Equality and Diversity

Inequality exists, even in societies without formal stratification (Parsons, 1970). Whilst complete societal equality may be unattainable, Equal Opportunities (EO) policies aim to ‘reduce the gap'. Inequality takes different forms and there is much theoretical debate regarding which grouping variables, such as gender or age, are important. There exist three key notions of ‘equality of opportunity’: formal, liberal and radical. The former two are minimalist concepts, concerned principally with equality of opportunity - the ‘beginning’ of the process. Conversely, the radical perspective, a maximalist concept, is more concerned with outcome. This paper outlines these three approaches, evaluates their successes and considers whether Managing Diversity (MD) may prove more useful.

Formal equality of opportunity, or procedural justice (Weale, 1996), underpins UK anti-discrimination legislation and anti-discriminatory statements in EO policies and some United States policies. This notion formed the core of such legislation as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (amended 1986), Race Relations Act (1976, amended 2000) and Disability Discrimination Act 1995, now superseded by the Equality Act 2010. The concept is that when two individuals have equal status in at least one normatively relevant respect, they must be treated equally in this regard. Formal equality adopts Aristotle’s principle that “injustice arises when equals are treated unequally and also when unequals are treated equally” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (Book V)). The formal ideal is equality of treatment; that all will be treated equally, unless otherwise justified by knowledge, experience or ability. Within the formal model, equality is defined as ‘fairness’, which should ensure that equals, or the equally qualified, have an equal probability of selection for education or employment positions. The fundamental aim is to inhibit direct discrimination or the use of ‘irrelevant’ criteria in selection

References: Anderson, T (2005) The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action. London: Oxford University Press. Anderson, T and Metcalfe, H (2003) Diversity: stacking up the evidence: a review of knowledge. Executive Briefing. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Bagilhole, B (1997) Equal Opportunities and Social Policy: Issues of Race, Gender and Disability, Addison Wesley Longman, London Becker, M (1998) 'The Sixties Shift to Formal Equality and the Courts: An Argument for Pragmatism and Politics ' Blakemore, K and Drake, O (1996). Understanding equal opportunity policies.. In: Contemporary social policy. London: Prentice Hall. Bourdieu, P (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage Publications. Childs, S and Webb, P (2012). Sex, Gender and the Conservative Party. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Cockburn, C (1989) 'Equal Opportunites: the short and long agenda '. Industrial Relations, 20(3), pp. 213-225. Colebatch, H (2002) Policy: Concepts in the Social Sciences. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Dorey, P (2007) ' A New Direction or Another False Dawn? David Cameron and the Crisis of British Conservatism '. British Politics, Volume 2, pp. 137-166. Freidan, B1(963, republished 2010). The Feminine Mystique. Oxford: Penguin Classics. Friedman, M and Friedman, R (1980) Free to Choose. London: Penguin Books. Gov.uk (online)(2011) ‘Creating a fairer and more equal society.’ Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/creating-a-fairer-and-more-equal-society (Accessed: 4th April 2013) HMSO, Equality Act 2010.London:, n.d House of Commons, Parliament and Constitution Centre, 2012. All-women shortlists. Available online: www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05057.pdf (Accessed: 3 April 2013), s.n. Iganski, P and Mason, D (2003) 'Ethnicity, equality of opportunity, and the British National Health Service. ' Contemporary Sociology, May, 32(3), pp. 298-9. Johns, N and Green, A (2009) 'Equality, equal opportunities and diversity: Obfuscation as social justice. ' Equal Opportunities International, 28(4), pp. 289-303. Kandola, R and Fullerton, J (1898) Diversity in Action: Managing the Mosaic. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development. Liff, S (1996) 'Two routes to managing diversity: individual differences or social group characteristics. ' Employee Relations, 19(1), pp. 11-26. Lyons, D (1966) 'The Weakness of Formal Equality. 'Ethics, 76(2), pp. 146-148. Michaels, W.B. (2008), ‘Against diversity’, New Left Review, July-August Mullender, A and Thompson, N (2003) Promoting Equality: Challenging Discrimination and Oppression Noon, M and Ogbonna, E (2001) Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employmen. London: Palgrave. Roemer, J (2000) Equality of Opportunity. London: Harvard University Press. Ryle, M (2005) Equal Opportunity. In: C. Skutsch, ed. Encyclopedia of the World 's Minorities. New York: Routledge, pp. 153-158. Smith, G (1987) 'Whatever Happened to Educational Priority Areas? '. Oxford Review of Education Vol. 13 No. 1 1987, 13(1). Stankevich, D (2001) ‘Diversity wears many faces.’ Retail Merchandiser. 41(11) November. p28 Tebbit, N (2006) Change is needed, but be careful, Mr Cameron Torrington, D., Hall, L. and Taylor, S. (2002), Human Resource Management  ,Pearson Education Limited, England. Warner, D (2001) The State of UK Higher Education: Managing Change and Diversity. Swansea: Open University Press. Wrench, J (2005) Diversity management can be bad for you. Race & Class, 46(3), pp. 73-84. psychological differences in personality and attitudes (adapted from Anderson and Metcalfe, 2003)