Can we change?

October 29, 2008

Can people change? How long does it take? There’s a mountain of evidence to say we can, and a mountain to say we can’t.

It seems to me, that what needs to happen in order for a person to ‘change’ is time. I’ve changed as a person since I was 10 years old. As has everyone – that is undeniable. But to what degree have we changed? Something makes me ‘me’ which never changes.

Perhaps we shall never know exactly what makes us ‘us’; but maybe, one day, we will know.

It seems like such a simple question with a simple answer; and yet equality is continually becoming more and more complicated.

So, what does it mean? Equal Rights? Equal Opportunities? Many would agree with those, and yet it seems like many are neglecting the fact that Equality should apply to all parties. Ask any company / business / establishment / sector whether they have an equality policy, and doubtless they will. And what does it contain?

Usually, statements such as

“Over the next five years we shall increase the number of [group here] in managerial roles by 10%”

“We shall ensure all minority groups have a dedicated support officer”.

But surely this can’t be equality.

Saying equality means 50% men and 50% women get employed in managerial roles is a total distortion. What it should mean is that irrespective of gender, whichever candidate is best suited for the role should be employed. If this means that an organisation has only 5% of whichever gender, then so be it.

And as for minority groups, again, surely it should be irrespective of race / ethnicity all get the same support? Giving one group more support is totally against the definition of equality.

And as for the “EMA” that people can get if their parent’s earn under £30,000 pa surely again, that is unfair? Plenty of parents earn over that, yet their get no money. And then there are those whose parents don’t earn a lot, but give their children almost everything (and who can blame them? Every parent just wants to provide for their child) and that child has a job – surely they don’t need to be paid money to stay on in post-16 education? Would it not be fairer to assess the children according to what they themselves earn and pay?

And yet, I can see why the distorted version has prevailed – it is far easier to assess a fixed salary income, percentage of employee groups and so on; than it is to assess whether the interviews are unbias, whether the total income of a child is larger than its own expenses. Surely though, taking one option just because it’s easier is never an excuse.

Don’t get me wrong, i’m a firm believer in equality, but only in true equality – where race, gender and indirect income don’t matter in any situation.