So many minorities in the government

[Anonymous]

I have said this before and been shouted down but I will say it again here.

In professional settings, the people most threatened by Affirmative Action and "preferences" are White males who are mediocre candidates. 15 years ago those guys would have been hired over any minority who was not an alpha achiever. Not any more. Funny though that one of my grad school profs used to say that will only acheive true equality when an average minority has the same chance as an average White man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a black woman disabled veteran with native american blood you are good to get anything

Tell that to all the disabled vets begging over on rockville pike.
Some of you people are really living in a bubble of your own freaking making. You make up how the world is, no foot in reality at all.

Hey suck my balls bitch, my dad was a disabled vet fed.

UH...did u miss the point of what I was saying...or maybe you missed your afternoon medication...
The previous poster was saying that black women disabled vets with native american blood can get anything...
The point of MY POST was to say -- that is not true -- you have a lot of disabled vets who are in need -- I see them begging over on the pike EVERYDAY!
In other words -- they are not getting handouts like the other poster was implying...
Do you not understand?
Tell me what you are not understanding....
Or just get Nurse Ratchet to give you that dosage you missed earlier

Suck my balls again. Just because there are a few vets down and out or have mental illnesses doesn't characterize them. If you are of sound and fit mind and have a degree you can be easily hired using the point system.

Ok you must be dumb as a doornail. I was defending vets. I was saying they are NOT ALL GETTING HANDOUTS.... A lot of them are not getting the services, respect, opportunities they deserve and end up on the street.
I quit talking to you. Please go get your meds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are being blocked by vets.

Go in as a contractor, create relationships and have a friend give you a job.

I don't know about the friend part, but, yes, the vet trumps all. I wonder why nobody is complaining about them. Only the darn unqualified women and minorities.

Once somebody has trained you and you have proven to be valuable they can hire you through a couple of hiring "tricks" .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have said this before and been shouted down but I will say it again here.

In professional settings, the people most threatened by Affirmative Action and "preferences" are White males who are mediocre candidates. 15 years ago those guys would have been hired over any minority who was not an alpha achiever. Not any more. Funny though that one of my grad school profs used to say that will only acheive true equality when an average minority has the same chance as an average White man.

Here!Here!

[Anonymous]

Ladies and gentleman please...please...try and understand...

These are very different times nowadays and white people are frightened because they now find themselves in a very unfamiliar position.

For the first time since they stepped foot on this continent and claimed it as their own based on the arrogant assumption that they were somehow superior to the indigenous peoples already here, white people are now forced to face the frightening reality that the spoils and successes they automatically assumed because of their European ancestry are no more and the "golden ticket" to power and privilege they unequivocally presumed because of their pale skin isn't worth shit in the 21st century.

So ladies and gentleman please...please...show some sympathy and compassion for white people. This is going to be a difficult adjustment for many of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ladies and gentleman please...please...try and understand...

These are very different times nowadays and white people are frightened because they now find themselves in a very unfamiliar position.

For the first time since they stepped foot on this continent and claimed it as their own based on the arrogant assumption that they were somehow superior to the indigenous peoples already here, white people are now forced to face the frightening reality that the spoils and successes they automatically assumed because of their European ancestry are no more and the "golden ticket" to power and privilege they unequivocally presumed because of their pale skin isn't worth shit in the 21st century.

So ladies and gentleman please...please...show some sympathy and compassion for white people. This is going to be a difficult adjustment for many of them.

ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ladies and gentleman please...please...try and understand...

These are very different times nowadays and white people are frightened because they now find themselves in a very unfamiliar position.

For the first time since they stepped foot on this continent and claimed it as their own based on the arrogant assumption that they were somehow superior to the indigenous peoples already here, white people are now forced to face the frightening reality that the spoils and successes they automatically assumed because of their European ancestry are no more and the "golden ticket" to power and privilege they unequivocally presumed because of their pale skin isn't worth shit in the 21st century.

So ladies and gentleman please...please...show some sympathy and compassion for white people. This is going to be a difficult adjustment for many of them.

Agreed while lmao!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 won't deny it so long as you don't deny that we got here because of longstanding preferential treatment of White men.

Well, you can't deny what I said because it is factually true. But I don't actually think that inequalities in one direction need to be addressed by over-correcting in granting preferences. So, while I understand thoughtful people may have different views. I do not believe that past discrimination required the current, in my view ridiculous, set of hiring priorities. We are not a nation divided I to teams by gender and race such that unfair discrimination against one group in the past justifies unfair discrimination against another "team" today. All that does is continue the cycle of our natio. Losing out on top talent, of whatever race or gender, due to discrimination. So, yes, I do deny what you claim.

Well if you only see it one way, I am not sure I have anything to add. Providing opportunities for those who in recent history would not have gotten those opportunities is not ridiculous. Has it been a perfect execution? No, and many minorities would share that view because of the stigma attached with Affirmative Action et al. It is hard to argue with the underlying philosophy though, IMO. Anyways, many of the top companies and agencies see that there are compelling business reasons to have a diverse workforce. Hopefully, by the time our kids are grown, it will primarily be a market driven concept.

Well, it's not that I can only see things one way, I just disagree on degree. You talk about "those" who have discriminated against, when I think the more accurate description is "those who are of the same race or gender as people who had been discriminated against." Again, I simply think its time we put the groupings in the background and focus on engaging the best talent. Really, people being asked to refer candidates but being told only to refer women and minorities, and for senior positions. Ridiculous.

You know why? Because so many people only see talent and qualifications in the people who look like them and have been in place FOR.EV.ER.
What don't you get about that? Some people have to be told to cast a wider net -- otherwise the only people they would even interview look like Jimbo Fisher from the country club. I guess you don't understand how discrimination works.

Not a "wider" net, a net that only includes a narrower portion of the potential pool. Excluding white men. And to assume that my DH and his closest friends and former government colleagues, over half of whom are either female or minorities, are somehow unable to identify non-white-male talent is way off the mark. You seem to be a shining example of prejudice wrapped in misinformation. Whatever people may think of it, this administration has a clear preference if hiring women and minorities. I think it has gone too far. Others may disagree.

FWIW, my family is from a region of the world where those of our nationality and ethnicity have been discriminated against to a remarkable extent. Not enslaved , but granted only minimal rights, with little access to land ownership, the justice system, or educational opportunities. Clearly not the same as slavery, but I would say the discrimination was at least assumed as that against women in the US. All of my ancestors were servants or farm hands. Certainly no Americanized country club life. It would never occur to me that anyone owed me anything because someone else discriminated against my ancestors. People have different views on this, but don't go assuming I'm some wealthy, entitled fat cat just because I disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 won't deny it so long as you don't deny that we got here because of longstanding preferential treatment of White men.

Well, you can't deny what I said because it is factually true. But I don't actually think that inequalities in one direction need to be addressed by over-correcting in granting preferences. So, while I understand thoughtful people may have different views. I do not believe that past discrimination required the current, in my view ridiculous, set of hiring priorities. We are not a nation divided I to teams by gender and race such that unfair discrimination against one group in the past justifies unfair discrimination against another "team" today. All that does is continue the cycle of our natio. Losing out on top talent, of whatever race or gender, due to discrimination. So, yes, I do deny what you claim.

Well if you only see it one way, I am not sure I have anything to add. Providing opportunities for those who in recent history would not have gotten those opportunities is not ridiculous. Has it been a perfect execution? No, and many minorities would share that view because of the stigma attached with Affirmative Action et al. It is hard to argue with the underlying philosophy though, IMO. Anyways, many of the top companies and agencies see that there are compelling business reasons to have a diverse workforce. Hopefully, by the time our kids are grown, it will primarily be a market driven concept.

Well, it's not that I can only see things one way, I just disagree on degree. You talk about "those" who have discriminated against, when I think the more accurate description is "those who are of the same race or gender as people who had been discriminated against." Again, I simply think its time we put the groupings in the background and focus on engaging the best talent. Really, people being asked to refer candidates but being told only to refer women and minorities, and for senior positions. Ridiculous.

You know why? Because so many people only see talent and qualifications in the people who look like them and have been in place FOR.EV.ER.
What don't you get about that? Some people have to be told to cast a wider net -- otherwise the only people they would even interview look like Jimbo Fisher from the country club. I guess you don't understand how discrimination works.

Not a "wider" net, a net that only includes a narrower portion of the potential pool. Excluding white men. And to assume that my DH and his closest friends and former government colleagues, over half of whom are either female or minorities, are somehow unable to identify non-white-male talent is way off the mark. You seem to be a shining example of prejudice wrapped in misinformation. Whatever people may think of it, this administration has a clear preference if hiring women and minorities. I think it has gone too far. Others may disagree.

FWIW, my family is from a region of the world where those of our nationality and ethnicity have been discriminated against to a remarkable extent. Not enslaved , but granted only minimal rights, with little access to land ownership, the justice system, or educational opportunities. Clearly not the same as slavery, but I would say the discrimination was at least assumed as that against women in the US. All of my ancestors were servants or farm hands. Certainly no Americanized country club life. It would never occur to me that anyone owed me anything because someone else discriminated against my ancestors. People have different views on this, but don't go assuming I'm some wealthy, entitled fat cat just because I disagree with you.

Another PP. Could it be that they are asking for non-White candidates because they have already identified the White candidates they want to interview? White candidates are a dime a dozen and not hard to find. But if what PP said is correct and I think it is - they are casting a wider net.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 won't deny it so long as you don't deny that we got here because of longstanding preferential treatment of White men.

Well, you can't deny what I said because it is factually true. But I don't actually think that inequalities in one direction need to be addressed by over-correcting in granting preferences. So, while I understand thoughtful people may have different views. I do not believe that past discrimination required the current, in my view ridiculous, set of hiring priorities. We are not a nation divided I to teams by gender and race such that unfair discrimination against one group in the past justifies unfair discrimination against another "team" today. All that does is continue the cycle of our natio. Losing out on top talent, of whatever race or gender, due to discrimination. So, yes, I do deny what you claim.

Well if you only see it one way, I am not sure I have anything to add. Providing opportunities for those who in recent history would not have gotten those opportunities is not ridiculous. Has it been a perfect execution? No, and many minorities would share that view because of the stigma attached with Affirmative Action et al. It is hard to argue with the underlying philosophy though, IMO. Anyways, many of the top companies and agencies see that there are compelling business reasons to have a diverse workforce. Hopefully, by the time our kids are grown, it will primarily be a market driven concept.

Well, it's not that I can only see things one way, I just disagree on degree. You talk about "those" who have discriminated against, when I think the more accurate description is "those who are of the same race or gender as people who had been discriminated against." Again, I simply think its time we put the groupings in the background and focus on engaging the best talent. Really, people being asked to refer candidates but being told only to refer women and minorities, and for senior positions. Ridiculous.

You know why? Because so many people only see talent and qualifications in the people who look like them and have been in place FOR.EV.ER.
What don't you get about that? Some people have to be told to cast a wider net -- otherwise the only people they would even interview look like Jimbo Fisher from the country club. I guess you don't understand how discrimination works.

Not a "wider" net, a net that only includes a narrower portion of the potential pool. Excluding white men. And to assume that my DH and his closest friends and former government colleagues, over half of whom are either female or minorities, are somehow unable to identify non-white-male talent is way off the mark. You seem to be a shining example of prejudice wrapped in misinformation. Whatever people may think of it, this administration has a clear preference if hiring women and minorities. I think it has gone too far. Others may disagree.

FWIW, my family is from a region of the world where those of our nationality and ethnicity have been discriminated against to a remarkable extent. Not enslaved , but granted only minimal rights, with little access to land ownership, the justice system, or educational opportunities. Clearly not the same as slavery, but I would say the discrimination was at least assumed as that against women in the US. All of my ancestors were servants or farm hands. Certainly no Americanized country club life. It would never occur to me that anyone owed me anything because someone else discriminated against my ancestors. People have different views on this, but don't go assuming I'm some wealthy, entitled fat cat just because I disagree with you.

Another PP. Could it be that they are asking for non-White candidates because they have already identified the White candidates they want to interview? White candidates are a dime a dozen and not hard to find. But if what PP said is correct and I think it is - they are casting a wider net.

That's certainly possible with respect to the positions my DH was not involved with, though I don't it based on the way his friends discuss the subject. Not the case with respect to the positions my DH was involved with. The agency of department starts looking for replacements before the current appointees are out the door. The informal the. Formalized lists aren't all that secret. Nor is the status or progress of searches. Anything's possible, though.

[Anonymous]

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.

I honestly don't know what the real data show about hiring, but at my HHS division (which shall remain nameless) it's primarily white women who are promoted. White men are a more rare breed, so they're usually fawned over and pushed forward as well. Yes, there are a lot of minority women who are public health analysts, but the perception is that they hit a glass ceiling at GS 12/13. I've seen people with 15 years experience and multiple advance degrees, just stuck at 13 and getting bypassed by women who are only 4-5 years out of grad school.

There may be a priority given to diversity hiring, but trust me when I say that the diverse hires (whether it's race or disability) usually get dropped from further consideration once they're in the door. They get marginalized and/or forced out fairly regularly. Not much diversity in the leadership positions at all.

You do need to have something impressive beyond a degree to get in the door, however. I would have to agree with others who surmise the OP is lacking in other areas.

[Anonymous]

There's at least one poster here mixing discussion of appointees in with discussion of non-political hiring. Appointees are a completely different process. "This administration" has no real bearing on how we hire people, hiring decisions aren't made at at that high a level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I must agree with pp that the hiring priorities of this ainistration is to hire minorities and women. My agency has a memo stating that this is a priority. There is an effort to have the workforce reflect the makeup of our society. White males are not in a good position to get a job with the government.

Obama's appointees have been primarily white men, so I think you protest too much. In regards to everyday mundane government agency hires, the administration does not get involved. At my agency, the administrative staff is primarily low level blacks and Hispanics. The senior level positions are reserved for white men. When the agency seeks diversity in the SES level, white women fills the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have said this before and been shouted down but I will say it again here.

In professional settings, the people most threatened by Affirmative Action and "preferences" are White males who are mediocre candidates. 15 years ago those guys would have been hired over any minority who was not an alpha achiever. Not any more. Funny though that one of my grad school profs used to say that we will only achieve true equality when an average minority has the same chance as an average White man.

True.

[Anonymous]

My fed organization, DoD, federal procurement field, is largely African-American. The hiring managers are AA and they tend to hire other AAs. Many of them are in the same fraternities and sororities, hiring those from their same houses. It is sad, because we are not hiring based on merit.