In my mission to try and reach the point of ending the illegal immigration crisis (wherein I’ve had to try and resort to taking measures that impact my national stability just to try and chip away the positive influencing factors), I saw Diversity Quotas and thought “aha! The last policy I need to increase racial tension and end this crisis.” However, I’ve noticed that Diversity Quotas For Companies only gives a negative to Capitalists and the Self Employed, and that it in fact reduces Racial Tension.
I feel like there’s been more than enough uproar both online and in person over Diversity Quotas, that it would make much more sense for Racial Tension to actually be increased by this policy, while the positive influences it has on Ethnic Minorities and Liberals remains the same.
Perhaps low level funding can cause tension, but stronger implementation reduces it, which combined with a long lead time would simulate the effect of an initial uproar followed by a an easing into a new status quo.
(Also, I don’t think it’s possible to stop the illegal immigration crisis right now, despite maxing everything that affects it. I could go on about how police drones, ID cards and CCTV should probably affect it besides maxed police funding, but I think the real issue is that legalising all immigration doesn’t do the job when surely that should bottom out the situation?)
The issue is, I don’t really see much ways in which Diversity Quotas would reduce Racial Tensions. Since what a diversity quota is, is a policy of discrimination of employment opportunities based on race, and it will always feed the radical right wing messages of “dey tuk err jerbs,” which will be especially problematic in times of high unemployment, where the native population seek jobs and know that 18% of the roles (or whatever) cannot be taken by them on account of their skin colour or gender or sexuality or so on. Which, is what we have seen happen in recent years.
I’d also say on those grounds that Liberals shouldn’t actually be appeased by Diversity Quotas, seeing as it is state enforced discrimination, perhaps instead it should be Socialists and Ethnic Minorities.
Also, if not naturally adding to Racial Tensions, then perhaps it could at least become a contributing factor to the Extreme Nationalism or some other kind of far-right crisis event, where if there is high unemployment, high patriotism, high poverty, and Diversity Quotas, you end up with neo-nazi groups thriving off of the outraged majority population feeling oppressed by the state.
I see what you mean and it makes me wonder if the policy may be akin to mandatory work for the unemployed or forced foreign language tuition, in so much that the policy presented to you looks an awful lot more like a positive action scheme than the bombastic thing that it’s actually named.
there may also be a double effect where it’ll cause tensions short term but long term there will be an improvement
Exactly. Desegregation and miscegenation were once shockingly scandalous prospects that enraged the majority of populations, but in our current climate, opposition to them is rightly considered unilaterally evil.
Someday textbooks may substantiate that areas with minority populations weren’t represented in their associated institutions and positive action valiantly resolved the problem despite the howling furor of radicalised mobs, exactly as the civil rights era is discussed in schools today.
I don’t think the desegregation argument really works. Segregation was a legal enforcement of discrimination. It was preventing free relationships and actions of people between races. Desegregation was the ending of that thing. The removal of discriminatory policy, to return to the standard, natural, right state of people of everyone being equals.
A diversity quota however is not that, it is a legal barrier being enacted, not torn down, enforcing that race should play a part in employment. A requirement of accurate representation of a local area of 15% minorities is effectively saying that 15% of the jobs are not allowed to go to natives, no matter how qualified they are.
What would be better than diversity quotas would be some kind of National Training Programme, like the University Grants slider, where it ranges from support for the homeless, to support for the unemployed, to support for the poor, to support for the underrepresented, to blanket support for everyone. That would be an example of a non-racial policy, that’d be one that’s focussed on irradication of a tangible problem, poverty, and doing it by socioeconomic status.
A diversity quota however, is just legally enforced racial discrimination, that has and will fuel racial tensions, due to its perpetualisation of society needing to consider race, whereas without diversity quotas, race would not be a factor and it would purely be whoever is best for the job who gets it, which is a level playing field.
I’d say the positive effects of quotas are better represented by raising minority income and reducing situations like ghettos and not lowering racial tension. I’d agree it should probably raise it, in fact.
I’d definitely agree with those two positive effects being added to it as a replacement