Picture this, you finish your finals and walk straight into your dream graduate job. You’d be feeling pretty damn good right? But how would that feeling change if you knew that you had been awarded that dream job not necessarily because you were the best candidate, but partly because you were a woman, because you were disabled, or because of the colour of your skin? Or, looking at it from a different angle, how would you feel if you had been rejected from your ideal job partly because you didn’t fall into one of the above categories?

That is unlikely to happen in the UK today as positive discrimination (at least as far as appointing somebody for a job goes) is currently illegal. That is not to say that some companies might not keep their work-force diversity statistics in mind when handing out jobs to candidates, and there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t. Of course, there is a duty on recruiters to ensure that employment opportunities are made available to everybody in society regardless of their sex, creed, or colour. Not to mention that poor diversity statistics can amount to terrible PR for any company. However, that there is no scope for positive discrimination provided by UK law means that it remains possible for graduate recruiters, should they choose to do so, to recruit almost exclusively from a pool of white middle class men (provided that they can show that they did not negatively discriminate against the other candidates for the job on the grounds of their race, sex, age, sexual orientation, or disability).

Worse still perhaps, employers with honourable intentions have found themselves on the wrong side of the law. Any attempt by an employer to recruit non-white candidates at the expense of white candidates, purely on the basis of race, will currently amount to a clear case of positive discrimination, which is contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976.

There is a strong argument to be made that public institutions, such as the police force, need to be representative of the community they serve. That argument has been reflected in the political arena where we have seen the emergence of all women shortlists and the Tories’ much-publicised ‘A-list’. The Tories promoted the A list to persuade voters that the party was changing and secure the nomination of more women and ethnic minority candidates. It was regarded as a similarly seismic shift for the Tories as Tony Blair’s decision to ditch Clause 4. However, one writer for Conservative Home has said of the A-List: “This is now the final nail in the coffin for anyone thinking this version of the Conservative Party is about meritocracy, equality of opportunity and not about political correctness and feminist gender politics.” So is positive discrimination political correctness gone mad, or can a strong argument be made to support its use? Would it be so bad to allow positive discrimination if it helps to create a workforce that is more representative of the community?

Many people believe vehemently that positive discrimination is hypocrisy. It is true that its implementation would create injustices for white middle-class men, but there is an argument that it would be righting an even greater injustice. The ends, so the argument goes, will justify the means. Eventually the balance could well be corrected and there would cease to be a need for all women shortlists and other forms of positive discrimination. The positive discrimination would force employers to see the value of women and ethnic minorities in the workplace. Overtime attitudes in the workplace, and perhaps society would change. The point is that by forcing a situation where there is equality for a time, the culture, structures, environment, expectations and conditions of work in society change until positive discrimination is no longer required.

The difficulty is that most businesses won't support positive discrimination and most candidates for employment may not either. How would you feel if you knew that one of the relevant considerations in your appointment to a particular role was the colour of your skin, or the fact that you're a woman? The proper approach must be to widen the pool of talent. Initiatives, such as those run by many of the large investment banks, aimed at encouraging applications from female and ethnic minority candidates are an excellent way of doing this. It's about finding the brightest talent from the biggest pool. Positive discrimination should give way to positive action.

Perhaps most crucially, this is a question of social views and education. Employer’s (and society’s) views on women and ethnic minorities must change. It is not clear whether the best way to effect those changes is top-down government legislation, or a bottom up change in attitude among employers and society, aided by advice and information from bodies such as the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights.

The CBI dismisses the idea of positive discrimination and believes the solution lies in going back and treating the earliest roots of the problem, which often stem from poor education choices and career advice. CBI statistics on the number of people who have achieved level two English (GCSE or equivalent) in the UK are shocking. Less than half of white adults (46%) have the qualification, while only 39% of those of Indian descent have it. The figure drops to less than one in four (24%) of those from black African origins. These statistics indicate that this is a societal problem that happens before people go into, or begin seeking employment. The solution to the problem of inequalities in awarding jobs to candidates must be addressed far earlier down the line.

Employers reject any suggestion of changes in the law to allow positive discrimination and are resolute that talent is the key and not quotas. Many candidates for employment feel the same way. But the question still remains: if employers are truly colour-blind and immune to gender, is it acceptable to wait another generation for the education system to catch up before every jobseeker gets a fair crack of the whip?