So many minorities in the government

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not racist to acknowledge that the government has hiring preferences for minorities. My husband, who has been a senior government employee, has been told multiple times that positions are reserved for women and minorities. Luckily, he is in the private sector and thriving well. When the government people contact him asking for suggestions for possible appointees, though, they now almost always specify they are seeking women and minorities. I am all for diversity, but this has really gone too far.

And you and the OP KNOW that this is why the OP had not been hired? Do you or the OP know that a minority ultimately got the job that she sought? See...I have learned in my career that many people just do not want to accept the fact that they are not qualified or that they interviewed poorly. So they speculate and come up with external factors as to why they did not get the job. Believe it or not, the government job market is VERY competitive for positions that require a college degree. For all we know, OP applied for a position with 1000 applicants.

I am the poster you are quoting. No, I do not know her, nor do I know why she has not been hired. As a more general matter, though, there is, at least at the higher levels, a clear preference to hire people who are either minorities or women. In some areas the priority is to hire women, in some areas to hire certain categories of minorities, and in some areas simply not to hire additional Caucasian men. I am quite familiar with senior personnel in several agencies who are regularly asked for potential candidates for appointment. It is not a state secret that what this administration is seeking is a group of minorities and women. In my view, that has both positive and negative policy and practical consequences, but overall I think it has gone too far. To deny that this preferential treatment of women and minorities exists, though, would be wholly disingenuous.

I've been mentoring a white male ex-colleague in his late 50s trying to get a Fed attorney job. He's brilliant and 10X smarter than most of the Fed attorneys, but he's coming up empty-handed. To suggest there isn't both age and gender discrimination where white applicants are concerned is crazy. During the same period I've watched numerous younger minority candidates with far less smarts land positions. I don't know what they bring to the table that my former colleague doesn't, other than age, race, gender and, perhaps, assumed pliability. I'm sure there is almost visceral assumption that, because this guy is older, he is set in his ways and won't take direction from them.

It makes me very glad that I'm not in his position and will be able to retire whenever I want based on my private-sector earnings and personal investments. I'm sure it's every bit as big a blow to his ego as being denied opportunities was to minority candidates in the past, if not greater. We seem to have swung from one end of the pendulum to the other.

[Anonymous]

Stop complaining white and black people.
You guys are lucky you're not Asians.
Asians have to be at least 10 times better than other races to get the same position.
Talking about the racial discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not racist to acknowledge that the government has hiring preferences for minorities. My husband, who has been a senior government employee, has been told multiple times that positions are reserved for women and minorities. Luckily, he is in the private sector and thriving well. When the government people contact him asking for suggestions for possible appointees, though, they now almost always specify they are seeking women and minorities. I am all for diversity, but this has really gone too far.

And you and the OP KNOW that this is why the OP had not been hired? Do you or the OP know that a minority ultimately got the job that she sought? See...I have learned in my career that many people just do not want to accept the fact that they are not qualified or that they interviewed poorly. So they speculate and come up with external factors as to why they did not get the job. Believe it or not, the government job market is VERY competitive for positions that require a college degree. For all we know, OP applied for a position with 1000 applicants.

I am the poster you are quoting. No, I do not know her, nor do I know why she has not been hired. As a more general matter, though, there is, at least at the higher levels, a clear preference to hire people who are either minorities or women. In some areas the priority is to hire women, in some areas to hire certain categories of minorities, and in some areas simply not to hire additional Caucasian men. I am quite familiar with senior personnel in several agencies who are regularly asked for potential candidates for appointment. It is not a state secret that what this administration is seeking is a group of minorities and women. In my view, that has both positive and negative policy and practical consequences, but overall I think it has gone too far. To deny that this preferential treatment of women and minorities exists, though, would be wholly disingenuous.

I've been mentoring a white male ex-colleague in his late 50s trying to get a Fed attorney job. He's brilliant and 10X smarter than most of the Fed attorneys, but he's coming up empty-handed. To suggest there isn't both age and gender discrimination where white applicants are concerned is crazy. During the same period I've watched numerous younger minority candidates with far less smarts land positions. I don't know what they bring to the table that my former colleague doesn't, other than age, race, gender and, perhaps, assumed pliability. I'm sure there is almost visceral assumption that, because this guy is older, he is set in his ways and won't take direction from them.

It makes me very glad that I'm not in his position and will be able to retire whenever I want based on my private-sector earnings and personal investments. I'm sure it's every bit as big a blow to his ego as being denied opportunities was to minority candidates in the past, if not greater. We seem to have swung from one end of the pendulum to the other.

Or maybe he's not as smart as you think or maybe those individuals had something on their resume your friend didn't. Whites hold most of the management positions yet several government agencies consistently get low marks for management. Trust white incompetence is everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not racist to acknowledge that the government has hiring preferences for minorities. My husband, who has been a senior government employee, has been told multiple times that positions are reserved for women and minorities. Luckily, he is in the private sector and thriving well. When the government people contact him asking for suggestions for possible appointees, though, they now almost always specify they are seeking women and minorities. I am all for diversity, but this has really gone too far.

And you and the OP KNOW that this is why the OP had not been hired? Do you or the OP know that a minority ultimately got the job that she sought? See...I have learned in my career that many people just do not want to accept the fact that they are not qualified or that they interviewed poorly. So they speculate and come up with external factors as to why they did not get the job. Believe it or not, the government job market is VERY competitive for positions that require a college degree. For all we know, OP applied for a position with 1000 applicants.

I am the poster you are quoting. No, I do not know her, nor do I know why she has not been hired. As a more general matter, though, there is, at least at the higher levels, a clear preference to hire people who are either minorities or women. In some areas the priority is to hire women, in some areas to hire certain categories of minorities, and in some areas simply not to hire additional Caucasian men. I am quite familiar with senior personnel in several agencies who are regularly asked for potential candidates for appointment. It is not a state secret that what this administration is seeking is a group of minorities and women. In my view, that has both positive and negative policy and practical consequences, but overall I think it has gone too far. To deny that this preferential treatment of women and minorities exists, though, would be wholly disingenuous.

I've been mentoring a white male ex-colleague in his late 50s trying to get a Fed attorney job. He's brilliant and 10X smarter than most of the Fed attorneys, but he's coming up empty-handed. To suggest there isn't both age and gender discrimination where white applicants are concerned is crazy. During the same period I've watched numerous younger minority candidates with far less smarts land positions. I don't know what they bring to the table that my former colleague doesn't, other than age, race, gender and, perhaps, assumed pliability. I'm sure there is almost visceral assumption that, because this guy is older, he is set in his ways and won't take direction from them.

It makes me very glad that I'm not in his position and will be able to retire whenever I want based on my private-sector earnings and personal investments. I'm sure it's every bit as big a blow to his ego as being denied opportunities was to minority candidates in the past, if not greater. We seem to have swung from one end of the pendulum to the other.

If he is trying to enter as a 14 or 15 without any prior federal experience, he can almost forget about it. The exception is if he has a strong financial background, where he would be snapped up at FDIC, SEC, FEDeral Reserves, etc.

His gender or race is not hindering him from being employed, ninety-eight percent of the attorneys in my agency are white and sixty plus percent of them are white male. His issue is age without veteran status. But if it helps you sleep at night, you can continue to believe that white men are discriminated against the most in federal hiring. Laughable when said out loud.

[Anonymous]

So over entitled whites and their whining. The unemployment rate for blacks is triple what it is for whites yet blacks are supposed to shed tears for whites.

It's okay for blacks to be in the unemployment line and unable to pay their bills. But when it's whites its a travesty huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not racist to acknowledge that the government has hiring preferences for minorities. My husband, who has been a senior government employee, has been told multiple times that positions are reserved for women and minorities. Luckily, he is in the private sector and thriving well. When the government people contact him asking for suggestions for possible appointees, though, they now almost always specify they are seeking women and minorities. I am all for diversity, but this has really gone too far.

And you and the OP KNOW that this is why the OP had not been hired? Do you or the OP know that a minority ultimately got the job that she sought? See...I have learned in my career that many people just do not want to accept the fact that they are not qualified or that they interviewed poorly. So they speculate and come up with external factors as to why they did not get the job. Believe it or not, the government job market is VERY competitive for positions that require a college degree. For all we know, OP applied for a position with 1000 applicants.

I am the poster you are quoting. No, I do not know her, nor do I know why she has not been hired. As a more general matter, though, there is, at least at the higher levels, a clear preference to hire people who are either minorities or women. In some areas the priority is to hire women, in some areas to hire certain categories of minorities, and in some areas simply not to hire additional Caucasian men. I am quite familiar with senior personnel in several agencies who are regularly asked for potential candidates for appointment. It is not a state secret that what this administration is seeking is a group of minorities and women. In my view, that has both positive and negative policy and practical consequences, but overall I think it has gone too far. To deny that this preferential treatment of women and minorities exists, though, would be wholly disingenuous.

I've been mentoring a white male ex-colleague in his late 50s trying to get a Fed attorney job. He's brilliant and 10X smarter than most of the Fed attorneys, but he's coming up empty-handed. To suggest there isn't both age and gender discrimination where white applicants are concerned is crazy. During the same period I've watched numerous younger minority candidates with far less smarts land positions. I don't know what they bring to the table that my former colleague doesn't, other than age, race, gender and, perhaps, assumed pliability. I'm sure there is almost visceral assumption that, because this guy is older, he is set in his ways and won't take direction from them.

It makes me very glad that I'm not in his position and will be able to retire whenever I want based on my private-sector earnings and personal investments. I'm sure it's every bit as big a blow to his ego as being denied opportunities was to minority candidates in the past, if not greater. We seem to have swung from one end of the pendulum to the other.

Or maybe he's not as smart as you think or maybe those individuals had something on their resume your friend didn't. Whites hold most of the management positions yet several government agencies consistently get low marks for management. Trust white incompetence is everywhere.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So over entitled whites and their whining. The unemployment rate for blacks is triple what it is for whites yet blacks are supposed to shed tears for whites.

It's okay for blacks to be in the unemployment line and unable to pay their bills. But when it's whites its a travesty huh?

So do you think it's ok for blacks who are underqualified and undereducated to be given jobs that they're not qualified for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So over entitled whites and their whining. The unemployment rate for blacks is triple what it is for whites yet blacks are supposed to shed tears for whites.

It's okay for blacks to be in the unemployment line and unable to pay their bills. But when it's whites its a travesty huh?

So do you think it's ok for blacks who are underqualified and undereducated to be given jobs that they're not qualified for?

U missed pp's point didn't you??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So over entitled whites and their whining. The unemployment rate for blacks is triple what it is for whites yet blacks are supposed to shed tears for whites.

It's okay for blacks to be in the unemployment line and unable to pay their bills. But when it's whites its a travesty huh?

So do you think it's ok for blacks who are underqualified and undereducated to be given jobs that they're not qualified for?

When underqualified whites stop getting cushy positions just because their uncle or frat brother or lacrosse teammate gave them a hookup, then we can talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So over entitled whites and their whining. The unemployment rate for blacks is triple what it is for whites yet blacks are supposed to shed tears for whites.

It's okay for blacks to be in the unemployment line and unable to pay their bills. But when it's whites its a travesty huh?

So do you think it's ok for blacks who are underqualified and undereducated to be given jobs that they're not qualified for?

Do you mean " you're doing A heck of a job Brownie"? Oops, my bad, wrong race. That was a white man who was definitely qualified for that high leveled government job, simply because, ouch, he was a white man. Okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for the government and see this daily. Our agency recently put out an announcement for a budget analyst position.

Who do we hire? Minority vet with a degree in HR from University of Phoenix. The individual can't even run a basic function in excel. The whole department consists of a few competent analysts and a whole bunch of other people who are terrible at their job but were hired by the gov't for one reason or another.

Shame on your hiring panel, HR and manager (signed, a 26 yr. Fed manager).

The individual had the triple crown. Minority, Vet with disability rating, and female. I cringe everytime she tells me she went to school for a year at night to "graduate" with a "bachelors" from Phoenix.

That's nice. But if she didn't have the skills, then you either can nonselect and readvertise, or justify not selecting her. You (your managers & HR) just have to strap their balls on and do the job.

There is no requirement that diversity, etc., requires you to hire unqualified employees. That's a failure of management in implementation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not racist to acknowledge that the government has hiring preferences for minorities. My husband, who has been a senior government employee, has been told multiple times that positions are reserved for women and minorities. Luckily, he is in the private sector and thriving well. When the government people contact him asking for suggestions for possible appointees, though, they now almost always specify they are seeking women and minorities. I am all for diversity, but this has really gone too far.

And you and the OP KNOW that this is why the OP had not been hired? Do you or the OP know that a minority ultimately got the job that she sought? See...I have learned in my career that many people just do not want to accept the fact that they are not qualified or that they interviewed poorly. So they speculate and come up with external factors as to why they did not get the job. Believe it or not, the government job market is VERY competitive for positions that require a college degree. For all we know, OP applied for a position with 1000 applicants.

I am the poster you are quoting. No, I do not know her, nor do I know why she has not been hired. As a more general matter, though, there is, at least at the higher levels, a clear preference to hire people who are either minorities or women. In some areas the priority is to hire women, in some areas to hire certain categories of minorities, and in some areas simply not to hire additional Caucasian men. I am quite familiar with senior personnel in several agencies who are regularly asked for potential candidates for appointment. It is not a state secret that what this administration is seeking is a group of minorities and women. In my view, that has both positive and negative policy and practical consequences, but overall I think it has gone too far. To deny that this preferential treatment of women and minorities exists, though, would be wholly disingenuous.

In my agency he wouldn't be hired if he lacks specific targeted expertise, not because of age or race. If he had the skill, they'd take him if he's a 53 yr. old (fill in the blank) ... it's the specialized experience that gets you in the door where I work. There are many very smart people and good lawyers, including partners and senior associates at BigLaw firms who do not make the cut.



I've been mentoring a white male ex-colleague in his late 50s trying to get a Fed attorney job. He's brilliant and 10X smarter than most of the Fed attorneys, but he's coming up empty-handed. To suggest there isn't both age and gender discrimination where white applicants are concerned is crazy. During the same period I've watched numerous younger minority candidates with far less smarts land positions. I don't know what they bring to the table that my former colleague doesn't, other than age, race, gender and, perhaps, assumed pliability. I'm sure there is almost visceral assumption that, because this guy is older, he is set in his ways and won't take direction from them.

It makes me very glad that I'm not in his position and will be able to retire whenever I want based on my private-sector earnings and personal investments. I'm sure it's every bit as big a blow to his ego as being denied opportunities was to minority candidates in the past, if not greater. We seem to have swung from one end of the pendulum to the other.

[Anonymous]

Oops, bad formatting, my reply above was:

In my agency he wouldn't be hired if he lacks specific targeted expertise, not because of age or race. If he had the skill, they'd take him if he's a 53 yr. old (fill in the blank) ... it's the specialized experience that gets you in the door where I work. There are many very smart people and good lawyers, including partners and senior associates at BigLaw firms who do not make the cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So over entitled whites and their whining. The unemployment rate for blacks is triple what it is for whites yet blacks are supposed to shed tears for whites.

It's okay for blacks to be in the unemployment line and unable to pay their bills. But when it's whites its a travesty huh?

So do you think it's ok for blacks who are underqualified and undereducated to be given jobs that they're not qualified for?

amen. amen. amen. amen.

[Anonymous]

Interesting…in my section of 40 people, the laziest and least motivated workers are the White males. They have been here forever and will not retire. One is also routinely insubordinate to his WW boss – telling her that certain task are beneath him. It is funny in that, because of staffing and budget slots, we are having to hire younger, hungrier people on term assignments. The terms are mostly women and minorities. They are the ones getting things done. Then after their terms end, we watch them leave and we are stuck with the same lazy a$$ White men.

Signed, a White woman who thinks Whites should stop whining.