Discrimination

1. Discrimination

2. In debate land it is taken as a given that all people should be equal, no matter what their race, gender or sexual preference is. • This creates an interesting scenario where debates are not about why an interest group deserves equal rights, instead it is about how best to achieve those rights. • So that leaves us with one important question, what’s the best way to achieve equal rights between groups?

3. Affirmative action. • Affirmative action is the principle that we should positively discriminate based on race, gender and sexuality. • So for example enforcing a minimum of 50% of parliament as women would be an affirmative action policy. • The justification for this kind of action goes something like this: “These groups are disadvantaged in society, mainly for historical reasons, this kind of policy simply compensates for the bias in society.”

4. Support. • This kind of policy raises the diversity of powerful members of society, which in turn works to undo the stigma that already exists. (A snowball effect) • This kind of policy makes up for the social disadvantages these groups face in society, if a specific group is undergoing stigmatisation this effectively levels the playing field. • The implementation of this kind of policy is discriminatory, but that’s fine because the groups it positively targets are already undergoing negative discrimination, this doesn’t create worse circumstances.

5. Opposition. • This kind of policy judges people not based on their merits but based on some arbitrary factor. • The achievements of the group will be subject to a stigma; “You only achieved this because of the affirmative action policy”. • The group is seen as needing more help because they can’t do things on their own. • The ability to overcome diversity is one of the huge beacons of strength minority groups point towards, this removes that.

6. Quotas. • A form of affirmative action policy but with a bit more nuance. • Quotas have a couple of additional arguments: • If you fill a quota based on a specific interest group you run the risk of loss of efficiency due to you hiring the less qualified individual. • The opposition to this is simply an argument that either we don’t care about efficiency, or that the problems with efficiency will solve themselves over the long term.

7. Forced outing. • Some debates will ask you to out LGBTQ persons either against their will, or, with their permission in a “THB LGBTQ persons should…” motion. • This kind of motion comes down to a debate between the rights of the group and the rights of the individual. • But also this kind of debate has to evaluate whether the policy will work at all.

8. Will it work and is the group more important. • The principle behind this working is if a large enough group of people come out then it will change the social perception of that groups. • The motion usually agues in favour of this being beneficial to the whole group and therefore it is more important to prioritise the interests of the many over the interests of the individual.

9. Will it work and is the group more important. • This side of the argument suggests that those in society who are bigoted will not change their views even if there is a large influx of LGBTQ persons into the public realm. • Moreover this side of the argument suggests that this is a personal decision that a person should get to take on their own, and that forcing them reduces them to a tool to achieve a goal. • Also it is important to note that this side of the argument will suggest that this policy treats these persons as if they are solely defined by their sexuality.

10. Utility. • If a policy is about prioritisation it might be possible for you to argue that your side of the argument brings about more societal utility. • Is it better to educate a disadvantaged Eastern European man as a doctor, or is it better to educate the White British man –assuming they both can reach the same standard? • Which side of the policy brings more benefit to society as a whole?

11. Feminism. • Feminism is a huge spectrum and it would be impossible for us to consider every single position, for the sake of this session we’ll look at the two extremes: • 1) The world is inherently a male construct and it should be fought against. • 2) The world exists and we need to make it more accommodating to female viewpoints.

12. It’s a man’s world… Illegitimately. • This end of the spectrum suggests that the economic, political/legal and social system of the world is centred around men, it therefore needs to be scrapped and rebuilt. • Economically the world generally works on a capitalist system, which promotes aggressiveness and the contractual nature of society; a set up that benefits men. • Politically and legally the system was built by men, which means it is illegitimate for a woman to be judged by a set of laws they didn’t consent to. • Socially women are given burdens based upon an assumption that there are traditional gender roles that they must follow (The same can be and is said of men too), these burdens are too generalist.

13. The system is fine, but it needs a tweak here and there. • On the other end of the spectrum for feminist change is the view that the system is legitimate and that we should make changes within in. • The world can’t be reset, it’s just practically impossible, so any change has to be a gradual shift to equality. • Gradual change might be favourable even if a reset was possible; perhaps it is easier to change bigotry over time through gradual reinforcement?

14. Differing needs. • When arguing in favour of women’s rights you don’t have to start from the assumption that men and women are equal in every way. • It is totally acceptable to suggest that women should be treated differently because they have different, but equally as important, needs to men. • An example of this would be maternity leave; strictly speaking it is a form of discrimination, a benefit only given to half of society, but in reality it is acceptable because society recognises the need for maternity leave to be valid.

15. Final words. • When you get a motion about a interest group ask yourselves a few questions: • Will this improve their state of affairs economically, politically and socially. • Will that improvement come at the cost of one or all members of a group being discriminated against in some way? • Is there an alternative, what are its advantages and disadvantages?