Installation of a gas heating system in new construction 2023/2024

Well, I find the worksheet unfortunate because the third column suggests a fixed determination and, moreover, the non-discrimination of someone does not have to have anything to do with the discrimination of someone else.

Purely didactic: I would have left out the third column and set an additional task to name a “privileged” group - freely chosen.

“Indoctrinating” is something different than a worksheet of this quality.

Yes, and I would really like to know what kind of answer comes when a student writes: I don't think that white men (category interchangeable here) are not discriminated against.

The legitimate response would probably be: Please justify in more detail. Evidence and sources are missing. Without a comprehensible argumentation, the answer cannot be rated as sufficient. Grade: 5 (-)

I'm also not a fan of such quotas, and I consider it an artificially induced phenomenon. There are no two identical people, so there are also no two 100% identically suitable applicants. Presumably, there is always a deciding factor, even if in the end it was just a likeability point during the interview.

Basically, it would be better if everything were fair and generally discrimination-free. However, the current composition of executive floors suggests that it has not been discrimination-free so far. On the other hand, the development that women enter the workforce as equals is still relatively young (in relative terms). Therefore, I do consider such efforts partially necessary to accelerate the process toward more fairness. I don't know if the withdrawal of privileges that "white men" currently still partially enjoy can really be perceived as discrimination. It's a double-edged sword. If we want more justice in the profession, we have to anchor that in society as a whole. Then it must also be normal that dad stays at home with the children, or both parents work part-time. That is still not widespread today but fortunately is becoming more common.

Exactly … who listed these categories as if they were in the Duden? Yes, and I would really like to know what the answer would be if a student wrote: I don’t think that white men (category interchangeable here) are not discriminated against. Surely a 1.0 then …

Well, that alone is not indoctrination. The student should support their statement with arguments. If they do that well, they can get a grade 1 depending on the grade level. If they write it as you did above (double negation, no justification), then it definitely won’t be a 1 and I would find that right. And it would still not be indoctrination.
It would only be indoctrination if they support their statement well with arguments and still get a 5 with the reasoning that it is just a fact.

Well, give an example where white men are discriminated against?

Depending on the context, that does happen.
Quite bluntly, walking as a white person (gender doesn’t matter) in certain neighborhoods at certain times of day.
As a white man, in certain circles you cannot make statements on certain topics that will be taken seriously solely because you are a white man (e.g., in a group mostly made up of women on the topic of the gender pay gap, in a group with a migration background on the topic of discrimination against migrants, in a group of Muslims on the topic of radical Islam). It doesn’t matter at all whether you are a professor in that subject and research exactly that. Marrying into a traditionally Turkish, Asian, or otherwise strongly ethnically rooted family with a migration background as a white man also regularly causes problems.
That is, however, individual discrimination and in my opinion should be distinguished from systemic, structural discrimination. A white man regularly has little trouble getting an apartment, a job, or directions because he is a white man. That then has more to do with other reasons.

I (as a non-white man) for example also reject the thesis that only as a member of a group affected by discrimination can one make valid statements about the discrimination of that group. Or that discrimination can only come from an absolute position of power. There are of course situations in which a minority – socially speaking – can hold a relative position of power and then can also discriminate.

Absolutely right that equality must first be truly established. So that, for example, the boss's way of thinking like "the woman is in her mid-20s and will therefore surely be absent for at least 2-3 years in the next 10 years... so I’d rather take the man in his mid-20s, who will be absent at most a few months or not at all" comes to an end, because BOTH will be absent or reduce their work. Then, sooner or later, one can certainly leave memorable formulations about genders in the application process behind.

So: Should one now still have a gas heating system installed in a new building or not? I am against it!