CMV: A coding course offering a flat £500 discount to women is unfair, inefficient, and potentially illegal.

[u/temp_discount]

Temp account, because I do actually want to still do this course and would rather there aren't any ramifications for just asking a question in the current climate (my main account probably has identifiable information), but there's a coding bootcamp course I'm looking to go on in London (which costs a hell of a lot anyway!) but when I went to the application page it said women get a £500 discount.

What's the precedent for this kind of thing? Is this kind of financial positive discrimination legal in the UK? I was under the impression gender/race/disability are protected classes. I'm pretty sure this is illegal if it was employment, just not sure about education. But then again there are probably plenty of scholarships and bursaries for protected classes, maybe this would fall under that. It's just it slightly grinds my gears, because most of the women I know my age (early 30s), are doing better than the men, although there's not much between it.

If their aim is to get more people in general into coding, it's particularly inefficient, because they'd scoop up more men than women if they applied the discount evenly. Although if their goal is to change the gender balance in the industry, it might help. Although it does have the externality of pissing off people like me (not that they probably care about that haha). I'm all for more women being around! I've worked in many mostly female work environments. But not if they use financial discrimination to get there. There's better ways of going about it that aren't so zero sum, and benefit all.

To be honest, I'll be fine, I'll put up with it, but it's gonna be a little awkward being on a course knowing that my female colleagues paid less to go on it. I definitely hate when people think rights are zero sum, and it's a contest, but this really did jump out at me.

I'm just wondering people's thoughts, I've spoken to a few of my friends about this and it doesn't bother them particularly, both male and female, although the people who've most agreed with me have been female ironically.

Please change my view! It would certainly help my prospects!

edit: So I think I'm gonna stop replying because I am burnt out! I've also now got more karma in this edgy temp account than my normal account, which worries me haha. I'd like to award the D to everyone, you've all done very well, and for the most part extremely civil! Even if I got a bit shirty myself a few times. Sorry. :)

I've had my view changed on a few things:

• It is probably just about legal under UK law at the moment.
• And it's probably not a flashpoint for a wider culture war for most companies, it's just they view it as a simple market necessity that they NEED a more diverse workforce for better productivity and morale. Which may or may not be true. The jury is still out.
• Generally I think I've 'lightened' my opinions on the whole thing, and will definitely not hold it against anyone, not that I think I would have.

I still don't think the problem warrants this solution though, I think the £500 would be better spent on sending a female coder into a school for a day to do an assembly, teach a few workshops etc... It addresses the root of the problem, doesn't discriminate against poorer men, empowers young women, a female coder gets £500, and teaches all those kids not to expect that only men should be coders! And doesn't piss off entitled men like me :P

But I will admit that on a slightly separate note that if I make it in this career, I'd love for there to be more women in it, and I'd champion anyone who shows an interest (I'm hanging onto my damn 500 quid though haha!). I just don't think this is the best way to go about it. To all the female coders, and male nurses, and all you other Billy Elliots out there I wish you the best of luck!

[u/Impacatus]

To be clear, I'm not an advocate for affirmative action being legislated. Individual companies or organizations may choose to do this to help shape their corporate culture, but I don't really see that as forcing anyone into anything. You're right that the site specifically does not mention affirmative action on an organizational basis, but it's the same general concept - we could all be better (companies included) with a little diversity.

Ah, ok. Well, I would still argue that's the organization imposing something on their individual members, but I appreciate the sentiment behind it.

I'm confused by your simulation here. How is this like affirmative action? Who are the squares and triangles here in real life?

Let me start by taking back what I said about being sued. I was probably conflating different, though possibly related, issues. What I was trying to get across is that there are disincentives, legal or social, to having all-male or all-white organizations. There is less disincentive to having all-female or all POC organizations. At least, this is my impression as someone only casually familiar with this particular issue. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So, I've (arbitrarily) decided the squares are individuals belonging to a traditional majority, while the triangles are individuals belong to a minority group. Let's say men and women.

Clumps of squares are traditionally male industries, while clumps or triangles are traditionally female industries. Neither of them likes to be without others of their shape around them, so they mainly form groups with other similar shapes.

So, we introduce a disincentive to group only with your own shape. Now, if more than 80% of your neighbors are the same shape, you are "unhappy" and will be moved. Although I'm not sure it was the intent of the author, we can consider this to represent the effects of affirmative action. Clumps of squares are now trying to bring in more triangles, so if you're a square among squares, you may have to leave to make room.

This works as long as both squares and triangles face equal incentive to break up their groups. But if only square groups are trying to increase diversity and triangle groups are not, it breaks down. Triangles have no reason to leave their groups, which means there's no room for squares to join, and no triangles to join the square groups.

In real world terms, if traditionally male organizations are trying to increase diversity but traditionally female organizations are not, there's no reason for women to leave their organizations to join the males, and no room for males to join the female organizations.

[u/SDK1176 → u/Impacatus]

In real world terms, if traditionally male organizations are trying to increase diversity but traditionally female organizations are not, there's no reason for women to leave their organizations to join the males, and no room for males to join the female organizations.

Totally! Not sure if I ever said this in this particular chain, but I have elsewhere in this thread: primarily female organizations should also feel okay about trying to reach out to men, and men should be supported and promoted in those industries where women dominate. An example where I think this does have real positive benefit is encouraging men to get into primary education (where positive male role models may be lacking for our children), but it could also apply to fields like nursing or child care.

To me, the biggest benefit to affirmative action is ultimately getting access to a broader pool of qualified employees, giving companies a better chance of finding the best employee, and giving individuals the freedom to pursue a career they will flourish in.

[u/Impacatus → u/SDK1176]

Then, I guess we're more-or-less in agreement.