Minority rights - how much is too much?

[Astaroth]

To begin with, we have to define what a minority actually is. This seems to be the most fitting definition in relation to the topic:

"Noun 1. minority - a group of people who differ racially or politically from a larger group of which it is a part" (- free online dictionary)

Over the last centuries and millenia, minorities have almost always been opressed to some extent, were considered as outsiders and were treated badly often. The jews are obviously one of the most prominent examples for this; after their exodus, they were scattered all over the world and treated almost like outcasts by some. Jews were discriminated against, were socially not really accepted and could not join guilds. And everyone knows about the pogroms in Europe and elsewhere of course. But they are only one example of many - the opression and discrimination of the blacks even after the end of slavery is another obvious one. Racism, discriminating against "different" people - all of that is actually a pretty natural human trait. What you don't know, what seems foreign to you, that's what you will fear. We all know where fear, even if it is only subconscious, can lead us. When our knowledge of the world increased, when we became more 'civilized', or at least considered us as that, we began to rethink our old prejudice and discrimination. We began questioning it. As a result, many great changes were made. Women (although they cannot be considered a minority of course) were allowed to vote, blacks were no longer (openly) discriminated against, slavery was abolished almost everywhere and we tried everything to end our bigotry.

However, over the last few decaded and years, this process kept going on and on. Everyone tried to be even more liberal, even less narrow-minded, even more of a person who is open for everything new, foreign or different. Less positive things began to happen. Reverse discrimination and political correctness appeared. Originally, our goal had been to make everyone equal before the law, to stop the prejudice and to end the bigotry. We fully succeeded in that. However, that was not enough. The new goal became to make everyone equal in everything by the use of force and laws. Minorities were no longer (openly) discriminated based on their ethnicity, religion or race - but it was not enough. We wanted more. More equality, forced equality if necessary.

The crusade of affirmative action was started. No longer was it deemed sufficent to prohibit discrimination - fairness, equality was demanded, even if it was at the price of those exact values. We shall make unfair laws to enforce fairness. Where is the logic in that?
Laws were made, laws to force companies and agencies to hire a certain amount of women. Of handicapped persons. Of blacks. Of everything that was considered a 'weak minority' that deserved the government's and country's protection and full aid. "We are looking for skilled workers. Women and handicapped people will be given preference." Percentages are to be fulfilled, questionnaires are handed out, asking for your race and gender. Male white caucasian? I'm sorry, no job for you. This results in a clear discrimination. The constitution says that nobody should be discriminated against based on his or her gender, race, ethnicity, religion and so on. However, that is exactly what's happening. The government claims to be working for 'equality' and 'fairness', against discrimination and prejudice. The ironic thing is that their actions are fueling the exact same thing they wish to fight. You cannot fight something by encouraging it.

In the end, the rights of minorities seem to be valued higher than those of the majority. Apparently, discriminating against a smaller group is illegal and pure bigotry - discriminating against the majority is legal and 'good'.
Isn't that incredibly ironical and paradoxical?

Fighting for minority rights like that, beyond reason, fairness and sense, is supposed to help our society, to make the differences disappear and to make everyone equal. To give everyone the same chances, options and possibilities. The same choices.
However, it archieves the exact opposite. Affirmative action is illogical, discriminating, unfair, unjust and theoretically even illegal. Furthermore, instead of blurring the borders between different races, genders and religions and to eventually remove them alltogether, it causes the opposite. Discrimination like this will not integrate the minorities into the 'main society'. It will rather make them outsiders, exactly what the whole affirmative action is supposed to prevent.

Everyone having the same rights, not allowing any discrimination. Those are basic human rights, granted by our constituation. They should apply equally to everyone - also to minority groups. I personally am sick of those quota system requirements, of this discrimination. I totally support the rights of minorities, but not at the expense of everyone else's.

What do you think? Have the actions to support our minorities gone too far?

[Bovril]

Research shows that in the UK and US (I would imagine else where too) white males are favoured by employers over non-whites and females with the same qualifications. This is a fact that must inform any debate on afermative action/positive discrimination. The question is 'is it the role of government to try and adress the prejudices of employers?' and if so, how? Being white and male, my gut reaction is to say that employers should not be required to set aside places for people who aren't like me. But upon detatched relection, I think that in certain instances quota policies are a good thing.
One fairly uncontroversial example is that the of RUC Royal Ulster Constabulary, the police force of Northern Ireland). Traditionally the RUC was pretty much exclusively Protestant and had extrememly hostile relations with Catholic communities. After a policy of actively recruiting Catholics was brought in towards the end of the troubles the RUC became far more effective and had better relations with Catholic communities. I can't imagine that many would argue this policy was ill advised.
To what extent such an example should inform policy in less extreme cases is up for debate. I think that many government institutions benefit from having a staff that broadly represents the community that organisation deals with. In the private sector, I'm not so sure.

[Astaroth]

Research shows that in the UK and US (I would imagine else where too) white males are favoured by employers over non-whites and females with the same qualifications. This is a fact that must inform any debate on afermative action/positive discrimination.

It is obvious that especially smaller companies and agencies prefer hiring males over females because men cannot become pregnant and as it is forbidden to take a pregnant woman's job away (at least in my country). Furthermore it is, of course rightfully, prohibited to ask whether a woman wants to become pregnant in the near future. Thus, by hiring women you risk losing a worker due to pregnancy. If you own a small company, that can be deadly for you.
As for non-whites I am not so sure. It obviously has something to do with people hiring others that are similar to them, a totally natural process. However, you cannot change peoples' minds or basic opinions which are set in stone and you can barely influence their subconscious behavior which is based on ancient instincts. Forcing them to hire 'non-whites' will not make them more likely to accept non-whites as equals - nor will it make the employers hire them more frequently in the future.
If anything, it will cause the opposite.
Beauty could be used as a similar example: is it fair that a beautiful woman often gets jobs much more easily? Should the employer not be less subjective and judge her based on her work only? Of course. However, can it be done, can it be enforced? For sure not.

The question is 'is it the role of government to try and adress the prejudices of employers?' and if so, how?

I believe that the real question would be: can the government actually positively address the subconscious prejudice in the minds of the employers? I personally doubt that. As described above, those laws and quotas will create an illusion of change only. Great, now 40-50% of the workers in an employer's company are women. Does that mean that the he has become less prejudiced? That he has left his supposedly former opinions behind? Not really. It is a forced change that only affects the effects, not the cause. If anything, the cause is worsened as the psychological gap between the minorities and the majority becomes bigger.

But upon detatched relection, I think that in certain instances quota policies are a good thing.
One fairly uncontroversial example is that the of RUC Royal Ulster Constabulary, the police force of Northern Ireland). Traditionally the RUC was pretty much exclusively Protestant and had extrememly hostile relations with Catholic communities. After a policy of actively recruiting Catholics was brought in towards the end of the troubles the RUC became far more effective and had better relations with Catholic communities. I can't imagine that many would argue this policy was ill advised.

Of course, sometimes it can work. But your example is not really about minorities: it is more of an religious and political conflict that had and still has to be solved.
The big conflicts between the races, religions and genders are a thing of the past in our countries. Thus, radical methods that might be needed in Northern Ireland are really unnecessary. They will hurt us and our society more than anything else.

To what extent such an example should inform policy in less extreme cases is up for debate. I think that many government institutions benefit from having a staff that broadly represents the community that organisation deals with. In the private sector, I'm not so sure.

I personally don't see why governmental organizations should openly discriminate against anyone. Everyone, no matter whether he is black or white, male or female, old or young, beautiful or ugly, can join. What he will be judged on is his work. That's the way it should be as long as our constituation is still worth the paper it is written on.

[Strattios]

Research shows that in the UK and US (I would imagine else where too) white males are favoured by employers over non-whites and females with the same qualifications.

While that may seem true, in many cases wuch as with college it is false. There are actually regulations through out the US reguiring minimum numbers of minorities. This means if the surrounding area has about 20% Hispanic population, then the company must have anywhere from half that to the full number as a percentage of their work force, despite qualifications. Heck, here in Washington colleges were picking minority students over more qualified white peers simply so they could brag about their "diversity". Then there is the whole "equal employment" and "equal opportunity" bull****. It forces companies to hire and promote based on percentages, not qualifications.

The rights should be rooted in not allowing people to refuse employment based mearly on race. However, if there is white man and a black man, or a man and a woman, it should be purely up to the person doing the hiring and promoting.

And in the US, there are many regulations to protect peoples "right", but if you look at it, they themselves are biased. The average middle class white male, ages 18-58 are the least protected group of people in America. There will most likely never be a law case where a more qualified white male is suing a company for discrimination because they hired a less qualified minority or female. The courts would simply laugh in his face and drop all charges. Nothing protects him which simply means he must try al the harder as he isn't going to get a hand up from the government or some "rights" group.

[Richard]

Too much is when a group has more rights than another.

[Gwendylyn]

While that may seem true, in many cases wuch as with college it is false. There are actually regulations through out the US reguiring minimum numbers of minorities. This means if the surrounding area has about 20% Hispanic population, then the company must have anywhere from half that to the full number as a percentage of their work force, despite qualifications. Heck, here in Washington colleges were picking minority students over more qualified white peers simply so they could brag about their "diversity". Then there is the whole "equal employment" and "equal opportunity" bull****. It forces companies to hire and promote based on percentages, not qualifications.

Can you provide an example where this is a law in a US state that mandates racial, ethnic, or gender quotas to a private business or educational instutiton?

Heck, here in Washington colleges were picking minority students over more qualified white peers simply so they could brag about their "diversity".

A tactic the college(s) adopted voluntarily because they felt there was more value in having a diverse student body, and which they apply on a per-person basis. There is absolutely no mandatory quota system in place.

[Lord de Lyonesse]

shouldnt the minority conform to what the majority believe in... i.e when in rome act like a roman...

[Каие]

shouldnt the minority conform to what the majority believe in... i.e when in rome act like a roman...

Short and sweet? NO. Because their is no such thing as a consensus even in a mono-cultural, homogeneous country [which does not exist ever, anywhere] there is still vast difference. It is also a fundamental contradiction to the concept of freedom, liberty and democracy. We have the freedom to think what we want, with the liberty to live how e want, and the dignity to still expect those rights to remain in tact even if the majority to do not agree.

[C-Rob]

shouldnt the minority conform to what the majority believe in... i.e when in rome act like a roman...

That would simply be too easy.

Oh, and apparantly we're still not passed discrimination based on race. I have no idea why, for it doesn't mean a damn thing when talking to a person and knowing their qualifications for anything.

[Samuel Adams]

Equal rights for everyone, as granted in the constitution. That is the only role of government, to protect our rights and see that they are carried out.

As far as affirmative action, it sounds good, but I look at it this way. If I'm trying to get a job with someone who wouldn't hire me on grounds I'm Irish or cherokee, but they have to because of AA, is that really a place I'd want to work? It would be worse dealing with that person every day than taking the blow of "oh, that guy disliked me for my skin tone/background," and move on.

[Viking Prince]

Equal rights for everyone, as granted in the constitution. That is the only role of government, to protect our rights and see that they are carried out.

As far as affirmative action, it sounds good, but I look at it this way. If I'm trying to get a job with someone who wouldn't hire me on grounds I'm Irish or cherokee, but they have to because of AA, is that really a place I'd want to work? It would be worse dealing with that person every day than taking the blow of "oh, that guy disliked me for my skin tone/background," and move on.

Well it still really might depend on more facts. I would agree with you regarding working for a sole proprietor -- but what about a large corporation with thousands of employees? Such laws help the company enforce what is right on their employees -- such as a personnel manager at a specific plant. If that person is prejudiced -- that is not really the same as the company as a whole. There may be other means to achieve the same end, but civil rights laws I think do an adequate job. Then -- since I am both white and male --- maybe I do not really know if such laws are truly reasonable and adequate.

There are also people who hide behind such laws to hire a minority because of prejudice against white males. This also would be wrong.

[jankren]

I will just be honest if I owned a company I wont hire a black employee. Unless he is a close friend of mine whom I know very well or his record is just too good for me to turn down.

[Erlinggra]

Any group that is given special consideration is a step to far. Equal right for everyone, and I mean everyone.

[Dr. Croccer]

Equal rights. Maybe some representation and preservation organisations if the minority in question are natives and/or under threat but nothing more.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

You spend a half-line describing the harsh persecution of a minority spanning at least 3 centuries, and 3 paragraphs on the light discrimination of a majority over a decade or two. I say, the majority should feel what it's like for once.

[Astaroth]

Shyam, I guess you were being sarcastic but I will address your point anyway.

If we ever want to have a truly fair and equal society, there can be no discrimination towards anyone. By discriminating against a certain group, even against the majority, you do not destroy the borders and walls in the minds of the people at all. If anything, you create even more of them and strenghten the existing ones. Unless you wish to keep hatred and prejudice in our society I don't see why you would support the discrimination of anyone.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

And I argue that if you truly want to get rid of discrimination you have to understand what if feels like. Although this particular way of getting through to people will probably end up with more minority persecution to re-unbalance the scales. Oh, well, at least they got a few years of peace.

[pchalk]

well, one thing is for sure, discrimination of others is an element of human nature. Personally i think for that reason true equality is impossible. u can only fight ur nature so much. Affirmative Action policies are a bit counter productive if u want to remove differences or racism. It only builds up resentment toward those who benefit from those who dont.

I dont like obama but one good thing Iv heard is hes going to try to end affirmative action in the US .

[KaerMorhen]

If majority is forced to obey rights minority calls equal, then it is too much.

[Beanbee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocid...y#1951_to_2000

Check out how many genocides have been commited against minorities and how many against majorities. By in large, most are against minorities as they are often the weaker party.

Now this is a very strong example of why minorities require protection but thousands of examples of cultural and institutional racism against minorities exist. Examples of such are Indians of the Americas, Sami in Sweden, Aboriginals in Australia, Caucasians in South Africa (ironically). Small groups of people are often given the short end of the stick and expected to be greatful of it.

How far should minorities be protected? I would say that laws must protect basic rights of all people, no matter their background. Social retardation is difficult to protect against as by nature people are unaccepting of outsiders but effort must be made on both sides to intrigrate. Many worry about the erroding of tradition but new traditions always replace the old and should no more be revered than your trip to tescos in your car. Afterall, that will be traditional one day.

I read that you pecieve that being a male born in the country gives you a job disadvantage. Look at how many jobs are held by men and women in your company, pay particular attention to high earners. Native males often have a higher percentage of employment and much higher earnings than their percentage of the population. Is that fair? In the country I currently live in, 20-25 year olds have a 5% unemployment rate if they are native. For the same age group, immigrants have a 40% unemployment rate, 8x higher! It is extremely rare for a company to promote multi-culturalism, is that fair? Is employment a birth right? Due to immigrants being a 15% minority, unemployment in natives would have to double and the jobs given to immigrants so both would have an equal 10% unemployment rate, providing no new jobs were created.

However, all this is rarely an individual's fault. It's very hard as an employer to see huge social trends, heck it's hard to work out the ratio of workers in the office next to you. See the quotas less as PC gone mad and more a reflection of the society you live in. We should be given equal rights but having no guide to what is equal will always lead to inequality.