Thursday, August 25, 2011

Diversity Thursday

Where does the Navy's fetid fetish lead to? No need to ask - we're already there.
Career federal managers — most of whom will still be on the job long after their political bosses have departed — have their work cut out for them. The issue:
How to improve diversity (increase the number and percentage of women, blacks, Hispanics and other minorities in government jobs) when the government is downsizing — and while its second largest (and most racially diverse) agency, the U.S. Postal Service is trying to slash its workforce. Also, while implementing a White House-ordered 5 percent spending cut and dealing with to-be-announced budget reductions that will be proposed by the bipartisan, Senate-House committee. It is due to make a batch of BRAC-like tough spending and program cuts around Thanksgiving. If the script is followed, Congress will deal with them on an up-or-down vote.

Last week the White House told agencies to give special emphasis to diversity in the workforce saying it is "one of the cornerstones of the merit-based civil service." OPM is supposed to come up with an overall government plan within 90 days (it has, in fact been working on it for some time) that will launch a four-year effort centered on hiring, training, promotion and retention. After OPM has announced the government wide strategic blueprint, agencies will have another 120 days to submit their own plans for improving diversity. OPM will likely include both overall numbers and percentages and also the status of women and minorities in higher-grade and professional jobs.
Sound like Admiral Roughead's "Diversity Accountability" metrics? Of course it does.

The is nothing more than discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, and national origin. As Congress seems unwilling to do anything about it - we punt to the courts. That will take years with no guarantee of success.

Until then all we can do is this - use what we have. Shame.

Shame them, every one of them. Call them out for what they are - bigots. Anyone who judges on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin is a bigot. It is one thing to just not like people for such superficial reasons; it is another one to use it as a way to go after the way they provide for their family.

If you actively or through inaction let this pass by in silence, you are part of the problem, not the solution. This injustice can only survive in the silence of the slave.

Unofficially, Diversity has already taken away opportunity; now it is outright firing people.

Hat N.


The Usual Suspect said...

"Last week the White House told agencies to give special emphasis to diversity in the workforce saying it is "one of the cornerstones of the merit-based civil service.""  How is diversity equated with merit???  It seems to be more double speak from the Alice in Wonderland crew of the USS Rainbow.  Why don't they just say, "Hey, let's fire as many white guys as possible."?  This sh*t has got to stop.  IF, and that is a big IF, merit is the basis, let's throw out all the diversity crap and go based on performance.  Anything wrong with that?  I didn't ever think so.  Don't you try to pick the best when you want to win?  Would the NFL, NBA, MLB fair very well if they had to "reflect American society" rather than ability and performance?  I don't think so.

LT B said...

I want to represent the slow, old, balding, bad knee'd class for hiring in the professional soccer league. I would love to represent in the NFL, but I think eventually, I would be in the hospital.

Yes, I picked up on the same statment. Diversity is a cornerstone of merit-based civil service? WTF? I thought performance was.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Coming to a Defense Department near you.

USMC Steve said...

The mere acto f mandating so many blacks, so many hispanics, so many one eyed crippled transgendered women, etc, is in itself discriminatory and racist.  If they are qualified hire them.  If they are not qualified, it does not matter what color, race, or sexual preference they are.  People with brains and common sense have always known that.

The Usual Suspect said...

If you liked that one, you'll love this one:

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Try enforcing that one after two MRE cases of bean burritos and/or ham-n-beaks.

NavyCynic said...

I checked into one of the SYSCOMs in the late '90's, and I was warned back then by a senior officer that the command was an engine of reverse discrimination.  His words proved true.  While competence was a factor in civil service promotions, gender and/or color was often the more important attribute of the individual being selected.  And oh by the way, there's no real oversight on the process.  If you wonder today why so many acquisition programs are not on cost, performance, and schedule, you don't have to look very far.

pk said...

this nonsense sweeps through the federal government about once in 15 years. the current iteration is the third that i have seen. usually they find that they are over diversified and then when the invietable question comes up (as in, if we have 40% of a certain group  and we are required to have 13% of that group who do we fire???) they go away quietly.  

usually it occours when the rats try to refloat a sinking ship (a prime example was when it became apparent that the carter administration was not going to be repeated). it can be said that this is a very accurate leading indicator of the upcomming elections.

a side effect is the dilution of the requirements for given jobs. in the carter era the los angeles area civil service commission stopped testing clerk candidates in the areas of typing, business english, composition and spelling as there were not enough local candidates scoring "Highly Qualified" (greater than 85% on the application score) to satisfy the demand. subsequently they had to offer an incentive to clerks to attract enough qualified applicants to fill the positions requested.