Thursday, December 22, 2011

Diversity Thursday

Now and then you just have to laugh. The original reasons for the entire Diversity Industry are so far passed, that it is little more now than racialists justifying their jobs by, well, being racialists.

A fact. As a generalized ethnic group, Americas of Asian extraction have the highest economic success as any other general ethnic group.

From family stability to academic achievement - they are thriving. Here is one reference - there are many more.

Do they, as a group, really need any help to "level the playing field?"
With Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders representing just 3 percent of the Senior Executive Service, a pilot program seeks to prepare more Asians for the government's top ranks.
The year-long program, run by the Asian American Government Executives Network, will give 20 Asian hopefuls training, one-on-one mentoring, networking and placement assistance to "help them through the last leg of the journey to the SES," AAGEN chairman Tommy Hwang told Federal News Radio.

Six percent of the federal workforce is Asian, which mirrors the U.S. population. That proportion holds true at all levels of government except for the SES.
Of course not - but the Diversity Industry is not about equality. It is about promoting institutional discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color or national origin. Why? Simple. Because they can.

When will the Diversity Industry start to demand that their ranks reflect the population as a whole? Have you ever been to one of their conferences? Let us see that study, then we can talk about SES jelly bean counting.

18 comments:

butch said...

Um, maybe the numbers are low because Asians prefer the private sector?

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Good Lordy.  Not enough Asians?  As butch says below, maybe they prefer not to be surrounded by incompetent and lazy nincompoops who lack customer service and profit motives.   Just a guess.

I do notice, and this was precisely NO PLACE in the news, that young men and women of Asian descent are conspicuously absent from the "Occupy" movement. 

Placing value in education and hard work.  Expecting everything to be earned and nothing given.   Those fascists!

Steel City said...

Asians outnumbered whites at my son's science and technology high school in NoVA.  Some were so far off of the scale for intelligence/achievement at that age that it boggled the mind.  I once drove the math team to an event and realized that I could have the next Einstein/Bill Gates (not a real stretch) in the back seat and therefore I better get us there and back safely.  In all seriousness for the vast majority and even the average Asian achievers a position as a government bureaucrat (i.e. SES) would be a major step down and would require a mind-melt of sorts to numb their brain and senses of any actual reality.

Mike M. said...

I LOVE the idea of hitting the Diversity Bullies with quotas.  And a massive budget cut in the bargain.

Or we could take the sensible approach.  These programs undermine unit cohesion and esprit de corps, and are therefore prejudicial to good order and discipline.  Allocating resources to them is therefore prohibited.

jeopardy said...

Hey, can I get <span>training, one-on-one mentoring, networking and placement assistance to help me through the last leg of my journey to the SES? </span>

No.  You're the wrong color.

"Content of their character" my a$$.

John said...

I wholeheartedly support the move to have the SES meet the goal of having 3% Asians.

However, only if it is achieved by reducing the numbers of SES personnel from over-represented racial/ethnic/cultural or sexual identity groups.

Too many SES to start with, so that is the real problem, not too few Asians.

And, I agree that Asians may have better taste and goals than to become functionary drones in a bloated bureaucracy, and that accounts for their working elsewhere.  (And it generally is not sitting on a couch waiting for a welfare check!)

Number Cruncher said...

<p><span>In 2007, the feds employed 89,300 Asian/Pacific Islanders.” In 2010, the feds employed 113,000. <span> </span>They were 5.6% of the workforce, 7.3% of GS-14/15 and 6.1% of SES while the “Relevant Civilian Labor Force (RCLF)” (equivalent representation in private sector) was 4.1%. They made up 10.9% of all professional job codes (doctor, lawyer, licensed engineers, etc) but only 4.4% of Blue Collar workers.<span>  </span>Asians are woefully under-represented in admin, EEO, clerical, secretary, etc. Let’s look at some federal agencies for Asian Employment. For comparison: EEOC--3.6% of the workforce-33% of attorneys; VA-- 6.2%-23% of medical Doctors; DoN--9.5% -18% of EE;NASA—6.1% -<span> </span>7.7% of aerospace engineers, 12.4% of computer engineers; FERC—7.3% of workforce;-18% of civil engineers. </span>
</p><p><span>Look at another “diverse” employer.<span>  </span>Harvard has 2,100 faculty members. 20% (420) are minority; 200 (66%) Asian, 46 Black and 57 Hispanic. Where 20 (43.5%) of Black faculty are in Social Sciences there are only 13 (6.5%) Asian. For comparison;<span>  </span>Asians/Blacks-Discipline--13/20-social sciences; 33/3-natural sciences; 17/1-humanities; 18/2- engineering; 25/2 medical quad; 39/3-business school; 4/7-law school.</span>
</p><p><span><span>Show me why Asians are a minority requiring preferential treatment. Then again, Asians would have to be stupid to turn down preferential treatment.</span></span><span><span>This is “diversity engineering” run amok. “Diversity” numbers were supposed to be based on 1964 numbers as % of population. The for profit diversity industry has expanded the definition to include those who have immigrated here since 1965 who were never (in the intent of the law) ever historically discriminated against in the US. I hate to say it (but I will) everything with diversity in government is simply to hide Black over-representation (Blacks are 57.1% of federal minority employees) within minority over-all numbers and for Blacks to buy (with taxpayers money) allies. During the inquisition and the Salem witch trials, people finally rose up and said enough is enough. When do we start saying no? <span></span></span></span></p>

cdrsalamander said...

Ok. What do they do when they have someone whose father was from Cuba, mother was from Taiwan? Let's say he marries someone who is standard issue "white" American mutt whose family has been here for a few hundred years. 

They have a child who happens to have a "Hispanic" name?  Is that person counted as "Hispanic?"  Let's swap that out. The mother is from Cuba and the father from Taiwan. The resulting kid's last name is Hu.  Is he Asian?  What if we swap things out again and the kid's name is Jones?  Is he "white?"  Make another swap.  The father marries someone who is a standard issue "black" American mutt whose family has been here a few hundred years.  What happens then?  If the person checks one block over another - will they get special treatment?  If so, why?  Is that special treatment done for the individual, or for the administrator who hires them and reports accountability metrics?  How do those things warp the system?

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Salamander, you are spot on.

I will never forgive my parents for being white.

Number Cruncher said...

"Is that special treatment done for the individual, or for the administrator who hires them and reports accountability metrics?  How do those things warp the system?"

Couldn't agree more.  It has all to do with over all quantity and nothing to do with specific quantity (number of engineers versus clerks) or quality.  It is using easy and simple numbers which are all the "diversity engineers" can/want to understand and it is easy for administrators to "check the box." Of course, the feds claim they are only hiring and promoting the best and the brightest, and that all (fed employees) are equal....but some, depending on name or checking the right box, are more equal than others. We are the only country with a "civil service" that does no testing/quality assurance for its' workforce. No objective measurements for 90% of the workforce, only subjective. Read about what it takes to be a civil servant in India. There they really hire the best and brightest. When do we just say no?

Byron said...

I never cease to thank God that I was born in the United States...

ENZ, USN said...

Definitely a good highschool.  If only there could be more schools that could focus on that type of development in students destined for college, and a seperate school for those that would be entering the workforce.  It only hurts students at most schools to act like every one of them is going to college.  Vice at TJ where the only student that I knew that didn't go to school deferred for a year to help at home and earn money to afford going to Harvey Mudd.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

The is a simple solution. End the SES. Any civil servant is there to serve the fleet, AKA John and Jane Gob. No need for the arrogance and airs of ersatz "flag equivilent" hire help.

OldNavy said...

Here here!  I've always wondered why an SES was considered equivalent to a flag officer.  Just how many 7 month deployments have they made, how many ships or squadrons have they commanded, how my combat missions have they flown?  How many times have they gone in harms way?  At the most, they may have gotten a paper cut sometime during their ascent as a bureaucrat.  What they want is to do is borrow the respect that flag officers have earned.  I agree, we should get rid of the SES and cap our civil servants at the GS-15 level.

Mike M. said...

Well, we used to go all the way to GS-18.  And if you go to an outfit like NAVAIR, where you have civilian and military personnel working side-by-side, you'll find SES's holding responsibility and scope equal to Flag officers.

Except that I've never seen an SES with a Flag Aide, or most of the other Flag-level perks.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

If you go to an outfit like the Coast Guard, you have Captains with the responsibility of two stars.

At 1.? Admirals per ship, why do civil servants have any flag level responsibility, anywhere. That ratio means most flag officers don't have real Admiral's job. By 1944 standards anyway.

But that was a pretty light and easy year, right?

Mike M. said...

Well, the Coast Guard isn't tied up in the Goldwater-Nichols Staff Enlargement and Empowerment Plan.  Which is the primary cause of Flag bloat these days.  

Mike M. said...

And the Pentagon staff was far, far smaller.