A job offer from Laval University has caused a lot of ink to flow in the last few days. The contentious point is that the position is reserved for women, Aboriginal people, people with disabilities or those who are part of a visible minority. As you will have understood, non-disabled white men are immediately excluded from the selection process.
Posted yesterday at 11:00 a.m.
This is not the first time that we can read such a policy of “positive discrimination” at the university, and each time the camps are turned. Such an attitude is highly understandable. Since early school, we have been told, rightly, that we should not judge a person based on their skin color. In this sense, the job offer from Laval University betrays a certain social ideal.
On the other hand, it justifies taking “race” into account by explaining that it is necessary to compensate for the discrimination suffered by people from “diversity” backgrounds by reserving positions for them. Here we follow the logic of the “return of the pendulum”.
There is no doubt that the egalitarian intent behind affirmative action is laudable, but the means are nonetheless controversial. It is therefore conceivable that other means will honor this intention while at the same time reducing the cleavage in society.
Salary or skin color?
One of the problems with Université Laval’s criteria is that they categorize candidates’ career paths solely according to their skin color, which leads to paradoxical situations, to say the least.
Let’s understand that this positive discrimination favors the daughter of Gregory Charles to the detriment of the son of a hairdresser from La Tuque. Can we seriously think that the first will come up against more obstacles than the second during his educational and professional career?
We can always answer that these examples are anecdotal and that they overshadow the fact that “whites” receive on average a higher salary than “racialized” people. Although the statistical picture is more nuanced, let’s admit for the sake of reflection that such a trend is observed.
But, in this case, why not determine that it is the parents’ salary that is used to favor certain students or even certain candidates at the start of their career? Thus, “racialized” people would benefit more from such a measure, because they are overrepresented in the disadvantaged economic classes, without the minorities from the wealthy classes benefiting unfairly.
It is without forgetting that such a measure would make it possible to avoid racializing our social relations, which is not the least of the advantages, especially since it is clearly this consideration of “race” which divides the Quebecers.
A process to improve
This solution will appeal to some, but others will no doubt evoke the unconscious biases caused by stereotypes that would disadvantage “racialized” people in the selection process.
But if this is the case, it seems at least counterproductive to “consciously” reject candidates because of their skin color in order to combat unconscious prejudices.
In other words, it is not by excluding people from the selection process that we eliminate these prejudices. Rather, it is by improving our selection process. Consider, for example, making CVs anonymous or introducing standardized exams for obtaining a job.
A discussion to start
The question of positive discrimination cannot be exhausted here. We are only touching the tip of the iceberg. We too often forget that this issue raises the question of equality, which is an eminently political question.
Yet affirmative action is not treated that way, because corporate or university administrators lock the issue in with policies that are questionable to say the least. Due to the thorny nature of the subject, it cannot be left in the hands of managers. It must be discussed in the public square. This is what a democratic society must do.