Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Carla Buzasi

GET UPDATES FROM Carla Buzasi
 

The Week That Was: A Case for Positive Discrimination

Posted: 15/01/12 00:00 GMT

As a general rule, I've always been against positive discrimination, and not just because anything with the word 'discrimination' in its make-up seems to be a bad thing.

My opinion wasn't so much that minority or discriminated groups didn't need a helping hand, but I hated the idea that it could ever be questioned whether someone got a job simply to fill a quota. Even if that woman/black/homosexual/ethnic minority/disabled/older/younger individual got the job and excelled, if it was widely known positive discrimination had played a part, surely it would hang over their performance, good or bad, for however long their career lasted, and more than likely affect the way their colleagues viewed them.

Well, I've changed my mind. And, in part, I blame Kira Cochrane.

In December, the Guardian journalist published an insightful, and frankly exhausting, study into the number of women in high-profile media positions. (I dread to think about the number of hours that must have gone into researching it.) The synopsis of her article: there aren't enough. To give you a flavour of the analysis, 78% of newspaper articles are written by men and 84% of reporters and guests on the Radio 4 Today Show are also men.

As an editor (female, in case the picture and name didn't give it away), and one who runs a newsroom with a fairly even split of men and women, it struck a sensitive chord. However, I read it, ranted a little to whoever I could find to listen, and then sat back smugly and proudly thought, it's not like that where I work.

Why do I bring this up now? In part due to a brilliant blog I read on the New Statesman website this week, and in part due to an interview Cameron found time to squeeze in-between his first PMQs, arguing with Alex Salmond and his trip to Saudi Arabia.

The blog in question asked, quite pertinently, Are the media racist?' and pointed out that every single national newspaper editor in the UK is white, and all the national political editors are also white. Anyone who has been watching the Leveson Inquiry will probably not be surprised. To borrow Mehdi Hasan's summary, 'It is a deeply depressing state of affairs.'

On the same day I spotted the blog, David Cameron announced he would be doing his 'bit' to get more women in parliament with a personal commitment to a ensuring a third of his ministers are female. He of course caveated the whole gesture with a post-script about being in a coalition and that changing 'the arithmetic', so I'm not holding my breath over whether anything happens any time soon.

Whichever way you look at it, as a country we are not doing enough to stem the centuries-old tradition of having white, middle-class men holding all the positions of power.

I was approached this week by a blogger looking to report from Davos for us in the coming weeks. She will be there not to wrestle with the finer details of our financial futures, but to follow a group of women who are in attendance, as part of a film project she has in the works.

In her words, it will be interesting 'to see whether more women will attend this year as it was pretty much James Brown's Man's World in my eyes last year, despite the "semi" imposed corporate quota of one woman in every delegation of five. And, no, assistants and wives do not count as an effort!'

In every walk of life, in nearly every area of business, politics and media, it is time to do better.
Positive discrimination may not be the answer, but as we've failed to find any other answer to the issue, it's getting my personal vote from here on in.

 

Follow Carla Buzasi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CarlaBuzasi

As a general rule, I've always been against positive discrimination, and not just because anything with the word 'discrimination' in its make-up seems to be a bad thing. My opinion wasn't so much t...
As a general rule, I've always been against positive discrimination, and not just because anything with the word 'discrimination' in its make-up seems to be a bad thing. My opinion wasn't so much t...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 15
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dewk
06:05 PM on 01/15/2012
To accept that there is such a thing as positive discrimination forces one to accept some incredibly ridiculous assumptions. First, that people who run businesses are more interested in discriminating against people than they are interested in being successful. Second, that people's lifestyle choices don't affect a business in anyway. For example, the man who is willing to stay til midnight because the job needs to be done tomorrow doesn't help the company any more than the woman who has to leave at 5 to pick up her kids and take them to soccer practice. It is very naive to make a claim that either of those assumptions are true.

People need to realize that almost without exception, people want to be successful, particularly in careers and businesses. In that regard, they will choose the people that will provide them the best opportunities for success. Rather than blame discrimination as the reason, why not examine the real reasons that there aren't as many woman/minorities all the way at the top as white men. Hint: It will take an attitude change by those who think they are discriminated against. In other words, they will have to conform to what makes a person and business successful rather than what makes their personal lives successful. If they aren't willing to do that then don't blame the business for wanting to be successful. It's a choice that the person made. It has nothing to do with discrimination.
12:59 PM on 01/15/2012
While I am all in favour of positive discrimination, Ms Buzasi made the mmistake that they all make whilst listing those who are discriminated against. She left out the disabled! No surprise there, though.
09:03 AM on 01/16/2012
A very good point. I have amended my blog since reading your comment.
12:28 PM on 01/15/2012
Yes and perhaps 'Carla' might like to ask why the armed forces only have 15% women (who are paid the same) yet for some rather odd reason only make up 0.0001% of the war casualties. Will 'Carla' be demanding more positive discrimination in the deaths of soldiers coming back from another socialist inspired war? I'm betting not.

90% of primary school teachers are women, funny that 'Carla' doesn't think that need putting right.

Almost 100% of the dirty dangerous jobs in society are done by men, I've NEVER seen a middle class luvvie like Carla demand that more women be north sea oil workers or divers, or firefighters or sewer workers etc etc.

How about all those jobs that involve going out and working at great heights such as in construction? just about 100% of those are done by men, I'm looking forward to Carla and the sisterhood demanding that 50% of the workplace fatalities should be women as well.

I won't hold my breath for Carla to start campaigning though.
11:36 AM on 01/15/2012
If you were a British Chinese would you feel that way about positions in BBC broadcasting?
12:36 PM on 01/15/2012
Good point, ever noticed that the BBC spouts on about how good immigration is for the UK yet I can't think of one Polish or Romanian presenter on the BBC, funny that.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Louisa Leontiades
08:31 AM on 01/15/2012
Whilst I understand and support your right to an opinion on this, I don't believe it's the correct approach. Forcing women into a system that is simply archaic and totally unsuited to modern day (family) living will not improve our situations (nor those of our children). Whilst the 9-7 system may be suited to the single life, when one reaches the point where two parents have to go out to work and have to use childcare solutions for often more than 10 hours in a stretch anyone can realise that it just isn't flexible enough. The real solution is not to integrate women away from their families and reinforce the system, but to change the entire system so that it is more accommodating to women. If it was, many more would excel and positive discrimination wouldn't be needed. As it is - we have to make a choice between family and career.
12:35 PM on 01/15/2012
Yes well try working in construction where long hours are part of the job, if you've paid to get a large crane on site for the day or ordered a load of concrete and the job is delayed you just can't go home and think "oh well I'll go get the kids and we'll all come back tomorrow"

Far too many women have NO IDEA of the real world of work, they think all important jobs take place in some crappy office and in front of a computer.

When you get on a train do you EVER for one moment think of the men who built the railway (and it is men) the hours put in the numbers who will have been killed or injured?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Louisa Leontiades
05:21 PM on 01/15/2012
The point is - whether you consider office real work or not - many jobs for men AND women include long hours in contiguous stretches which is not conducive to younger families or indeed anyone who has a dependent or even anyone who prefers to work outside the 'regular' hours in shorter stretches. I would suggest rather than settling for the status quo in the construction/any industry that one tries to think about how it could work more flexibly.
02:01 AM on 01/15/2012
Positive discrimination does sound like an oxymoron, must be a better term? Something like "gender rebalancing" but maybe a little less ominously medical? Diversity enforcement? Must be some better term!
01:51 AM on 01/15/2012
Positive discrimination does sound like an oxymoron. Given that the aim is to counteract the effects of existing discrimination surely we can come up with a better term, a term that denotes entirely positive connotations - something like "gender balancing" but sounds less ominously medical? Diversity harvesting? Anyone have any ideas?