To what extent can it be claimed that "positive discrimination" towards disadvantaged ethnic groups is an advisable government policy?

Edwin Loo 12K 23/01/2007

Sociology Essay

To what extent can it be claimed that “positive discrimination” towards disadvantaged ethnic groups is an advisable government policy? (25 marks)

Positive discrimination or “affirmative action” is defined as policies and programs meant as a corrective measure to redress discrimination against certain groups in society in the name of fairness and equal opportunities. Ethnic Groups, as defined by Yinger, refer to:

“A segment of a larger society that is different in some combination of language, religion, race and ancestral homeland with its related culture”

In order to decide to what extent Positive Discrimination in favor of disadvantaged ethnic groups is an advisable government policy, one needs to refer to the various sociological perspectives and their views of society. Functionalists such as David and Moore would argue against Positive Discrimination, on the basis that society rewards those who work hard and are capable- through the meritocratic system. “New Right” “sociologists” arguing against Positive Discrimination would believe that ethnic minorities are disadvantaged because of their own doing, through laziness and a refusal to integrate. Marxist sociologists would argue in favor of Positive Discrimination on the basis that Racism is a social construction used to subjugate other classes. Left-wingers and social democrats would argue that Positive Discrimination is needed to cancel out the effects of racism and ethnic prejudice on the life chances of ethnic minorities.

Functionalists would argue that Positive Discrimination is not an advisable government policy. This is because it distorts the system of meritocracy and role allocation, as advocated by functionalist sociologists such as Davis and Moore- under which those who work hard and are talented will rise to the top of society. Because Positive Discrimination would give ethnic minorities a comparative advantage over others, this could mean that the most capable individuals would be handicapped against those who are less capable but belong to an ethnic minority. Functionalists would argue that this is an ineffective allocation of roles, resulting in these roles, which are vital to society, being performed poorly. Functionalists would also point out that because Positive Discrimination in effect reverses social inequality, it would then reduce the incentive of people to work towards the highest jobs and roles and therefore undermine the effectiveness of society as a whole. Functionalists such as David and Moore would furthermore argue that because Positive Discrimination adds race as a factor for role allocation and the allocation of services and resources, the allocation of such roles and resources according to capability and need would be diminished, henceforth creating even greater social inequality. This would clearly show that Positive Discrimination in favor of disadvantaged ethnic minorities is not an advisable government policy as it would create an obstacle preventing the best and most capable from attaining the best roles and jobs.

This is a preview of the whole essay

“New Right Sociologists” such as Jensen as well as Murray and Herrstein would argue that ethnic groups are disadvantaged because of their own doing and therefore do not deserve assistance from the government in the form of Positive Discrimination. “New Right Sociologists” such as Jensen would cite supposed 20-point IQ differences between white people and certain ethnic minorities as evidence proving that Ethnic Minorities are disadvantaged because of their lack of intelligence. This point is further pushed in the “study” titled “The Bell Curve” by Murray and Herrstein, two “New Right Sociologists” who claim that ethnic minorities have lower IQ’s than those of white people. Murray and Herrstein, who advocated the elimination of welfare programs in “The Bell Curve” based on the argument that it allowed women with lower IQ’s to produce children with equally low IQ’s, would probably use the same argument to advocate the abolition of Positive Discrimination, as it would allow ethnic minorities with lower IQ’s to produce offspring of the same stripe. “New Right Sociologists” would argue that this would be a disadvantage to the government as it would lead to an eventual reduction in the nation’s talent pool. However, it is important to note that the methodology used in the production of “The Bell Curve” is both dubious and highly doubtful. This is most vividly illustrated by the article Inequality by Design, written by the Sociology Department of UC Berkeley, which claims that the statistics used by Murray and Herrstein were flawed due to omissions and technical errors. On the other hand, “New Right Sociologists” also argue that ethic groups are disadvantaged because they refuse to integrate into their host society. A refusal to integrate may include a refusal to take on the norms and values of the host culture; or to learn the language. This prevents them from seeking opportunities and hence leaving them at a disadvantage. “New Right Sociologists” would henceforth argue that the state would have no responsibility whatsoever for self-made choices, and therefore that Positive Discrimination would be pointless and a waste of both time and resources.

Neo-Marxists and Social Democratic/Left Wing sociologists would argue that because Ethnic Minorities suffer from ethnic discrimination as well as poorer life chances they require and need Positive Discrimination in order to ensure that they are able to reach the best of their potential. Neo-Marxist Sociologists would refer to the argument, as advocated by Stuart Hall of black people being scapegoat for economic and social problems in times of peril. This shows that people from ethnic minorities are blamed for causing problems, and hence are put at a disadvantage with other groups. This effect is then emphasized through the schema model, in which press coverage and blame of ethnic minorities leads to prejudice, prejudgment and in turn a disadvantage for minorities in regards to a wide range of areas, including life chances as represented through education, health and work. The prejudice caused by scapegoating leads to ethnic minorities being denied jobs in the primary job market, having to get by through the routine, ill paid and unskilled jobs offered through the Secondary Job Market. This in turn impacts greatly on all other aspects of their life, including where they live and the lifestyle they lead. Because ethnic minorities are tied to the secondary job market with lower wages, or languishing in unemployment, they end up residing in inner cities and other areas which are likely to be affected by what is described as the “Inverse Care Law” as coined by Hart, in which those who need the most access to services receive the least. Statistics from the Office of National Statistics show that ethnic minorities tend to have the worst self-reported health, live in overcrowded housing and smoke the most. This shows the fact that Ethnic Minorities, due to the lack of job opportunities, suffer from lower than average health and lifestyles. This, coupled with the fact that ethnic minority households are three times more likely to live in poor neighborhoods (Commission on Racial Equality, 2003) tells us that ethnic minorities do indeed suffer from lower life chances due to poor health, poorer education due to failing inner city schools and finally a cumulatively lower chance of success in life that other groups due to clear disadvantages in terms of health, education and job prospects. This clearly shows that Positive Discrimination in favor of disadvantaged groups is desirable as it allows for the disadvantages caused by ethnic discrimination and its knock-on effects to be limited if not redressed, hence increasing the nation’s pool of talent and preventing those who are capable from languishing behind due to disadvantageous conditions.

Henceforth it can be said that Positive Discrimination in favor of disadvantaged ethnic minorities is both beneficial and disadvantageous depending on which perspective it is viewed from. However, it could be concluded with a degree of certainty that Positive Discrimination in favor of ethnic minorities is both a good government policy and advantageous to the country in question- as it allows ethnic minorities put at a disadvantage to compete on what amounts to nearer grounds to those from other ethnic groups that may enjoy an advantage, whether it be through wealth, power or better overall life chances. This allows for the meritocratic principles of Functionalism to occur on fair and even grounds- facilitating competition for roles and jobs between everyone on fair and even terms, hence allowing the best and brightest, regardless of ethnicity, to reach the very top and bring mutual benefits for society as a whole.

Page of