In defence of positive discrimination

Though most are happy to say that they're in favour of equality in the workplace, “positive discrimination” is one of those concepts that tends to get people in a tizz. Without it, it's difficult to make the progress in representation and diversity that needs to be made; with it, it looks like some candidates are being unfairly favoured over others. Even within the feminist community, there is no real consensus on this.

Now we're all in a muddle again as Jon Holmes, a Bafta-winning writer and long-time presenter of Radio 4's The Now Show, says the BBC has given him the boot because producers want to “recast [the show] with more women and diversity.” In an article for The Mail on Sunday, Holmes stressed that he is in favour of diversity but asked, reasonably enough: “Should I, as a white man (through no fault of my own), be fired from my job because I am a white man?”

Many colleagues, commentators and equality campaigners have defended Holmes, with much of the criticism focusing on a concern that appointments should be based on merit, rather than skin colour, sex or other qualities irrelevant to the job. “What if we're all just 'people?’” Holmes himself wrote. “Call me crazy but what if, regardless of skin colour, or anything else, the best candidate gets the job?”

Of course we all want the best person to get the job—that's exactly what positive discrimination is intended to achieve.

Here's the problem (as if it needs reiterating): white men, among other groups, are wildly over-represented in almost all positions of power and prominence. As an example: although men make up less than half of the UK's adult population, they account for almost all FTSE 100 CEOs, more than 80 per cent of national newspaper editors and around three-quarters of MPs, judges and university professors. The more senior the level, the more exaggerated the disparity—an effect replicated in workplaces across the country.

I repeat these statistics in order to make a point: unless white men are simply better than the rest of us, appointments are currently not being made on the basis of merit alone. Studies have repeatedly shown that white, male candidates need fewer qualifications and years of experience on their CV to be considered for a job than others. In a well-known example of this bias, when US orchestras began conducting their auditions “blind”—with the musicians playing behind a curtain so that recruiters couldn't see them—women instantly became more likely to be selected.

Women and minority groups are negatively discriminated against everyday. Positive discrimination is intended to counter that effect and rebalance the playing field by forcing employers to more seriously consider deserving and capable applicants who would otherwise be overlooked. It's not about giving them an unfair advantage but an equal chance.

Holmes is right that, in implementing such policies, the spirit of that goal must remain intact. The nature of broadcasting means that the BBC may be under more pressure to make visible changes than others (and The Mail Online's complaint that Holmes had been pushed out to make way for more diverse faces even though he works in radio somewhat misses the point...) but a management that truly believed in the talents of women and minority candidates wouldn't install them in front of the cameras only for the sake of PR.

Of course nobody should be fired for being a white man, and if that has happened it is a sign of how muddled we are. But nobody should be hired on that basis either, and at the moment that happens too often—whether we are willing to admit it or not.