The aims and objectives of the £70m a year organisation is to eradicate any kind of bias, prejudice or inequality from British life. It now appears to be falling apart, with several high-profile resignations blamed on the egocentric management style of Trevor Phillips. Last Monday, auditors rebuked the EHRC for spending almost £325,000 making senior staff redundant and then re-employing seven as consultants.
This week Kay Hampton, who was the first commissioner to resign in April, accused Mr Phillips of 'poor leadership driven by self-interest.'
In David Green's opinion (the director of Civitas), Mr Phillip's failings are not the issue. The organisation is falling apart because many of the people who run it are not concerned about equality at all, but rather with gaining preferential treatment for their own specific set of clients.
The EHRC merged three existing bodies - the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Disability Rights Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality but it would appear that some groups resented, not only the arrival of incomers, but being put on an equal footing with them.
In 2004 the Commission for Racial Equality opposed the plans for the commission, arguing that it would be less effective in advancing the interests of ethnic groups. The Government replied saying EHRC commissioners should not be 'champions for individual equality areas', but it does not seem to have worked that way.
Mr Green continues: 'Mr Phillips is resented because he has taken a stand against some of the more extreme demands for group privilege. He wants the commission to reduce its focus on preferential treatment for identity groups and to lend its support to anyone who is not flourishing, including white working-class boys. This focus on objective hardship is disliked by those who highlight built-in group characteristics, for example by presenting all white people as oppressors, despite the fact that many members of ethnic minorities are richer than the poorest whites'.
Sometimes a 'one size fits all' system just does not work. This would appear to be the case with the EHRC.
Posts
12 comments:
Basing our legislation on 'equality' can only provoke envy, since it is a relative, subjective judgement. Replace it with something based around liberty or freedom and the entitlement and envy is likely to go. Equality is a flawed concept in law, as Matthew Parris has said.
“Equality” is a dummy concept in the philosophy of law. Here it allowed both speaker and audience to overlook real differences between them, because everyone is in favour of equality. But Lord Phillips was wrong to say that only recently has English law developed a respect for equality. Common Law and Statute have always regarded everyone as “equal before the law”, but depending on who and what you are and what you've done, your rights may differ. A cat burglar and a householder are not equal before the law. An under-age teenager and an adult, a British citizen and an illegal immigrant, are not equal. An in-catchment-area and out-of-catchment-area parent are not (in their children's access to a local school) equal. It's all a question of category; the categories of citizen that our laws create do and must create differences - inequalities - in the rights of individuals.
The only interesting question is whether these inequalities are fair and in the public interest. This must depend on moral and cultural standpoints, which change over time. The argument about “equality” for (say) women who wanted the right to vote, gays who want the right to marry, slaves who wanted to be free, or convicted paedophiles who want the right to be considered for employment in children's homes, has only and always been about the suitability of these categories to enjoy the rights urged for them; not whether the law should be “equal”. Matthew Parris, The Times, 5 July 2008
Morning Brian, much thanks for reminding us of that excellent piece by Matthew Parris. Good to be reminded of the fluidity of the word equality.
Just a tad ironic that the EHRC is finding out that equality isn't equal. Perhaps not so surprising when we still haven't sorted out the ultimate aspirations of Freedom, Peace and Justice.
In my previous capacity - endless, mind-numbing hours forced to "participate" and "share" in muti-disciplinary/multi-professional group meetings which only reinforced 'inequality' as it was usually the most lowly perceived member asked by the most powerfully perceived member who was cajolled into taking the chair. Can never remember what was ever decided but we all probably went off and did our own thing anyway! Panjandrum managerialism at it's repulsive best.
Now now Clarinda, surely you were aware the mind-numbing hours were spent to achieve super-bonding and team building with your colleagues? These aims and objectives must have been writ large on some flipchart.
Social engineering at its best.
I don't understand the issue about making staff redundant and re-employing them as consultants - it's a pretty common practice in my experience. It is useful where severance terms are attractive but key staff can not be released immediately and it would be unfair to deny them the opportunity of the severance. Usually such consultancies are short-term - a few months bridging period only. Of course it could be a scam, but it could also be enlightened people-management.
Yeah, 'equal' is the wrong word - it's an old argument. Equitable should be used in this sort of context (even 'fair' is ok) and equality should be reserved for mathematics.
See the Mail story, btw, about Brown making immigration to Scotland easier than to England? Is he trying to big up the BNP here after their poor showing north of the border?
Positive discrimination is an evil as damaging to both sides as, it possibly can be. We have an industry and Quango power base that offers a very expensive substitute for common sense.
I had to take a workshop in employment equity once. The person running it was a black lady from the Caribbean. She explained that workplaces had to reflect the ethnic diversity of the community. I pointed out that as there were 250,000 people coming into the country from the Middle East and Asia every year and that as the economy was only generating about eighty thousand jobs per year all new jobs would have to go to new comers to satisfy this ideology. Her response: "that's right".
I'm sure the redundancy=consultant has been practised for years Vronsky. As you say, it will depend on the lengths of the consultancy contracts. Don't forget, there's a massive power struggle going on within this organisation so the green eye of envy may have something to do with it.
I noticed the story in the Mail. Now that is another reason I hadn't thought of. One of the blogs I read regularly had a short post about it. The blogger resides in England.
http://callingengland.blogspot.com/2009/07/calling-scotland.html
Aye OR and the people who have 'resigned' will still be receiving their handsome salaries. Common sense isn't a word any of us could apply to quangos really.
Interesting experience scunnert. Did the lady represent some employment quango?
"being an ignoramus" has never stopped you before so why stop now.
he he h
Ok Niko, ok lol. I've been called worse in my life I assure you but I've always admitted my lack of knowledge.
Now, about muscle-builders who are members of gyms ...
Post a Comment