I posted the text below in an old thread many months ago, and expected a torrent of scathing remarks, but also a few enlightening responses from suitably experienced people. I suspect that unfortunately no one much saw the text though, because the original thread I posted it in was essentially long 'dead and buried' by that point. So I'm posting it here, as a 'new topic', in the hope that it will attract some comments—preferably from peeps with relevant experience, not just simplistic 'gut feelings' and 'knee-jerk reactions' from naive idealists. Here's what I posted:
"… thatguyfromthatplace (refreshingly/commendably) had the stones to state candidly, clearly and concisely what any white heterosexual male who has been employed in any vaguely 'academic' field for the last 30 years will tell you. We have been actively discriminated against for decades in Australia, when it comes to employment/promotion into higher-paying/upper-level positions, in favour of so-called 'minority groups'. Often—completely erroneously—even simply being a woman qualifies as being a member of a 'minority group'; even though there are more women in Australia than there are men!
There are numerous examples of this now long-institutionalised practice, which is officially dubbed 'positive discrimination', actually written into enforceable employment policy in Australia in many diverse contexts. There is simply no argument about whether it goes on in Australia … quite the opposite, active discrimination against NON-minority groups (i.e., white heterosexual males; any deviation from that 'trifecta' generally qualifies any individual as a member of a 'minority group') is actually mandated in numerous employment contexts. Some of the obvious ones are universities and numerous government work-places, but there are many more.
It's bizarre to me, and many other white heterosexual males that the answer to perceived historical discrimination against 'minority groups' (including 'all women', utterly erroneously) has been deemed to be, for the last few decades, to 'swing the pendulum back the other way and severely, actively, and officially institutionalise/sanction (and in many cases, worse; actually mandate) discrimination against white heterosexual males."
@GnarlyKnuckles: So you have a hypothetical example. Do you have an actual real world example of a policy you object to?
I was going to say the same thing as Christoffel. Because ‘equality’ means treating people equally, so I can’t see why
In your hypothetical example, assuming ZAN and KOR people have the same skills and abilities, if equality of treatment was in place an equitable outcome in the workplace would be representation at a ratio of 90:10 respectively. Real world examples of having quotas might be at least 30% of a board needing to be female where women, make up about 51% of the population. These practices have come about because historically white men have been over represented in some settings, not necessarily because they are most meritorious, but due to discrimination in their favour. So I guess if you think this is inequitable, one could set a quota for at least 30% men for the same board - the reason this doesn’t happen is that it hasn’t been needed to achieve adequate representation from men. I suspect over time once quotas have been around for long enough to create a more equitable society they won’t be needed. Enforced quotas in most settings (outside of boards) aren’t very common anyway.