K P Pietersen book in the mail

I was reading my 'Daily Mail' this morning before I started work and there was an article from K P Pietersen's book.

The article talked about why he moved to England and now plays for England, rather than his native SA.

It talks about positive discrimination and the quota system......

I would like to know what my fellow Org 'PEOPLE' think about these......

I think he should worry more about fast bowling pitched just outside offstump cutting in towards middle and leg.

Quota systems and rigid positive discrimination are unwise, not because they are unfair, but because they breed resentment and fuel racist views in the section of the population that are discriminated against. However, the Cricketing authorities in South Africa needed to do something to make the whole population feel that the cricket team was theirs and to make sure that the pool of talent they were selecting from was as large as possible. In this case, it has backfired and they have lost a class player to England.

Before we get too annoyed about the quota system, it might be worth remembering that if KP was equally talented but a black South African, he may well have been overlooked and certainly would not have been able to afford to travel to the UK if his career was blocked in his home country.

I think he should worry more about fast bowling pitched just outside offstump cutting in towards middle and leg.

LoL.

Race in SA is a special case and if i was a white south african I think i would keep my mouth shut. But in the general case I am opposed to positive discrimination. It seems to me you have to choose; is society meant to be colour blind and gender neutral or is it not? I can see the attraction, in a sense: if individuals are going to be racist or sexist we will intervene at a society level to "redress the balance", but IMHO the drawbacks include:

1) entrenching discrimination, albiet you think your discriminatio is "good"

2) possibly justifying discrimination in the minds of those who really do discriminate. "Bloody women get their quota places, I don't need to employ any more of them"

3) a simple minded approach to inequality in the first place. It seem,s to me to be a plain logical fallacy that an unequal outcomes means there "must" have been discrimination at some point.

Case in point: my wife is presently staying at home looking after our you kids. Fans of Adam Smith will know that specialisation is economically rational (although fear not we didn't rationalise the decision in quite those terms). When she returns to work she will have lost about 5 years senority in her career, not to mention needing time to get her skills back up to speed. No one discriminated against her for her to be in that position.

Likewise, although no one can object to the Tories taking measures to get more women candidates, instead of addressing the very real discrimination that there was in consituency associations, they simply went to a quota system. I guess they needed a quick fix. Trouble is, for 50 places for men and 50 for women, there were 350 men qualified to apply and 70 women.

Paint my arse blue and call me Colonel but the calibre of the 50 women selected is rather below the calibre of the men who made the cut. ironically associations now have a fairly valid reason for being suspicious of the women candidates they are being sent