Magna-Carta
Senior Member
- Location
- UK
I recently came across this news article regarding positive discrimination in recruiting within the Royal Air Force. It appears that an internal inquiry conducted by the Ministry of Defence revealed that initiatives aimed at increasing the representation of women and ethnic minorities actually resulted in illegal positive discrimination.
The head of the RAF has acknowledged that some men were subjected to discrimination. This inquiry was triggered by the resignation of a female RAF Group Captain who raised concerns about the policy, highlighting its adverse impact on white men.
What are your opinions on this type of thing? Is it ever justified in certain scenarios? Or is your opinion always the best person for the job regardless of gender; ethnicity; background? When dealing with businesses and organisations who do you want to be dealing with, the best person for the job, or the person who has satisfied a checklist criteria? Can someone always satisfy both in all circumstances?
The head of the RAF has admitted some men were discriminated against. The internal inquiry was sparked by the resignation of a female RAF Group Captain who told her superiors the policy penalised white men. The inquiry found she had faced significant and unreasonable pressure to meet diversity targets.
These targets were set by the last Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Mike Wigston, to increase the proportion of women and people from ethnic minorities in the RAF. But the unnamed senior female RAF recruitment officer told her superiors that fast tracking women and ethnic minorities was contrary to the equality act and discriminated against white men.
The inquiry, conducted by the Ministry of Defence, found the pressure to meet those targets led to illegal, positive discrimination. The RAF had argued its policies were not unlawful and amounted to positive action, not discrimination.
The new head of the RAF, Sir Richard Knighton, has now admitted that some men were discriminated against, and apologised. They include a group of 31 who were held back in training, who have now been compensated. The RAF has also admitted its target for 40% of the force to be female and 20% from an ethnic minority background by 2030 is unrealistic. However no individual has been named or blamed for trying to implement the policy. The female Gp Capt who first blew the whistle and resigned is still expected to take the RAF to an employment tribunal."
More in the link below.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66060490
The head of the RAF has acknowledged that some men were subjected to discrimination. This inquiry was triggered by the resignation of a female RAF Group Captain who raised concerns about the policy, highlighting its adverse impact on white men.
What are your opinions on this type of thing? Is it ever justified in certain scenarios? Or is your opinion always the best person for the job regardless of gender; ethnicity; background? When dealing with businesses and organisations who do you want to be dealing with, the best person for the job, or the person who has satisfied a checklist criteria? Can someone always satisfy both in all circumstances?
"RAF diversity targets discriminated against white men:
Initiatives to increase the numbers of women and people from ethnic minorities in the RAF led to illegal positive discrimination, an inquiry has found.The head of the RAF has admitted some men were discriminated against. The internal inquiry was sparked by the resignation of a female RAF Group Captain who told her superiors the policy penalised white men. The inquiry found she had faced significant and unreasonable pressure to meet diversity targets.
These targets were set by the last Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Mike Wigston, to increase the proportion of women and people from ethnic minorities in the RAF. But the unnamed senior female RAF recruitment officer told her superiors that fast tracking women and ethnic minorities was contrary to the equality act and discriminated against white men.
The inquiry, conducted by the Ministry of Defence, found the pressure to meet those targets led to illegal, positive discrimination. The RAF had argued its policies were not unlawful and amounted to positive action, not discrimination.
The new head of the RAF, Sir Richard Knighton, has now admitted that some men were discriminated against, and apologised. They include a group of 31 who were held back in training, who have now been compensated. The RAF has also admitted its target for 40% of the force to be female and 20% from an ethnic minority background by 2030 is unrealistic. However no individual has been named or blamed for trying to implement the policy. The female Gp Capt who first blew the whistle and resigned is still expected to take the RAF to an employment tribunal."
More in the link below.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66060490
Last edited:
