When they have nothing better to do, many media commentators succumb to the temptation to dabble in the proportionality thesis - generally to wax indignant on discovering marked discrepancies, within any organisation or occupation, of the proportion of persons associated with a 'minority group' compared with their numbers in the population at large.
As fair-minded citizens, we are expected to regard such discrepancies as significant - arising, that is, from unfair practices or, at least, from lack of proper encouragement of the members of the minority group in question.
The more ubiquitous examples of the proportionality thesis are, of course, those bearing on the representation of women in any organisation - women being currently regarded as a sort of honorary minority group. At all events, feminists are ever active in highlighting the relatively small numbers of women in parliament, university faculties, managerial positions in business and in the higher echelons of the judiciary, civil service and the armed forces - a disproportion attributed, not surprisingly, to 'gender discrimination'.
Hardly less frequent are allegations of continued racial and ethnic discrimination by Britain's vociferous race relations industry, often adducing as evidence their insufficient representation in various professions or on various official boards or commissions.
Recently, stratagems for producing a more 'representative' House of Commons have been mooted, special attention being given to women and to blacks and Asians which may, by extension, lead to a consideration of the present lack of proper representation of senior citizens, single mothers, homosexuals, the disabled and of any other distinguishable group that may be able to exert political pressure.
Sisyphean sums
If we reject the view that a disproportion of a minority in any occupation is of itself unjust, we may confine ourselves to three questions.
First, is it practicable to eliminate the existing disproportions in the representation of minorities among the various occupations?
Second, are significant reductions in the prevailing disproportions - assuming they can be effected - likely to be beneficial to society?
Third, should the prevalence of a conspicuous disproportion in any occupation or membership be accepted as prima facie evidence of discriminatory policies or practices?
The simple answer to the first question is no. In fact, it is feasible to calculate representative quotas for the various minority or other groups only if they are relatively few in number.
By restricting ambition to making provision for no more than three groups in Britain, for whites, blacks and Asians, membership in any occupations can be divided into no more than six categories, since men and women have to be featured in each group. With respect to the number of members in the Commons or in a university faculty - say, between six and eight hundred - an 'ideal' composition may be easily calculated and, possibly, enforced through the application of 'affirmative action' or 'positive discrimination'. But this quest for an ideal representative composition becomes more laborious to calculate and to enforce as the minorities eligible for representation increase.
During one of my teaching stints in the US, I became involved in the controversy about affirmative action within the teaching staff of the university. Among the complaints of proponents of affirmative action was the allegation that the number of women teachers - although well below the required quota - was largely white. Moreover, the quotas for minorities were too broad. The black quota, it was suggested, ought properly to be divided into native blacks, Caribbean blacks, Haitian blacks and the more recently arrived African blacks. Similarly, the Latino quota should be split into separate quotes for Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans and a residuum made up of immigrants from South and Central America. Finally, Orientals would require quotas for the Chinese, the Japanese and Koreans, at least, with Asian quotas for recent immigrants from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma (1).
If now we allow that whites in the US continue to be treated as an homogenous group irrespective of origin, and accept that roughly a half of each of the minority quotas mentioned are women, there will be 34 quotas to be filled in each university. They will obviously vary greatly in size, the quota for, say, Cubans being less than one half of one percent of the university staff. In a fairly large university with about 600 teachers, three Cubans would suffice to fill their quota: one-and-a-half men and one-and-a-half women - say one full-time and one part-time teacher of each sex.
But suppose a minority group to be formed from the descendants of marriages between Caribbean blacks and Cubans. Such a minority can claim to have as much a right to affirmative action as any other. If, however, there are but 30,000 members of this minority, proportionality entitles them to no more than .01 per cent of the teaching staff of a university. This looks decidedly awkward. In a university of about 600 teachers, the male quota for this minority would be .03 of a person, likewise for the female quota. However, bearing in mind that the average university teacher puts in about 100 hours of teaching each year, this seeming difficulty might be overcome by allocating to each of them about three teaching hours a year - though a smaller university of, say, 100 teachers would afford them only half an hour a year each. It may be conjectured that this arrangement would be of more benefit to the two three-hour teachers than to the students.
Commentary on the advantages to the students, or to the community at large, of the composition of an academic staff selected by reference to race as much as to merit is unnecessary. The only question is the feasibility of enforcing affirmative action as the number of minorities claiming quota-eligibility increases over time, and this with respect not only to universities but to all other occupations, professions or committees.
Causing resentment and distrust
The answer to the second question has to some degree been anticipated in the preceding paragraph. Even if a case in social justice for affirmative action could somehow be contrived, its implementation necessarily conflicts with the method of appointment based on merit alone.
What is more, a general awareness of official commitment to positive discrimination in favour of women and racial minorities cannot but create a prejudice in the mind of the public against the beneficiaries of this system. The unfortunate consequence is that each member of a minority group within a prestigious profession or select body carries a sort of stigma: he tends to be viewed with scepticism, no matter how qualified or skilled he actually is. Even those who support a policy of positive discrimination in the belief that it promotes social justice would hesitate to act on their principles if, for instance, they had the choice of flying to Australia with an affirmative action pilot, of studying for a science degree under an affirm-ative action tutor, employing an affirmative action barrister if on trial for their life, or choosing an affirmative action brain surgeon where a slip of the knife could be fatal.
To be sure, it may more plausibly be argued that quotas based on proportionality are fitting enough in the case of the House of Commons, at least if we disregard self-proclaimed minorities such as homosexuals or the aged and infirm and restrict ourselves to broad categories, say women, blacks and Asians. The argument advanced for such quotas, however, often rest on a misapprehension of representative democracy, one that misconceives representation as proportionality, the ideal chamber of representatives being one that is in effect a microcosm of the community at large.
Yet only in a community where the vital material interests of the various broad groups are in conflict can there be a case for proportional representation. In the absence of such a condition, the ideal member of parliament is surely one who - irrespective of their sex or ethnic origin - is best able to represent the interests of their constituency and best able also to contribute to the formation of national policy.
True, so long as political parties continue to dominate political activity the choice of a suitable candidate for a given constituency has perforce to be left to judgement of local party members. Quota constraints imposed by the central party requiring a given constituency to nominate only a woman, a black woman or Asian male, obviously abridge the freedom of local party members to exercise their own political judgement. Such constraints cannot but arouse resentment among the local members in consequence of which numbers willing to participate in political activity will decline. And in so far as ability or integrity or experience have to give way to quota requirements the overall vigilance and competence of the House are diminished.
Disproportionality proves nothing
A consideration of the third question needed not detain us long. The credibility of such an inference - an under-representation of any minority group being attributed to discrimination - was made risible by comedian Jackie Mason in a mock accusation of anti-Semitism among plumbers in the London area since it was virtually impossible to find there a Jewish plumber.
Apart from ambition to enter certain professions or occupations, which are not to be supposed to be equally dispersed among men and women or among minority groups, there are also innate endowments, mental or physical, and often also the patience, self-discipline and endurance to undertake the years of training or apprenticeship necessary for qualification and admittance. Again, relevant aspects of character for worldly success cannot be assumed to be equally disseminated among the various races. Neither is there reason to assume that among each of the racial or ethnic groups there will be equal parental care and sacrifice for their children, equal educational encouragement, and equal financial resources to help them in their careers. On the contrary, there is ample evidence to support the common belief that a long tradition of learning, perseverance in study, ambition and expectation of success, are distinctly more pronounced among some racial groups than among others.
Once we recognise that nature is unfair in its distribution of genetic endowments, and other natural advantages and characteristics, not only as between individuals but also - albeit to a lesser extent - among the various ethnic groups, it should be manifest that one cannot reasonably expect a proportional representation of these groups in all the occupations and professions. It follows that any departure from proportionality, whether mild or marked, cannot properly be interpreted as prima facie evidence of discrimination.
Admittedly, nepotism and prejudice may continue to favour undeserving individuals. Therefore, although there can be no presumption of any tendency toward a proportional representation in all professions and occupations, neither can we preclude the possibility that there may be cases when unwarranted discrimination may contribute to the disproportionality in any one or more professions and occupations.
In conclusion, the existence of disproportionality of itself in the composition of any profession or occupation cannot be accepted as prima facie evidence of unwarranted discrimination, conscious or unconscious. Such discrimination may well exist. But allegations of discrimination may be vindicated only by uncovering indisputable evidence of a policy or practice of purposeful discrimination.

Footnote
1. One must assume that the numbers calculated for any quota apply to the university teaching staff as a whole. It would be virtually impossible for the protected minorities to be proportionally represented in each of the university departments bearing in mind that some of them, such as the Department of Astrophysics, will have no more than five or six on the teaching staff.