As traditional mechanisms for promoting social mobility have been dismantled, and (particularly in the United States) racial barriers remained stubbornly firm in some areas, a new means of correcting disadvantage for selected groups. It was termed ‘affirmative action’ by its advocates or by the neutral term ‘positive discrimination’. But where is it actually used?
More than 10 of the UK’s elite Russell Group universities quietly operate a policy of positive discrimination. Entrance requirements (based on A-Level grades) can be lowered from AAA to ABB for students from low-income households. But this is nowhere near as controversial as some US universities, where it has been alleged that some institutions are seen as not worth applying to if you’re white. I can’t comment on that, given I know very little about American higher education. A number of US employers give preference to black job applicants, but not to such a large extent. And again, American society is in some ways very dissimilar from that of Britain. But I would say that we’d have less need for this controversial measure applied to ethnicity, and we’d also be less tolerant of the idea.
When it is job and university prospects that are being altered, those who control that have tremendous influence on the balance of opportunity within an entire generation. That is why extreme care must be taken when an institution decides to intervene. But, in too many cases, the influence of discrimination on applicants’ chances isn’t as transparent or fair as it should be.
A cynic would suggest that I’d be a keen advocate were I not white, male and of middle class appearance. My answer is that this isn’t a matter of self-interest: I am unlikely to be directly affected by positive discrimination, as there is much resistance to the concept in this country. Nor is my standpoint the result of failure to empathise with would-be disadvantaged groups: there are simply few real inequalities of opportunity in education okor careers based purely on ethnicity or gender. Prejudice and disadvantage are serious problems, but admissions tutors and job interviewers are generally not the agents of them. However, the parent who shoulders the burden of childcare is disadvantaged, as are those who grow up in low income households. It is likely that first and second generation immigrants will have lower incomes- such is the nature of migration and immigrants (middle class people have less reason to move abroad)- and it’s true: women are paid less than men for no clear reason. The effect of balancing family life and work, traditionally done more by mothers than fathers, cannot explain the sheer size of the gap.
Females tend to outperform males academically, and this difference is most acute at school. Women are marginally more likely to secure a good university place as a result. So we can see that there’s a point at which women lose out for no justifiable reason. And this brings me to my next point: if women earn themselves slightly better university places and graduate jobs (though not apprenticeships- let’s not forget the 50% who don’t receive higher eduction) then positive discrimination at university stage clearly won’t improve the situation.
There are any number of answers to the problems of gender discrimination and the cycle of financial and social exclusion of the very poor. I don’t know if positive discrimination is one of them, but it seems to be a blunt and crude instrument in its present form.
