires are about ticking boxes not about giving everyone the same (equal) opportunity.

"Token hiring: The EA 2010’s shift away from objective anti-discrimination towards a subjective approach, in which all decision-making is potentially or arguably discriminatory, has the effect of increasing ‘defensive’ or ‘tokenistic’ hiring and recruitment practices (in which employers focus on achieving demographic inclusion of underrepresented groups within the work force rather than hiring or promoting for merit, potential or skills). This discriminatory logic was clearly exposed in the case of the three Thames Valley Police officers who won their claim of race discrimination when they were bypassed for promotion because of their white ethnicity in favour of a less experienced and less qualified non-white employee."

I'm not familiar with the Thames Valley case mentioned in your last paragraph. Did it take place before or after the 2010 Equality Act? Because if it was after, it would seem to suggest that a misinterpretation of the law ( or a deliberate flouting of it) was rectified by correct application of the law, i.e. the Equality Act, when properly applied in court, works fine, and what's needed is a proper legally based (rather than ideologically skewed) information campaign.

I agree, I think what the author of the article is saying is that a completely wrong interpretation of the law has been rolled out across the public sector bodies (not by accident), that equity has replaced equality and this has led to discrimination. The EA was suppose to address discrimination and provide a framework to create equality but instead it's invented news ways to discriminate.

"The principal legal shift was from a concept of negative law, in which certain specific acts of discrimination were prescribed in order to safeguard legal equality for all, to a concept of positive law in which discrimination is assumed to be the norm and bodies and individuals have a positive duty to actively achieve a new, wide-ranging definition of equality in numerous areas of life be tween those with certain protected characteristics and those without. "

Have been away, and had a thought, which I didn't when I posted the article. Or did sort of refer to the UK's complete inability to ever work out how to make things work.

The EA may well in its intent be okay.

But what has sprung up is the now (maybe it was alright to begin with) the ever expanding world of Equality training. Often presented by people who just see it as a money spinner. And often booked by employers for staff to signal they were aware of needing to not discriminate.

And this has snowballed into an this is excepted practice with no one really understanding what it is for and how, as a basic, this training would mean that there would be fewer and fewer instances of discrimination leading to court cases.

I wonder if someone did a proper survey focused on those with any or some of the protected characteristics, feel that they suffer less discrimination since the passing of the act.

And the other interesting compilation of how it has been weaponised by certain "special interest" groups.

I don't think those admissions even help a lucky few.

For one thing the students themselves are more likely to do poorly or fail at their courses.

It directly impacts how people pecieve anyone who might have been admitted "contextually".

And it also impacts the general perception of the qualifications themselves, and I would argue can affect the intrinsic value. That is, if a bunch of students who are less able are admitted, in order to maintain the same graduation level, the course has to be made easier. So the quality of the teaching, and quality of graduates, is compromised.

None of this is good for anyone, much less the kids being admitted that way.

It requires them to explicitly consider how their policies affect people (individuals, not identity groups) who may have protected characteristics.

So - really doesn't that mean they have to consider how it affects everyone? We all have protected characteristics. If you have a policy to help women, say by having a woman only intern position, and it affects individual men, which it clearly would - that is affecting them on the basis of their protected characteristic.

It almost makes any kind of affirmative kind of policy illegal. Which is correct, in my opinion, but that is certainly not what many people on the left of politics would agree with or be happy with. In fact in my experience they happily call people who agree with my position bigots.

Yes, thanks, I know the author is arguing against it.

I would suggest there is properly a balance between some who didn't do well. Not necessarily because they couldn't cope but because the environment was hostile.

And those that failed are more than likely balanced by those who failed because thanks to the bank of mum and dad they got prepped through to get a place, but once on their own became clear they just weren't university material.

I believe there are good stats, at least in the US, to show that students admitted "contestually" based on race are far more likely to be put on academic probation. In those cases they are essentially giving a lower minimum for SATs, sometimes significantly lower.

I'm not sure why you'd expect that would be due to environment, tbh. If they aren't ready to do the work at the level expected, which lower test scores seem to suggest is the case, that is going to be a massive, massive problem. To the point that it would be rather a surprise if they did well, rather than a surprise they didn't.

There's a case for identifying individuals where the change of environment, or some supports, could allow them to achieve more than they have and do well. But no way just lowering the admission requirements will do that. A kid might have been unfairly stuck in a shitty school, or with a shitty home life, but the educational deficits won't go away just because they get into a good university.

I don't think the way the US does it is the best way, certainly not the best way for the UK. I think the argument in the UK is more about having relaxed requirements for State schools versus private schools, or having relaxed requirements for pupils from the worst state schools/schools in deprived areas. Since someone who gets one B and all the rest As from a school where noone else in their year gets better than a C is likely brilliant. Whereas an average but very well coached student at an elite school could get all As. So it's about considering the context in which the grades were achieved, grades being a very blunt tool anyway.
The other part of it is if traditional admissions processes favour children from affluent/upper class backgrounds. Eg (this is an exaggeration) being impressed extracurricular activities like horse riding or organising their schools ski club and asking interview questions about fine dining etiquette. You can adjust the things asked for without lowering standards.

First, thanks for engaging with the post! But no. Not everyone. It's true that everyone has protected characteristics, but not all of them and they are not always relevant. So men can't have the pc of pregnancy and maternity and disability only applies to people who actually have disabilities. If you wanted a female only intern then the onus would be on the employer to show need and reasonableness. So affirmative action is still possible but must be justified.