There is Nothing Positive About Discrimination

I note that Ian_QT, guest writing over at the Kitchen, has written a piece about the spiteful and vindictive white paper being put about by the vicious Harriet Harmon. He cites Leg-Iron who worries (not without cause) about the manner in which the major parties are driving voters into the arms of the BNP.

Both express the general belief that in the real world, the proposed legislation will probably not make a great deal of practical difference; it is the political fall-out that comes from the perceptions that they dwell on. That is not what I want to discuss.

Competence Management

Having a background in competence management, I am inclined to concur with both of them. Despite the wealth of legislation, I have watched as companies recruit and promote unsuitable candidates based upon what local managers perceived was the required competence set – usually, this amounted to the selected candidate being a good egg who was capable in their current role. I watched in despair on one occasion as one unsuitable candidate after another was selected and then failed while a more suitable candidate was waiting to take on the role all along – me, as it turns out.

When I was finally given the opportunity, I proved that I was right and they were wrong. Being a good signaller is not, of itself, suitable and sufficient qualification for being a good signalling manager. There are other skills involved. As I had come from outside the industry and had proven people and administrative management skills, I was an ideal candidate. As I said, when they finally got around to me – by then, no one else would take it on – I excelled in the role because I was the most suitable candidate.

Since then, I’ve taken a keen interest in the way that large organisations recruit and select and, frankly, too frequently, they pay lip service to all those “equality” laws as there is always a way to get around them. And, all too often, the managers themselves have little idea about competence management – i.e. a competent organisation starts with competent recruitment, selection and promotion, which means that the people doing it need to have competence in this area. All too often, they do not.

The Proposals

The proposed legislation is, as I understand it, designed to give employers the right to discriminate against white males in the event of all else being equal. I have problems with this – not least, what has already been stated; it is likely that the recruitment process may be flawed. Besides, a run-off between the candidates will decide one over the other in a decent competence management process – if the recruitment panel are any good at their jobs…

Secondly, any discrimination, other than the criterion of competence, is still discrimination and is therefore immoral. I also object to the idea of visiting the sins of the fathers on the sons. This generation of white males did not create the perceived inequality that Harman proposes to solve with this silly, ill-conceived proposal. Discriminating against them, therefore, is no better than any other form of discrimination – it is still discrimination and as Ian_QT and Leg-Iron point out, that group will turn to those who will appear to set this wrong right.

I had this discussion a year or so back with Neil Harding (can’t find the relevant conversation) and failed to make headway at the time because Harding like other New Labour apologists and the feeble-minded politically correct, either could not or would not see beyond their idea of what constitutes equality; that we are all equal. This is the problem with Harman.

Let’s get one thing straight; there is no such thing as equality. We are not born equal and in life, our paths are not equal. That’s life. It’s tough. Get used to the idea. We play the hand with which we are dealt. That said, an efficient and competent competence management system should provide an equal opportunity for all candidates to prove their mettle. That is all that the candidate should reasonably expect.

It is also worth bearing in mind that some industries will always have unequal numbers of one particular gender or ethnic group – nursing, for example, will doubtless always have a preponderance of females, and there will likely as not be more men than women opting to be firefighters and train drivers. In some parts of the country these roles are dominated by white men – in others; by Asians or blacks. Again, that’s life, get used to it.

Competence and competence alone is the only yardstick that should be used. Anything else diminishes both the organisation and the candidates. However, despite my pessimistic tone, I am noticing that things are slowly improving. The rail industry in particular has come a long way in the past decade and a half – oh, that my other industry (driving instruction) was half so advanced.

And Finally…

I noticed that PDF has commented on this. He has spectacularly missed the point, something his commenters were quick to establish. Why is it, that when a white man points out that legislation designed to discriminate against white men is bad because it is both pragmatically and morally wrong, some idiot comes up with the perceived victim-hood strawman argument?

————————————————————————————

Update:

I notice that in PDF’s comments Sunny has made a staggeringly stupid comment – it really is worth further exposure:

Its a stupid piece also because in certain cases, like primary school teachers, it will be used to help white males get into positions.

What the fucking fuckitty fuck? Is he jesting or is he serious? Difficult to be absolutely certain of course, but if it is serious, it demonstrates the absolute moral bankruptcy of the socialist mindset. One of the best primary school teachers I had – no, the best – was a white male. He was what you would call a gentleman of the old school. A jolly good egg all round.

The idea put forward here, that white males should not be primary school teachers, is part of the corrosive anti-male (in particular, white male) attitude that is seeping into our culture.