Many graduates obtain their first job by impressing an employer whilst on a summer internship. However, civil service internships are limited to applications from students who meet criteria biased towards ethnic minorities and poor applicants. The policy of positive discrimination aims to address the hegemony of the white, middle class male in our nation’s bureaucracy.
But does this equality agenda result in a more cohesive society? Or, by using a policy which differentiates between those of different races and socio-economic standing, is the government just perpetuating social divisions?
In March 2011, 5% of the senior civil service staff came from minority backgrounds. This is clearly an unacceptable proportion, especially considering the multicultural nature of Britain. The civil service’s official strategy in addressing this issue is simple and sensible, they concentrate on “giving every employee the same opportunities, whatever their background.” It makes sense, as by providing equal opportunities for all, proportionate numbers of employees from every background will be encouraged to achieve. Moreover, this framework promotes a meritocracy in which every employee has the same opportunities.
However, the Civil Service Diversity Internship does not adhere to the principle of equal opportunities for all. It is open specifically to applicants of a certain ethnicity. Despite the government’s official stance on providing the same opportunities to all, it limits the scope of its student work experience based entirely upon the racial and socio-economic background of applicants. This is simply oxymoronic.
In separating a potential applicant’s racial identity from their ability, they are placing emphasis upon recruitment which values race over skill. This is also demonstrated by ethnicity related quotas of staff population. In regulating ethnicity, the civil service is dividing society into racially separate sections.
The civil service should be a social entrepreneur, instigating reforms which encourage a more cohesive society. One way of encouraging a greater number of applicants from under-represented groups is through targeted advertising. By increasing the awareness of a group to a particular opportunity, you can engage with a segment of society that may have previously been unaware or unwilling to participate. However, this should not overrule the basic principle of a meritocracy – the best candidate should get the job. Quotas and restricted applications do not adhere to this, and result in a simplistic, unfair, patronising and ‘hollow’ variety of diversity.
I am not arguing that the target of equal representation is unimportant; conversely, I believe it is essential. In altering selection policy to discriminate against those who are well represented, the civil service is displaying behaviour which is hypocritical and counter-productive. Artificial manipulation of its workforce may show an empirical advancement towards diversity, yet, without a change in perspective, the government is continuing to be part of the problem.