Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Affirmative action

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Niceguy07
    replied
    thanks for the informative replies, our class was divided on the question at hand, but we did agree upon one thing, at the end of the day the people who are hired based upon affirmative action better be able to preform the necessary tasks involved in safe and effective policing.

    Leave a comment:


  • L-1
    replied
    There's something else everyone forgets about affirmative action. It was never intended to discriminate, or give preference in hiring based on gender or race. Instead, it was intended to achieve ethnic and gender parity in the work force by level the playing field in hiring. What that meant was:

    1. Tests had to be validated to show that the questions they posed were asked of everyone and had a legitimate relationship to the job in question. But in no case were testing or hiring standards to be lowered.

    2. Recruitment efforts (advertising, job fairs, etc) would be more heavily targeted towards members of underrepresented groups.

    3. Efforts would be made to recruit qualified candidates from underrepresented groups who were already working in the profession for other employers, or successfully training for the jobs in school.

    4. Government employers would identify why most people failed their exams and then provide remedial training to whoever wanted it (irrespective of gender or race) so they could better compete in the next exam. For example, most people who fail the State of California written exam for Officer Services Supervisor do so because they are short on accounting skills. Accordingly, remedial training in basic accounting should be made available to candidates signed up for that test.

    5. Quotas or specific preferences based on gender or ethnicity were only allowed to remedy specific, proven cases of discrimination and not just vague allegations. For example, until the early 1970s, the State of California had a written policy refusing to appoint females to any of its peace officer jobs due to the "inherently dangerous nature of the position." In that case, giving preference to females was authorized to remedy proven gender discrimination.

    The problem is, many people from underrepresented groups do not hold the police in high regard and thus, do not want to become cops. In turn, this tends to thwart affirmative action goals and frustrate EEO managers, causing them want to bend the rules (or create new, unwritten rules that are totally contrary to affirmative action policy) so they don't look like failures in administering their programs.

    There is also another problem (at least in California) that most people overlook. The pay and benefits for state jobs here are comparable to the average pay and benefits for similar, private sector jobs throughout California. But the key word here is "average" and that's where the problem rests. Most state jobs are concentrated in big cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, San Francisco, etc., where the cost of living is high and private employers and local governments routinely pay more than the state. For example, I know of top pay step Lieutenants in state law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles, who make no more than top step LAPD patrol officers. As a result, few people want to be a state employee in a big city because it pays so little. In turn, many (but not all) of the people who test for the state tend to be rejects from local government agencies. Because of this, I watched one state law enforcement agency eliminate weighted written and oral exams and go to a simple pass/fail oral, and desperately lower its BI standards, just to get bodies. Even then, it was woefully understaffed. The point here is that unless your department offers competitive pay and benefits when compared to other agencies in your community, you will never achieve an affirmative action program's ethnic or gender parity goals because no qualified candidate will be stupid enough to want to work for you when they can make more money doing the same job for another, nearby agency.
    Last edited by L-1; 11-14-2006, 04:31 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Michigan just ruled to over turn affirmative action in our last election!!!!!!! (see prop 2) Lets how long this last.
    Last edited by timoty007; 11-14-2006, 08:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bully
    replied
    Originally posted by rangesgt
    ^^^ What they said
    What he said they said.

    I love the way LAPD took affirmative action to a whole new level. Women couldn't make it over the 6' wall, so they got rid of the wall. The physical agility test is in the basement of the personnel bldg. A parapalegic can pass it. It's one thing to lower the written testing standards and give extra points in an oral. But don't sacrifice officer safety by taking people that can't physically do the job.

    Leave a comment:


  • rangesgt
    replied
    ^^^ What they said

    Leave a comment:


  • sgttom
    replied
    Originally posted by 1042 Trooper
    It is reverse discrimination and I hate it. In today's world, women and minorities have many other protections and have general support from society to pursue anything they are qualified to do.

    Giving points to them, expressly due to race or sex, is dejavu all over again.

    WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

    200% agreed

    Leave a comment:


  • detsarg
    replied
    Originally posted by 1oldsarge
    ...standards cannot be lowered to accommodate anyone.
    Agreed. Of course that is exactly what affirmative action does, lower standards. Although the proponents will argue otherwise, once you hire/promote based on race/gender, standards HAVE been lowered.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1oldsarge
    replied
    I want the best person for the job in law enforcement - period. I don't care what race, color, etc. they are, and standards cannot be lowered to accommodate anyone. This profession is suffering enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • equinox137
    replied
    Posted in ask-a-cop by mistake.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fraud Dog
    replied
    Its a rat race out there. In the past I was in competition with others for the initial job and for assignments that I wanted. I don't want anybody else getting an unfair advantage. Unfortunately this happens alot, whether Affirmative Action or some other favoratism deal.

    I'm sure it was the same 60 years ago when there was an Irish mafia inside many FLE offices. Seems like many groups stick up for their own. You name it: Mormons, Jews, gays, women, Italians, blacks, Puerto Ricans, Masons.

    If I could find a little favoratism to older married white males who are competent in the job I would be happy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Washingtonian
    replied
    Originally posted by detsarg
    Affirmative action is a politically correct term for a quota system and lowers the standards, for some, for hiring and promoting at many levels of government employment.

    By using affirmative action in hiring and promoting a department is accepting the fact that the most qualified person for the job may not get the job because the most qualified person for the job is of the wrong race or gender. In other aspects of life that is called racism or sexism…apparently that is not the case if it is protected by the term affirmative action.

    Those hired under the terms of affirmative action should know that they are often viewed as a substandard employee/supervisor and they may never have the respect their position warrants as that position may not have been obtained by having legitimate qualifications but rather by being born a certain way.

    Affirmative action actually does a disservice to minorities and women as it allows others to use their race/gender in diminishing inadequate work performance.

    i.e. “I guess Sergeant Johnson didn’t know that as a supervisor he was responsible for ensuring his officers had been issued the proper equipment. Too bad about Officer Smith, if he only had a vest. But hey, the sarg only got that position because he was an American Eskimo and got those extra points on the test that pushed his score into the passing range. How was could he be expected to really do the job as well as someone who was clearly more qualified?” “Good ‘ol affirmative action in action!”
    I agree.
    If a private business owner wants to hire people based on race instead of qualifications, that's their business as far as i'm concerned. If they end up with underqualified employees, that's on them and they get what they deserve.
    But with Police, and gubment jobs in general, we the taxpayers have a right to expect our money is going to hire the MOST QUALIFIED people for the job(s). If a PD ends up being all white, all black, all women, etc... so be it. Of course that's not really realistic, but if one ethnic group makes up 15% of the population, but hold only 8% of the jobs, oh well, as long as everyone was hired based on qualifications. This is even more important when it comes to jobs that require the decision making that ours does.

    Leave a comment:


  • L-1
    replied
    As you know, one of the AA goals was to ensure ethnic and gender parity in the workforce when compared to population being served. Once parity is achieved, the rules of AA (at least in California) said that the group in question was deemed to have achieved equality in the workforce, that they would no longer qualify for AA benefits and that it would be the responsibility of the group in question to maintain their numbers. Here in California someone forgot those rules, causing the whole system to get turned upside down. As a result, affirmative action got so out of hand that it was finally outlawed by a statewide, majority vote of the public.

    As an example:

    1. One group made up 62% of the population but only held 57% of the state jobs. Although they were clearly under parity, they were deemed to have achieved equality and no longer entitled to AA relief.

    2. OTOH, another group comprised 31% of the population but only held 16% of the state jobs (almost 50% under parity). They only got token AA relief.

    3. Another group only comprised 6% of the population but held 18% of the state jobs. In spire of the fact that they were at 300% of parity and were no longer eligible for AA relief, the strongest AA assistance was continuously directed at them until the program was finally abolished. (I suspect this group was the straw that broke the camel's back.)

    Aaah, politics.

    Leave a comment:


  • detsarg
    replied
    Affirmative action is a politically correct term for a quota system and lowers the standards, for some, for hiring and promoting at many levels of government employment.

    By using affirmative action in hiring and promoting a department is accepting the fact that the most qualified person for the job may not get the job because the most qualified person for the job is of the wrong race or gender. In other aspects of life that is called racism or sexism…apparently that is not the case if it is protected by the term affirmative action.

    Those hired under the terms of affirmative action should know that they are often viewed as a substandard employee/supervisor and they may never have the respect their position warrants as that position may not have been obtained by having legitimate qualifications but rather by being born a certain way.

    Affirmative action actually does a disservice to minorities and women as it allows others to use their race/gender in diminishing inadequate work performance.

    i.e. “I guess Sergeant Johnson didn’t know that as a supervisor he was responsible for ensuring his officers had been issued the proper equipment. Too bad about Officer Smith, if he only had a vest. But hey, the sarg only got that position because he was an American Eskimo and got those extra points on the test that pushed his score into the passing range. How was could he be expected to really do the job as well as someone who was clearly more qualified?” “Good ‘ol affirmative action in action!”

    Leave a comment:


  • JDep
    replied
    Originally posted by 1042 Trooper
    It is reverse discrimination and I hate it. In today's world, women and minorities have many other protections and have general support from society to pursue anything they are qualified to do.

    Giving points to them, expressly due to race or sex, is dejavu all over again.

    WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
    100% AGREE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • SlowDownThere
    replied
    In this country, the practice of reverse discrimination (affirmative action) was challenged all the way to the Suprme Court, which authorized it use in the 1970's. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote for the majority, and said at the time, that surely, this practice can be justified for no more than 20 years or so.

    Today, affirmative action in the USA consists largely of actively recuiting candidates, rather than the strict quotas that we saw in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's.
    Last edited by SlowDownThere; 11-10-2006, 10:33 PM. Reason: Man, I'm a poor speller sometimes.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 11147 users online. 480 members and 10667 guests.

Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X