Affirmative Discrimination

A recent poll by Ipsos Reid and CanWest shows that Canadians would be more likely to vote for a Muslim or an atheist for Prime Minister than an evangelical Christian. Thirty-seven percent would not vote for an evangelical Christian under any circumstances.

Among other things, this shows which groups in contemporary Canada are truly discriminated against. It is hard to imagine similar figures for a gay PM, or a woman, a Quebecois, or a Jew. And it is hard to imagine the press reporting them as casually.

And among other things, this points out a problem, already hinted at a couple of blog entries ago, with all “affirmative action” programmes.

There is really no such thing as “reverse discrimination.” Discrimination is discrimination.

Imagine a situation in which there is discrimination in employment against, say, women, smokers, and evangelical Christians. If you impose a hiring quota for women, you may help prevent discrimination against women, but only at the cost of increasing it against smokers and evangelical Christians. The few jobs that would previously have gone to them are now likely to go to women instead. You have not ended discrimination; you have just shifted the burden from group to group.

It is impossible to establish “affirmative action” quotas for all conceivable groups that might suffer discrimination. There are too many, and they are always changing; never mind the impossible burden on HR departments and the impossibility of concurrently hiring on merit.

But it is worse than that. In a democratic society, those groups that will be singled out for such preferential treatment will be those on which there is a wide popular consensus. In other words, necessarily, it will be the most popular groups who will be given this “affirmative action” advantage. Which is to say, the groups that do not need it, groups that relatively few are prejudiced against. Those who most need it, conversely, will necessarily be most harmed by any “affirmative action” programme or “reverse” discrimination.

For a graphic example, who could conceive, at present, of a programme of “affirmative action” in Canada for evangelical Christians or smokers? Yet, as the present poll reveals, there is in fact more prejudice against them than against most other groups.