A lot of places now have these as standard policies-‘we will not discriminate against anyone on the grounds of race,religious or political beliefs,sexual orientation,disability,age,etc.etc.etc.’
Surely hasn’t anyone noticed this can never be achieved?It would be fine if they were all mutually exclusive.But it doesn’t work like that,for example:
Suppose I say that women shouldn’t be given any rights at all.That’s discrimination on the grounds of gender.But suppose I’m saying that because I’m a fundamentalist Muslim.If you refuse to allow me to make these statements,you are then discriminating against me on my religious beliefs.
The same would happen if I was a Christian believer who thought that homosexuality was wrong or if because my political persuasion was towards the BNP,I thought that all black people should be removed from Britain.
The same fundamental disagreement is there-wherever you are actively not discriminating against one person,there will be someone that you are discriminating against.
Is there any way to solve this paradox?Or is it simply a question of saying bluntly 'We will not discriminate against on the grounds of your beliefs as long as we think that they are acceptable beliefs?'Surely if your statement is ‘we will not discriminate you on the grounds of your political and religious beliefs’ then that must include all political and religious views,however unpleasant and discriminatory they are?
The existence of an apparent logical paradox in a policy does not make it unenforceable. Deciding how to come down on one side or the other of the paradox is one problem; enforcing it after that decision has been made is quite another.
Any policy has complex issues on the fringes. However, comparing the situation in the US today vs. 60 years ago (when my mother outraged people in Georgia by drinking from a “black only” water fountain - she was from New York and didn’t give a shit) you’d see that anti-discrimination policies work very well. They’re far from perfect, but they are a lot better than nothing.
If I run a business ask workers to refrain from making overtly religious comments and to be sensitive to the fact that their co-workers may believe differently than they do, I’m not discriminating against you one against anyone specifically. If you fail to respect my policies and I fire or discipline you, I’m not discriminating against you because of your religion, I’m responding to the fact that you don’t follow company rules and may be a bad employee because you’re causing problems for other workers.
Policies represent ideals - which are desirable, but in practice usually unachievable. That doesn’t make it a good idea to dispense with them or set the target lower. Even as unattainable goals, they provide a constant point of reference, the usefulness of which should not be underestimated.
It is not a paradox because it is not a contradictory statement. You are entitled to your beliefs as a fundamentalist Muslim or Christian or whatever group has bigotry built into their belief system. For the purposes of hiring or whatever, those beliefs do not entitle you to descriminate. You are required to show tolerance. In other words, you don’t have to like the fact that there are women or minorities or whatever working with you, but you must accept that they have the right to be there.