Lowering Standards

[daleduke17]

http://www.sj-r.com/News/stories/27733.asp

This was an article in yesterday's paper. Basically, the city fire and police departments aren't diverse enough for one of the councilpeople. She says that too much emphasis is placed on the interview and that they are subjective. She is concerned about miniorities not being retained, or even making it through the hiring process.

A few months ago the same paper ran an article about recruitment for the same departments. They were actually holding testing in Beardstown (a city with a high Latino population) and in a section of Chicago with a high African-American population. They (the city) were also giving the minority candidates more calls to remind them about the different stages of the process were than non-minorities.

I'm just irritated that it seems like the standards are being lowered on two things that should have some of the highest standards in a city, that being fire and police protection. What is wrong with minorities not wanting to apply? The city says it is an equal opportunity employer, but, then articles like this are printed that are showing that they'll almost skip over a well-qualified applicant to get a minority on their rosters.

When I tried out for a different agency, I had to remember what days the events were on (I did get a nifty magnet with the dates at least) and pass all of the events (which I didn't) without assistance.

Yep, let's have non-qualified people driving the apparatus around town. Once a few 500,000 dollar engines or ladder trucks get trashed, we'll know this was a bad idea.

[Boozy]

Where are you getting this "lowering standards" thing from?

They are simply discussing changing the weighting of certain hiring criteria, partly because they are concerned that certain minorities who would be very good at the job are being counted out unfairly. As the alderwoman said, "I am not convinced that the person who gets 100 on a test is going to be the best person to handle an encounter on the street." You can agree or disagree with that statement, but it has nothing to do with lowering standards.

You don't have to lower your standards to hire a minority.

[DarthRetard]

I believe he may be talking about hiring quotas. It does happen quite frequently here in America. Equal Opportunity is a policy which has been shown to sacrifice quality for quota.

[daleduke17]

Yes, Darth, that is correct. I just have a bad way of putting words to keyboard.

Boozy, I'm not saying that you have to lower standards to hire a minority, but, it ends up lowering the standards when you overlook the best and brightest because they don't fit the demographic flavor of the week.

If there are five open positions and 10 people apply. I want the people who scored 1-5 hired. I don't care if they are white, black or purple with pink polka-dots.

[Seshat]

A few months ago the same paper ran an article about recruitment for the same departments. They were actually holding testing in Beardstown (a city with a high Latino population) and in a section of Chicago with a high African-American population.

Excellent ideas.

As folks know, I'm actively feminist. I've spoken with people who said 'we don't have female staff because we don't get female applicants' - and when I asked where they advertised, most of their online ads where in places where the prevailing culture discouraged female readers. They weren't getting female applicants because they weren't advertising where the women were.

In this case, the goal is to actively encourage people from disadvantaged areas to apply. Putting testing/recruiting centres in their areas will do that. Especially if the normal places for them are places where disadvantaged people are unwelcome, or which are costly or difficult to get to.

They (the city) were also giving the minority candidates more calls to remind them about the different stages of the process were than non-minorities.

One of the subtler problems of disadvantage is cultural. Most people here are accustomed to living by the calendar, keeping track of appointments and the like. One of my problems with my disabilities is that I am accustomed to living by pain. I do things on good days, don't do things on bad days. It's a struggle to live by both pain and the calendar.

One of the problems with people raised culturally Australian-Aboriginal is that they're not used to living by the calendar. They live by the weather, by seasons, and by what needs to be done.

Someone raised Aboriginal who wants to become a cop may need assistance getting to the stage of training, and assistance during training to learn how to live by the calendar (and a whole lot of other cultural things that mainstream Australians don't think of). But this person could be the best damn cop possible for certain Aboriginal communities. Or one of the best cops possible for search-and-rescue in the particular type of wilderness he was raised in. Or might turn out to be a computer genius.

(Note: I have no idea of cultural problems or differences in the Latino or African-American populations.)

I'm just irritated that it seems like the standards are being lowered on two things that should have some of the highest standards in a city, that being fire and police protection.

So long as the applicants are up to most standards at application stage, and up to mainstream standards on cultural things by the end of training, I'm in favour of making sure minorities get a fair go.

What is wrong with minorities not wanting to apply? The city says it is an equal opportunity employer, but, then articles like this are printed that are showing that they'll almost skip over a well-qualified applicant to get a minority on their rosters.

Minorities tend to learn not to bother trying. Articles like this are intended to say 'hey, go ahead and try. See? We understand the barriers to you trying, and we're going to give you a fair go'.

The mainstream doesn't get special treatment, because the normal application process IS the special treatment for the mainstream.

[Boozy]

If there are five open positions and 10 people apply. I want the people who scored 1-5 hired.

I agree, as any reasonable person would.

However, the article also makes no mention of hiring quotas. I think you're setting up a strawman here.

They simply want to make sure there are no barriers in the hiring process that prevent skilled minorities from getting the jobs. Here's another quote from the article:

"The city intends to put more emphasis on preparing all candidates, minority or not, for the oral interview process."

What's wrong with that?

[Greenday]

Blah blah blah blah affirmative action blah blah affirmative action blah affirmative action

It's a load of crap. Good in theory, being used in so many wrong ways.

[crazylegs]

I'm aware of a number of UK police forces that selected a number of people from ethnic minorites over those who were WASPs, merely on the basis of skin colour.

All the forces have now been subjected a large fine under race equality legislation.

Advertising in areas which have different demographics is an excellent way to attract different people to your organisation, as long as the interviews are weighted the same and you're not scored according to the colour of your skin I can't see the problem.

[lordlundar]

They can disguise this any way they want, the point is they are trying to hire based on race to meet a particular minimum. just because they aren't saying it doesn't mean they aren't thinking it. They would not be making the changes they are if they didn't see it as a problem.

They want to take the subjectivity of the hiring process out, which is an error as far as I'm concerned. Would you want to trust your life to someone who acts like a wannabe gangsta? They can do and say everything perfectly, but if their attitude stinks, then it's better chances this individual will be a problem when they have their badge.

Being a officer is a subjective job. They have to watch for small things that a normal person wouldn't notice, most of it subjective. There is no reason potential officers shouldn't be put under the same scrutiny that they are required to put on others. If you have an officer, irregardless of colour, who grew up in a violent area and saw concealed weapons as a regular part of life, they are going to accept these things with the badge, which puts lives at risk.

The reason why it appears only the minority are hit is because of the culture. The black people often proclaim that gansta rap and gangsta attitude is a part of their culture and should be flaunted. This means a positive reinforcement toward violence, weapons, abuse, and most notably an often violent disrespect for authority. If my life is on the line, I certainly wouldn't want someone expressing a gangsta attitude protecting me.

The oral exam typically puts them in situations where it boils down to choosing either your culture or society as a whole, and due to people like Reverend Al Sharpton, who say that if you don't embrace the culture, you betray it, most potential black officers go toward their culture instead. Those that pass and quit are most often the ones who thought they weren't going to be held to account from that test, only to find out they are.

The whole "preparing them to handle the test better" is a load of crap. The whole point of the test is to put them on the spot and see how they perform, because the only way to change that response is through vigorous training at an almost military level, which most police agencies don't have time for. This test was never meant to be one you can study for. Their approach may get more minorities into the force, but it's going to get more in that can't cope as well.

[Rapscallion]

I'm aware of a number of UK police forces that selected a number of people from ethnic minorites over those who were WASPs, merely on the basis of skin colour.

All the forces have now been subjected a large fine under race equality legislation.

Interesting. Could I get your opinion on something? You know far more about this than I do.

When we recruit at my place, we have a panel of interviewers, and we score people based on their answers/actions. This is in a number of categories. However, there is also some score weighting - extra points automatically if someone is of an ethnic minority, extra points if the applicant is female, and extra points if they are below a certain age. The intent was not to exclude people, but as far as I can see to make the company more like society. Our place is still heavily biased towards white males, and we needed some more younger people for continuity of the company.

As a white male of mid-to-late thirties age at the time, I got in by being sodding awesome, as you might expect. However, how legal is this?

Rapscallion

[crazylegs]

extra points automatically if someone is of an ethnic minority, extra points if the applicant is female, and extra points if they are below a certain age.

Is this a pop quiz on how many laws can be broken at once?

Race Relations Act
Sex Discrimination Act
Employment Equality (Age) Regulations

All of the above are being breached, by favouring one candidate over another purely on these qualities if all others are equal is unlawful.

Imagine if you placed emphasis on White Middle Aged Males (such as yourself) and that outweighed other factors, there would be uproar.

You're HR or management (whoever implemented the policy) could be in for a serious shit storm if an unsuccesful applicant ever learns about this, you could be sued and they would win. In addition your company could be prosecuted (if prosecution powers are within the relevant acts and the prosectuting authority decides to prosecute).

In short, your companies policy is HIGHLY ILLEGAL and should be stopped immediately.

[Rapscallion]

Our personnel department - generally regarded as those who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. They do what they want and perpetuate a 'no blame' culture, which actually works if people accept responsibility for their actions.

That's a rant for another day.

I'm not sure at what stage the above weighting is used - it may be at the paper application stage, or at the group stage. I know it's not used at the final assessment, since I've been on those. I may investigate further.

Rapscallion

[Seshat]

They would not be making the changes they are if they didn't see it as a problem.

I think that if the police force isn't broadly representative, it IS a problem. And I'll use your words to explain why.

Being a officer is a subjective job. They have to watch for small things that a normal person wouldn't notice, most of it subjective.

If you don't have any officers who can distinguish between culturally-variant-but-healthy and culturally-variant-but-unhealthy, they'll make the wrong subjective decisions. It's important to have officers who are familiar with the healthy versions of the different cultures in the community.

Now, I'm not sufficiently familiar with US cultural variations to be able to say anything useful about them - especially 'gangsta culture', which I know only from media. But I do know that around here (Aussieland), we have enough cultural variation to totally confuse a largely White Anglo-Saxon Protestant police force. Fortunately, we don't have one.

It works well that way. Through getting to know their counterparts, the WASPs learn how to tell the difference between a woman who's fine but culturally reclusive and a terrified culturally reclusive woman. All officers getting to know their counterparts educates all of them on the many cultural variations we have.

If you have an officer, irregardless of colour, who grew up in a violent area and saw concealed weapons as a regular part of life, they are going to accept these things with the badge, which puts lives at risk.

Maybe, maybe not. Individuals change. And someone who grew up in a violent area has knacks and sensitivities that the others only develop as they progress through their field work. I think they should be individually assessed.

The reason why it appears only the minority are hit is because of the culture.

Certain cultural elements should (IMO) be allowed for at the application process. Some allowances, such as simple access to recruiting stations, I think none here would object to. Other allowances are more problematic: on the less objectionable side are issues like permitting religious head coverings provided they don't interfere with safety gear or fields of vision; or accepting & training people who've not learned some of the aspects of modern life (see my earlier post).

More questionable are allowances like literary or mathematical standards, or issues of attitude. My preference would be that if the society can afford to trial people with these issues and weed them out after a period of training & assessment, the society should give them a go. But not all societies can afford that.

Regarding Australian Aboriginals who were raised in the culture and wish to become police (or firefighters or whatever), my own attitude is that mainstream Australia has a responsibility to give them a fair chance. Many Aboriginal communities still have inadequate resources, and that's our failure, not theirs.

The black people often proclaim that gansta rap and gangsta attitude is a part of their culture and should be flaunted.

In this, I bow out due to lack of knowledge. I know nothing of gangsta culture.

[AFPheonix]

T
They want to take the subjectivity of the hiring process out, which is an error as far as I'm concerned. Would you want to trust your life to someone who acts like a wannabe gangsta? They can do and say everything perfectly, but if their attitude stinks, then it's better chances this individual will be a problem when they have their badge.

Yes, obviously all black people are like that. [/sarcasm]
Racism is alive and well here in the good ol' US of A.

[crazylegs]

I'm not sure at what stage the above weighting is used - it may be at the paper application stage, or at the group stage. I know it's not used at the final assessment, since I've been on those.

It doesn't matter at which stage its used, its unlawful and needs to be stopped, you (the company) will get sued for a metric fucktron of money if this gets out (which, with the Freedom Of Information Act/Data Protection Act it will eventually).