positive discrimination

Nevyn

The forum would not exist with out a policy document to back it up, unless it is a complete cowboy operation.

metrovelvet

maryjane1 wrote:

i have asked at the playschool who decides if someone meets the criteria for their selection process and she said the parents themselves. the form has a section where you tick if you are financially disadvantaged or ethnic minority.

Isnt this segregation?

Orion

Firstly can I mention the topic - "positive discrimination" is an oxymoron. Discrimination by its very nature is negative.

And so, I think this is completely wrong. Skin colour, ethnicity, citizenship, or any other reason should not be allowed to decide entrance into any educational establishment - preschool or otherwise.

And I would be amazed to discover this is legal. The Equal Status & Employment Equality Acts only exempt educational establishments from discrimination if is to protect the ethos of that establishment - and even then it's only an exemption from religious discrimination iirc. An example is a Catholic school not allowing an unmarried mother to teach there (don't laugh - it's happened). This obviously cannot be not the case here so I would contact the Equality Agency and get their opinion. Provide full details and they will advise you on this. I've dealt with them in the past and found them very helpful.

delos

maryjane1 wrote:

would you send your child to a preschool that "positvely discriminates" i.e. reserves priority places for ethnic minorities. which is compleyely above board and legal.

To answer the OP's original question - absolutely. I have done so with both my children.

The pre-school in question has a policy of reserving places for single parents and low income families (while reducing the fees). This facilitates not only a pre-school education for children that may otherwise be denied access to pre-school education on financial grounds but also allows the parents (typically the mother) to remain in the workforce. It also reserves places for ethnic minorities as part of the pre-school's ethos is to reflect cultural diversity.

I did not send my children to pre-school to give them an academic 'leg-up' -I would much rather that they experienced an environment of diversity and tolerance of difference at a young age.

Is this selection policy discriminatory? Yes, I suppose it is. However at least it open about it. Most schools will give preferences to applicants who have a connection with the school (siblings currently attending, parents who are past pupils for example) which discriminates against single child families and people newly arrived in the country.

maryjane1

Macros42 wrote:

Firstly can I mention the topic - "positive discrimination" is an oxymoron. Discrimination by its very nature is negative.

And so, I think this is completely wrong. Skin colour, ethnicity, citizenship, or any other reason should not be allowed to decide entrance into any educational establishment - preschool or otherwise.

And I would be amazed to discover this is legal. The Equal Status & Employment Equality Acts only exempt educational establishments from discrimination if is to protect the ethos of that establishment - and even then it's only an exemption from religious discrimination iirc. An example is a Catholic school not allowing an unmarried mother to teach there (don't laugh - it's happened). This obviously cannot be not the case here so I would contact the Equality Agency and get their opinion. Provide full details and they will advise you on this. I've dealt with them in the past and found them very helpful.

it is very legal. i have been onto the equality authority as i said its positive discrimination and therefore is legal

maryjane1

i have decided against sending my son to this school. i have his name down for 3 playschools. his name is down for this one because we moved here a couple of years ago and i thought it would be nice for him to meet local children. in my opinion it is not right that the some of the children he would be mixing with are selected because of reasons other than being on the waiting list like everyone else in the category of "neither of the above".

the other playschool are far better anyway and have a very diverse mix of children based solely on the fact that they are good playschools, not because the government have decided there should be a certain amount of each section of our society obviously "ethnic minorites" choose schools based on merit too not simply because they are entitled to place.

Kernel32

I don't understand all the fuss over this when every day primary schools enrollment policies discriminate againist non-Catholics. These are public primary schools funded by all taxpayers money. I hope that the OP makes the same fuss when they read up on the enrollment policy for the primary school.

Woof

Well I have been discriminated then in BOTH ways.

1. DD was denied a place in creche as a) we don't receive social welfare and b) we are not "ethnic minority" despite the fact that its MY taxes contributing to this school as it is 100% government run. I now have to pay more for the prilivege of traveling even further - What am I paying my taxes for OR should I say who??

AND

DD cannot go to local school because we are not Church of Ireland!!!!! This again will mean more travel for us.

Can anyone honestly tell me that that is fair and expect me to be happy about having to spend an extra 1 hour a day and an extra €200 per month for someone else to benefit.

Orion

Kernel32 wrote:

I don't understand all the fuss over this when every day primary schools enrollment policies discriminate againist non-Catholics. These are public primary schools funded by all taxpayers money. I hope that the OP makes the same fuss when they read up on the enrollment policy for the primary school.

Like I mentioned earlier - this is perfectly legal. And I don't think it can even be challenged constitutionally as both Acts (Equal Status and Employment Equality) which give schools a religious exemption were referred to the Supreme Court by the President. They passed these clauses so I don't think they can be challenged again.

Note I say perfectly legal - ethical is a different story :mad:

maryjane1

Kernel32 wrote:

I don't understand all the fuss over this when every day primary schools enrollment policies discriminate againist non-Catholics. These are public primary schools funded by all taxpayers money. I hope that the OP makes the same fuss when they read up on the enrollment policy for the primary school.

as a matter of fact my children attend a church of ireland school even though we are catholics. as i said earlier it is a school which has many ethnisities and my children have friends from all parts of the world. the school however doesnt choose children based on where they were born. i had no problem getting them places there and my toddler will go there too and most likely ill send him totheir preschool too now.

Time Magazine

Macros42 wrote:

Firstly can I mention the topic - "positive discrimination" is an oxymoron. Discrimination by its very nature is negative.

And so, I think this is completely wrong.

Well you're basing your logic on phraseology there. I'd tend not to "discriminate" against policies on their name. Discrimination is not always wrong. For example, in economics, there exists a whole field of study on price discrimination. Simple examples of these are haircut prices and airline tickets. If you're an OAP, you'll get a discount on your haircut. This is not "completely wrong"; well, not unless you have a particular problem with OAPs/under 12s/students. Rather than have a simplistic one-price mechanism, barbers adjust the price to suit the realities of life: people generally have less liquid resources as children, students or OAPs. It's a simple discriminating practice, based primarily on age, which acts to alleviate the problems of social realities. With regard to airline tickets, anecdotally analyze the differential in pricing when you're willing to spend a Sunday at your destination. Hiring somebody on a Sunday, particularly after working the previous few days, is generally quite expensive and firms do not wish to do this. Thus "staying on Sunday" is primarily a consumer rather than commercial trait. As a result, air transport firms adapt their prices to acknowledge that consumers have less willingness to pay for a flight than a firm. Consumers get lower prices. This is far more efficient than simply using an average price between the consumer- and commercial-price, and any economist will agree. Although companies pay higher prices, consumers pay lower prices and the net benefit is positive.

Skin colour, ethnicity, citizenship, or any other reason should not be allowed to decide entrance into any educational establishment - preschool or otherwise.

I take it you're an egalitarian in the sense that you believe women should receive equal pay to men ex ante, yes? And that children of lower socio-economic stats but equal intellect should attend university to the same extent as middle-to-upper-class children? These seem like reasonable expectations to me.

Unfortunately, as we all know, this is not the case. Women do not receive as much pay as men. A child from Ballymun is far less likely to attend a university than a child from Dundrum. Of course there are many reasons for this. Men are naturally stronger than women, so that gives them some natural advantage in terms of marginal product and thus wage. Children from Ballymun are probably from less intelligent parents than the parents of the child in Dundrum so by extension the child from Dundrum is probably brighter. But I think everyone knows that these differences only explain some of the variation in success/accession/development. There remains a certain amount, the residual, that is discrimination against women and against whatever minority group you wish to name.

For the most part, such discrimination is illegal. As an unfortunate collateral damage to our "beyond reasonable doubt" legal system, not all cases can be pursued. In reality, there is not equality of opportunity between classes; there is no "fair race". Research on Irish (and indeed people of other nationalities) opinions on this issue of social justice strongly indicates that people want a fair race and accept the results thereof. But we have this unfortunate differential of discrimination that exists in the outcome, where women receive less income than men despite it being expressly forbidden by law.

The problem of women not earning as much as men is transferable to so many other schemata. Using the race example, one in eleven white Americans are below the poverty but one in four black Americans are. On average, black families in America earn $20,000 less per year than white families.

Many people have argued that the best way to solve this problem is to give minorities the hand-up to provide them with the opportunity of catching up. By virtue of the fact that you, as parents, earn more than other kids' parents give your child an advantage. As this advantage is inherited, many claim it is unfair. In all probability, your kids will be fine. But the additional value to the minority is greater than the marginal benefit to a wealthier, white kid. On these grounds, on a societal level, people are better-off. It is just like the airplane ticket example, but in this case Irish people are the firms who face higher prices. Yes, it can be construed as a subsidy to the poorer and yes it is your taxes that are funding the school. But it's precisely the type of subsidy that can't be argued on the old "shower of wasters" ground - it's for basic educational purposes to the less well-off. A couple of years ago the French film Caché caught my attention. There are several ways of interpreting that film, but one of the most powerful is

how failing to fully provide for and educate our neighbours can come back haunt those who spurned the lessers' opportunities.

In this sense, it's in your interest too, to not have ghettoization, or whatever you want to call it.

SarahMc

Community creches and playschools in this country (like the one you describe) were set up and funded by a European Equality for Women measure. Women who find it difficult to access the workforce get priority.

Almost all of them give priority to children of lone parents or those coming off social welfare. They all must have social inclusion policies. This is the first case I have heard of that gives priority to children from an ethnic minority. There may be local data that shows that women from ethic minorities in your area have difficulty paying market rates for childcare?

Your argument is not with the playschool, but with your local TD / govt. who will not fund affordable pre-school for all children.

seahorse

Ibid wrote:

Children from Ballymun are probably from less intelligent parents than the parents of the child in Dundrum so by extension the child from Dundrum is probably brighter.

You made some valid points in your post Ibid, but I really did take exception to this particular remark. The children of socially disadvantaged areas are the children of less educated parents, not less intelligent ones; there is a very distinct difference.

Time Magazine

seahorse wrote:

You made some valid points in your post Ibid, but I really did take exception to this particular remark. The children of socially disadvantaged areas are the children of less educated parents, not less intelligent ones; there is a very distinct difference.

I agree they're less educated and this is the primary reason they're disadvantaged. Although I have no evidence of this, indeed it's very hard to measure "intelligence", I would not be surprised to find that it's not all social differencing at play here and that there is some natural intellect differential; i.e. that richer people are naturally smarter. Of course I am not saying this is true in every case, but on average I think it's a reasonable enough conclusion. It certainly provides a reasonable candidate for the reason why the rich people are richer in the first place - and I can't think of any other.

I've been asked by the mod of this forum to not turn this into a debate though and have edited my original post suitably. If you disagree with my opinion that there is no difference in natural intellect, that's fine, it only serves to further my point that there are real discriminatory effects prevalent in society. If this is the case, it's a stronger argument for the sort of preventative action that the pre-school in question is taking.

I would also like to agree entirely with SarahMc; it's an absolute disgrace that there is not universal pre-schooling.

metrovelvet

Ibid wrote:

I agree they're less educated and this is the primary reason they're disadvantaged. Although I have no evidence of this, indeed it's very hard to measure "intelligence", I would not be surprised to find that it's not all social differencing at play here and that there is some natural intellect differential; i.e. that richer people are naturally smarter. Of course I am not saying this is true in every case, but on average I think it's a reasonable enough conclusion. It certainly provides a reasonable candidate for the reason why the rich people are richer in the first place - and I can't think of any other.
.

Inherited status, access, and privalege or 100% graft. It does not mean that they are educated or smart, it just means that they have the connections and degrees to grant them an avenue by which to enter more entitled positions. That or the drive and ambition.

The world is full of wealthy idiots and poor but self-educated [maybe not with degrees to prove it] people to disabuse this correlation you have made.

seahorse

Ibid wrote:

I would not be surprised to find that it's not all social differencing at play here and that there is some natural intellect differential; i.e. that richer people are naturally smarter.

It’s curious; I can think of no other social group, within class, race, nor religion, which you would be able to disparage by relegating to the position of the inherently stupid without being flamed for it.

The Corinthian

seahorse wrote:

It’s curious; I can think of no other social group, within class, race, nor religion, which you would be able to disparage by relegating to the position of the inherently stupid without being flamed for it.

Actually there is. Men. It seems perfectly acceptable in popular media to paint men as dumb or simply driven by their penises.

Time Magazine

seahorse wrote:

It’s curious; I can think of no other social group, within class, race, nor religion, which you would be able to disparage by relegating to the position of the inherently stupid without being flamed for it.

Oh would ye get off your horses? I said "I would not be surprised to find that ... there is some natural intellect differential." I never said it was definitive or that the lower-classes are "inherently stupid." To the contrary, I said that if you don't believe agree with this reasoning it furthers the argument for discriminating practices.

Your politically correct howling won't change my lack of surprise if a survey were to prove that the kids I grew up with are not as bright as the kids my wealthier friends grew up with.

The Corinthian

On the subject of intellect and income, there have been correlations between the two historically. However most theorize that this is due to environmental rather than genetic reasons. That is, for example, without adequate stimuli, children's brains do not develop to their fullest potential.

The human brain continually develops neural pathways based upon usage - if the environment lacks such stimuli, then these pathways simply fail to develop, or even degrade in adults.

In lower income backgrounds academic or intellectual pursuits are typically of lesser importance than in higher income backgrounds with many studies showing that the greatest barriers towards entering higher education being social rather than financial. Children from wealthier families go to college because it's expected, while those from poorer families tend not to because the reverse is true.

Additionally diet has been cited as another factor, although this has been put in some question in recent years.

metrovelvet

^ And if you look at immigrant groups in the US, who have historically been poor and underadvantaged, like Russian Jews, or Cubans, but who practised an education ethic at home, second generations used this ethic to gain footholds out of tenements and poorer stratospheres and were successful.

You don't need to be a millionaire to go to the library. You need a little extra effort, like making your children read or discussing history at the dinner table, to make it a natural part of life so that your children have the language to be educated and sit among the educated regardless of the banger they get dropped off to school in.


Your politically correct howling won't change my lack of surprise if a survey were to prove that the kids I grew up with are not as bright as the kids my wealthier friends grew up with.


Ibid - it takes intelligence to recognise intelligence.

Time Magazine

metrovelvet wrote:

Ibid - it takes intelligence to recognise intelligence.

Would you like to extrapolate on that comment?

Nevyn

Ibid if you have a problem use the report post function.
Metrovelvet personal abuse will not be tolerated on this forum.

Time Magazine

Thaedydal wrote:

Metrovelvet personal abuse will not be tolerated on this forum.

It's okay: I'm from a poor socio-economic background. It's to be expected.

Nevyn

Yes an education ethos in the home does make for a big difference no matter what the wealth of the family but a lot of the places where those type of funded preschools do not have that ethos.

Even the forums for applying for grants for 3rd level for those who can avail of such things can be prohibitive as the length, language and nature of the forums can be off putting to the parents who may not have gotten as far as the leaving cert themselves.

There are families that do not consider college or studying as being the same as work.

These same families see educating children to be the 'job' of schools and do not take the needed interest in their child's development in school or in their homework ( esp when they have illiteracy issues themselves).

Yes we should have preschool for all children esp with the lack of school places pushing the starting age closer to 6 each year and we should have homework clubs in every school.

Victor

I really hate the way only kids with heart defects get heart surgery. Why can't all children get heart surgery?

Such discrimination is there to level playing fields for those in difficult situations. It is perfectly legal.

metrovelvet

^ Are you saying these children are defected?

Victor

metrovelvet wrote:

^ Are you saying these children are defected?

If you mean 'defective', then no. In their cases, their disadvantage comes form their environment, not their genetics.

karen3212

Victor wrote:

If you mean 'defective', then no. In their cases, their disadvantage comes form their environment, not their genetics.

Yes, and the reason for these programmes is to improve both the environment of these kids, and help the parents(who may have had bad parents themselves in a few cases) to help their children too. Nobody's child lives in a bubble, and if these programmes improve the childhood of kids form disadvantaged backgrounds, then surely it will improve society as a whole in the long run.
Apparently from my reading it is a lot cheaper than paying for social programmes for teenagers or any other age group, also cheaper than building prisons for people who've grown to hate society.

I don't mind paying to give disadvantaged kids a leg up, as it helps all of us in the future. And why don't we have universal pre-school places, it is not your td's fault, it is our fault. We are not willing to pay for them, otherwise they would exist.

ceidefields

Let's see, how many broad sweeping generalisations can we include in one discussion:

- any non-Caucasian person who's successful (e.g. surgeon) is automatically a result of positive discrimination and therefore not as smart as others
- children of rich people are de facto smarter than the rest of society (George W. - anyone?)
- positive discrimination automatically means Irish kids are being active discriminated against

You have a choice (lucky you) and you chose not to send your child to that preschool. In any case, positive discrimination doesn't just happen by itself - it's normally put in place to redress an inbalance. Were the ethnic minorities having trouble getting into preschool?

DinoBot

Wow, so many people saying how wrong discrimination is, I can only assume you don't have kids in school yet, then you would see how discrimination really works

Oh, I think schools call it "ethos" instead of religious discrimination