@Aidan
>Targets are not an end in themselves, but a way of checking that affirmative action is working

Affirmative action is based on the presumption that the expected outcome was not acheived due to discrimination. They may be valid, if an objective and empirically proven case could be made, that X% of identity Y would be in this position if there were no discrimination. This simply is NOT what happens.

>Affirmative action is investigating the obstacles that prevent people from historically disadvantaged groups getting hired and/or promoted, and changing procedures in order to remove those obstacles.

This is not what the quotas are. This is not what ACTUALLY happens. Companies pursue targets, because of the ideological belief that "diversity is a strength". They say this. Explicitly

>And we must be clear about this: quotas are NOT affirmative action (even though many people regard them as synonymous, particularly in America). Any business that resorts to quotas is failing at affirmative action..

But they must resort to quotas, because this is the only way they can prove they aren't sexist/racist. Lack of racial and sexual discrimination is simply not enough, because there is a chance that without any racism or sexism, the composition won't be satisfactory (ie, you may still end up with more mala managers).

Tell me, what percentage of women would be expected in middle and upper management for regulatory positions of manufacturers of FMCG's, if there were no discrimination?

Or better yet, what proportion of posts here in this forum, would be made by women, if there were no discrimiation or structural disadvantage? I say 50%. Therefore if the ratio is not 50/50, this means discrimination that we have to reverse through affirmative action. See how easy it is to justify discrimination?

ALH,

You ask, "see how easy it is to reverse discrimination"?

NO?

correction; justify, not reverse. But I had reverse in mind also.

Discrimination is natural ! Sometimes we just wrongly call it fate or bad luck !

@Altrav

"Reverse discrimination" is still a form of discrimination. The opposite of discrimination is to be indiscriminate. That means, at least as far as identity is concerned, to be indiscriminate as to the persons sexual/gender leanings.

Now, if you want to argue that some kind of alternative discrimination is required to achieve a goal, then do so. But that just proves my point, that these goals can't be achieved without discrimination, which must mean discrimination AGAINST someone, and more troubling, against someone who DID NOTHING WRONG.

against someone who DID NOTHING WRONG.
Assembly Line Human
Doing nothing is wrong too !