Positive discrimination gives preferential treatment to disadvantaged groups in hiring, education, and services. It started in the US in the 1960s, spread slowly to Europe and India, and remains controversial.
Supporters say it corrects past injustice; critics say it creates new inequalities and can lower standards.
Table of Contents
What Positive Discrimination Actually Is
Positive discrimination means giving preferential treatment to people from socially and economically disadvantaged groups. You see it most often in recruitment, promotion, education, and public services.
Here’s the key distinction: equal opportunities policies say you should ignore race, colour, gender, sexuality, religion, and nationality when selecting people. Positive discrimination does the opposite. It actively considers those categories to give certain groups an advantage.
The main beneficiaries have been women and ethnic minorities. In the United States, that includes black people. In India, it covers the “scheduled castes” (formerly untouchables and various hill tribes). Disabled people, certain religious groups, and US war veterans have also benefited.
You’ll hear terms like “affirmative action” or “positive action” used to describe these practices. The goal is straightforward: compensate for past deprivation or prejudice that keeps certain groups at a disadvantage.
Think about it this way. If certain ethnic groups are more likely to have grown up in poverty or received poor education, they start job applications from behind. If women or minorities were denied opportunities in the past, they lack the experience needed for promotion.
Positive discrimination tries to factor those disadvantages into hiring decisions so inequality doesn’t repeat itself.
Where It Came From
Positive discrimination started in the United States during the 1960s as the Civil Rights Movement gained momentum.
The first major step came in 1964. The Civil Rights Act banned discrimination in employment, public accommodation, and education based on race, colour, religion, gender, or national origin. The act called for affirmative action to fix past discrimination.
For example, workers who had been fired for racist reasons had to get their jobs back.
Courts then began imposing serious remedies for discrimination. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, new laws required all organisations with federal contracts to comply with equal opportunities legislation and set up affirmative action programmes.
What did this look like in practice? Employers had to report to the government on how many staff they employed from certain ethnic groups. They had to set annual goals for minority representation and timetables for hitting those goals.
Recruitment procedures got reviewed too. Guidelines aimed to eliminate tests or entry requirements that weren’t essential to the job if they ended up rejecting minority candidates.
The result: affirmative action became mandatory in the US. But the concept is now so deeply ingrained in universities, businesses, and government organisations that these practices would probably continue even without regulation.
How Europe and the UK Handled It
Europe moved slower, and mostly on a voluntary basis.
In 1984, the European Council made a Recommendation of Positive Action for Women. It urged member states to address unequal opportunities for women in employment. States were encouraged to raise awareness of prejudicial attitudes, improve training and counselling for women, and adapt working conditions and hours to suit women with childcare commitments.
In the UK, the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) tried to eliminate discrimination against women in employment. The Race Relations Act of 1976 let government bodies and other organisations provide special education, training, and welfare services for certain racial groups.
But here’s the catch: neither act allowed anything beyond “positive action.” That means past discrimination could be counter-balanced only through non-discriminatory training programmes. Both acts made positive discrimination on grounds of race or gender illegal.
Employers and organisations, including the police, could target certain groups by advertising jobs in ethnic minority press. Political parties sometimes used positive discrimination too.
The Labour Party tried to increase women in Parliament by drawing up women-only shortlists for certain seats. That policy got dropped after a court challenge found it violated anti-discrimination legislation.
The Big Court Case That Changed Things
In a landmark US case, three white students took their university to the Supreme Court over affirmative action in admissions. The university gave extra points to applicants from ethnic minorities.
Michigan University had just 8 per cent black students. That’s serious under-representation considering Detroit, the nearest city, has a population over 80 per cent black. President Bush joined the white students’ lawsuit.
In June 2003, the Court ruled that using race as a factor in admissions could continue. But the admissions points system as a whole had to change to fit the Constitution.
Examples From Around the World
Affirmative action has been mandatory in Northern Ireland since 1989. Organisations were ordered to ensure equal representation of Roman Catholics and Protestants in the workforce.
India has run positive discrimination policies since independence in 1947. They guarantee large quotas of university places and government posts to the scheduled castes.
Before 1995, UK employers had a quota requiring 3 per cent of the workforce to be people with disabilities. Certain jobs, like lift attendants and car park attendants, could only be taken by people with disabilities who were registered as such.
The Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 repealed both the quota system and the job restriction. Both had proved unworkable. Now a disabled person can take action individually when discriminated against.
The DDA covers only direct discrimination, unlike the SDA which covers both direct and indirect. Employment tribunals hear DDA cases. The act affects employers of 20 or more people and covers areas beyond employment, like education and public transport. Employment provisions came into force in late 1996.
Does It Actually Work?
Positive discrimination has improved minority representation in the workforce, particularly in the US.
But critics raise real concerns. Some argue it’s counter-productive because it hardens racial divisions by putting certain sectors of the population at a disadvantage.
In India, higher castes have protested against positive discrimination. The competition for limited university and government places has become fierce.
Others say success has been limited to certain groups. Critics in the US point out that affirmative action has primarily benefited middle-class women and black people but failed to address problems of poorer members of these groups.
There’s also ongoing discussion about whether positive discrimination leads to falling standards. The concern: less qualified candidates from minority groups getting preference over better qualified candidates.
In the UK, the law has intervened only in employment. Employers are given a quota stating 3 per cent of the workforce must be people with disabilities.
What This Means for You
If you’re an employer, you need to know the difference between positive action and positive discrimination. In the UK, positive discrimination on grounds of race or gender is illegal. You can run training programmes and target recruitment, but you can’t give someone a job just because of their background.
If you’re a job applicant or student, understand that policies vary widely by country. The US allows race as a factor in admissions. The UK doesn’t allow preferential treatment based on race or gender in hiring. India has quota systems for specific castes.
If you’re following policy debates, remember that the core tension hasn’t changed since the 1960s. How do you correct past injustice without creating new ones? Supporters say positive discrimination levels the playing field. Critics say it tips it in the other direction.
The answer depends on where you stand, and what you think fairness actually requires.
