Oxthink

Society, having deemed discriminatory practices unethical and illegal, has sought to impose laws to prevent such discrimination.

And yet the challenge remains: is society doing enough? Should society be doing more in order to ensure that minorities are given equal opportunities?

Despite society’s efforts to guard against discrimination, it is often argued that the situation can be so one-sided in some areas that minorities have to be proactively promoted in order to correct the imbalance that exists. Neutral actions are just not sufficient to make any substantive change. Positive discrimination is needed.

Rather like having a car that steers to the left, the driver will have to overcompensate by driving that bit extra to the right. It is the only way to even things out.

The problem with this is that the very act of positive discrimination is discriminatory.

• In making a television commercial, if an actor is primarily chosen because he has an ethnicity, then that is discriminatory.

• If there is a quota of disabled people to employ in order to meet a recruitment programme, then that is discriminatory.

• If a particular gender is employed to ensure gender representation, that is discrimination.

Even if it is done with good intent, the exclusion or favouring of any group in a selection process is, by definition, discriminatory.

The sole criterion for any role is that the best person for the job be chosen.

Whenever there is a label on something and a decision is made based on it, it is discriminatory against the non-labelled. In this regard, there is little difference between choosing someone based on their race and choosing a particular designer shirt because of its brand. You are looking at and buying the label rather than the product.

To argue for positive discrimination is to assert that discrimination is acceptable. To distinguish it from other discriminatory behaviour, because it is a force for change and improvement, is just not credible.

It’s like saying that it is all right to steal if the takings are then given to the needy. Is that really acceptable? What message does that send out? Where do you draw the line between doing wrong for right’s sake?

Sometimes it is argued that a selection decision is made as a statement of support for an under-valued, under-recognised, under-represented minority. This becomes a political statement. And that makes it questionable. Is it right that people with influence can impose their politics on others? What right has any group to believe that they know what is for the best?

And yet, how else can society overcome entrenched, institutionalised prejudices?

To be truly non-discriminatory, there should be no labels on people, no boxes that we put people in. We shouldn’t see a person’s colour, disability, gender or sexuality. We need to look beyond their appearance. We should not see people for what they are, but for who they are.

To fully remove our discriminatory bias, we have to adapt our behaviours to see beyond first impressions and outward appearances.

It is poignant to note that when we get to know somebody well, we actually see past these things. We don’t notice their differences. That’s when we see people for who they are rather than for what they are.