A claim against the student loan scheme will proceed after the Human Rights Commission agreed the scheme may discriminate against women, a students' group says.
Says the Herald. And bollocks say I.
Well technically the Commission has only agreed that it "may" discriminate, so I don't say bollocks to that, I would say bollocks if it was claimed that it "does" discriminate. For, in saying it "may" they are also saying it "may not."
The complaint is being made by the New Zealand University Students' Association (NZUSA) because they claim (according to the Herald) that "the scheme breaches the Human Rights Act because women take twice as long as men to repay their loans and pay thousands of dollars more for their qualifications."
Now, now, now. So what? Is that the fault of the Loans Scheme? I don't think so. I do not believe that the scheme discriminates against woman, but rather that society in general is discriminating against woman.
On average woman do apparently earn less, and because of family responsibilities they often work less overall than men, which pronounces the lower earnings even more. Or so I'm told.
The upshot of this then would be that if woman come out of their education with a student loan it will take them longer to pay it off than a male with the same value loan.
Is this the loan scheme discriminating? No, no it isn't. The loan scheme is being fair, and it is "society" or "New Zealand in general" that are in fact discriminating, and the effects of this discrimination are being seen in extended repayment periods for woman.
Now I know people may want to argue that this situation could be fixed with some affirmative action on the part of the loan scheme. But this would only fix the most flagrant example of the problem. Woman would still earn less, they would just pay their loans off faster.
And would that be fair to everyone? No, not really. The average female engineer or lawyer is going to make swags more cash than the average male BA, so changing the scheme to help woman out would really unfairly help certain groups while screwing (relatively) other groups. I know there aren't too many female engineers, but female lawyers there are.
Also, the fact that woman are more likely to work less because of family commitments is just one of those things. Men can't get pregnant, and as such, can't ever expect to take time off to give birth, woman can, and do. They will work less. While there is a trend towards fathers staying at home to raise the family, this is not yet at a significant level (as far as I know) and thus again woman will be out of the work force.
This is not the fault of the student loan scheme, and any complaints about discrimination should not be placed at its feat, but rather at the feet of God, and the patriachal society we exist in.
However, if the outcome of this mediation is the reduction or wiping of everyone's student loans, then I'd be all for it.
Rock on.
Mog likes the HR Tag
Has nothing to do with this next bit.
Ahmed Zaoui was secretly videotaped by the SIS and the police during a seven-hour interview when he arrived more than a year ago - but an hour of the tape's sound has mysteriously gone "missing". (Herald)
Ahaha. Oh yes, an hour of sound only has gone missing. No I don't think it has gone "missing," I think it has been dwaleeted.
I'm not judging that, or the case at all. I'm just thinking that nobody is buying the "sound has gone missing." 'Cause it is just silly.
Posted by luther at December 8, 2003 05:11 PM | TrackBackIf more women did the kinds of degrees that get more highly paid jobs, like law and computer science and engineering and forestry etc, then they'd be able to pay their loans off faster. If you insist on getting humanities degrees, then you get humanities pay too.
And of course noone is making a female graduate take time out of work to have children - that's a matter of choice, for the most part.
Sure, there's an element of service to the general population by producing the next generation, but that's why the having of younguns should involve a lifetime commitment to a male partner, and as such, his and hers become theirs, so his on average larger income can be used to service the loan.
I'm not stupid enough to think this is the way it actually works out, but this is the way it should, and as such, the loans scheme couldn't be fairer.
And women doing the same job as a man should be on the same pay rate - I can't understand why it isn't so already.
But to change the loans scheme to make it easier for women in any way would be discriminating against men, which is just silly.
I guess the studentss''s's's's's association is trying to address the wider problem but are restricted by their limited jurisdiction, sort of. Oh well, to bed.
Posted by: madoo on December 9, 2003 10:35 PMStupid NZUSA, and their stupid backward view of the world, we hates it precious, yes we does.
Posted by: torshin on December 15, 2003 02:22 PM