So many minorities in the government

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming (as I do) from a no-majority city with lots of immigrants from around the world, the lack of integration in federal offices in the DMV is totally shocking. Where I used to work, you rarely saw any more than two people from the same group in any office. People from all backgrounds socialized together at lunchtime and after work. Where I work now it's 90% white men (in the power roles) and 90% black women (administrative). The lunchroom looks like 1950.

There isn't a day that goes by that I'm not thinking about how to get back home. Sadly, DH's career is here for now...

This is the way it was when I entered the workforce 25 years ago. I got a clerk typist position at a federal agency to work my way through school and it was a real shock to me. The greater shock is that it's still that way today. Not just in the lunch room, but at senior-level staff meetings you'll see all the minorities clustered together.

Everyone looks out for their own. It's not so much racism as it is the seemingly insignificant little decisions and judgments that are influenced by perceptions, and perception is influenced by the natural affinity we all have for people who look like ourselves.

People talk about merit, and I applaud that, but you'd have to raze the entire thing to the ground and start from scratch to make that happen. "Merit" can be arranged, and as long as you have people who are sitting in power positions because of such arrangements, that will continue. You don't have to be fair and equitable in the federal government, you just have to look like you are.

This applies to the private sector as well.

[Anonymous]

In my fed agency office, out of 90 people, 19 are women. 1 of those is black (admin lady). Out of the 71 men, 1 is Indian. The rest are white. Not seeing the tons of minorities in my office...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I believe this is true and I'm sure whites would do this as well if the opportunity was there. However, if an office has a person in mind they could just tell the hiring managers to select that particular person given that they made the cert.

It is interesting - and I am not saying that this is right. I am White and I will openly acknowledge that Whites have done this for generations and STILL do it. Hire people based on various shared experiences - alums of same school, frats, members of same club, family connection. etc. Heck, and some of those hires could not think their way out of a paper bag. But it is "sad" when AA' do it? Patronage is not a Black thing!

[Anonymous]

Ha my supervisor is Asian and out of 15 people on my team 13 are Asians all the new hires in the last 5 years have been Asian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The white people you see today are not the same people who "stepped foot on this continent and claimed it as their own."

PP may have said it in a somewhat obnoxious way, but she is right in a sense.

Whether they want to acknowledge it or not, Whites have a leg up in hiring AND admissions decisions. While Whites today did not claim the continent as their own, it would be naive to say that the system does not currently benefit them. For decades and even today, Whites have benefitted from formal and informal patronage schemes. Hiring frat brothers, guys they went to school with, alums from the same schools, people from their church, the nephew of a friend, etc. We ALL know a White person who got a job because of a connection with the powers that be. Now, minorities and women have developed a similar, albeit less established, patronage and mentoring system based on the same principles. SOME Whites are up in arms about it. Add that to the arrogance and entitlement that SOME Whites have that makes it hard for them to fathom that any minority may be more qualified and you get these types of threads. Minorities and women have taken the same tactics used to block their progress and leveraged them to benefit themselves and protégés. Now it is wrong and sad? What was it 20 years ago when the White division head would give a management job to his college pal’s son even though the son was an idiot (yes, personal baggage, LOL)?

When it comes to preferences and the like, SOME White people only get riled up when they cannot benefit or it works against them. Now we hear how it is wrong to use discrimination to remedy past systemic discrimination. When minorities and women complain about the same thing working in reverse, it is a completely different narrative. We are making excuses, looking for a scapegoat or playing the race card.

Instead of speculating and trying to find a scapegoat, OP should look at herself and her resume to make sure that he is presenting as well as the folks she is competing with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The white people you see today are not the same people who "stepped foot on this continent and claimed it as their own."

PP may have said it in a somewhat obnoxious way, but she is right in a sense.

Whether they want to acknowledge it or not, Whites have a leg up in hiring AND admissions decisions. While Whites today did not claim the continent as their own, it would be naive to say that the system does not currently benefit them. For decades and even today, Whites have benefitted from formal and informal patronage schemes. Hiring frat brothers, guys they went to school with, alums from the same schools, people from their church, the nephew of a friend, etc. We ALL know a White person who got a job because of a connection with the powers that be. Now, minorities and women have developed a similar, albeit less established, patronage and mentoring system based on the same principles. SOME Whites are up in arms about it. Add that to the arrogance and entitlement that SOME Whites have that makes it hard for them to fathom that any minority may be more qualified and you get these types of threads. Minorities and women have taken the same tactics used to block their progress and leveraged them to benefit themselves and protégés. Now it is wrong and sad? What was it 20 years ago when the White division head would give a management job to his college pal’s son even though the son was an idiot (yes, personal baggage, LOL)?

When it comes to preferences and the like, SOME White people only get riled up when they cannot benefit or it works against them. Now we hear how it is wrong to use discrimination to remedy past systemic discrimination. When minorities and women complain about the same thing working in reverse, it is a completely different narrative. We are making excuses, looking for a scapegoat or playing the race card.

Instead of speculating and trying to find a scapegoat, OP should look at herself and her resume to make sure that he is presenting as well as the folks she is competing with.

Well said!

[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 am a federal employee (caucasian) and have worked for the Federal Government for twenty years. When we needed a new professional in my unit, we were always told first to look for a minority. Well, that was fine, but in my very specialized field, there aren't that many who applied for the jobs open.

I have also noted that when a problem employee, who is a minority (AA in both cases in my experience) is disruptive and/or a poor performer (drugging and getting drunk at work, leaves for very lengthy periods of time during the day leaving the work undone), we are encouraged NOT to take action. Essentially, I was told "don't go there" because the agency didn't want to deal with any sort of charge of discrimination. So, the offender was just allowed to continue the poor work habits and destructive behavior in the unit. Very demoralizing.

Does being a minority under the EEO laws give you the right to act like a fool?

[Anonymous]

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.

I am a federal employee (caucasian) and have worked for the Federal Government for twenty years. When we needed a new professional in my unit, we were always told first to look for a minority. Well, that was fine, but in my very specialized field, there aren't that many who applied for the jobs open.

I have also noted that when a problem employee, who is a minority (AA in both cases in my experience) is disruptive and/or a poor performer (drugging and getting drunk at work, leaves for very lengthy periods of time during the day leaving the work undone), we are encouraged NOT to take action. Essentially, I was told "don't go there" because the agency didn't want to deal with any sort of charge of discrimination. So, the offender was just allowed to continue the poor work habits and destructive behavior in the unit. Very demoralizing.

Does being a minority under the EEO laws give you the right to act like a fool?

That's not the law -- that's the weak ass management. I see this with folks of every color in a lot of private sector jobs. A lot of HR folk do not want to be bothered with firing anybody, dealing with any sort of "problem" employee. It's across the board, it just so happens in your case they use race as the excuse.

[Anonymous]

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.

I am a federal employee (caucasian) and have worked for the Federal Government for twenty years. When we needed a new professional in my unit, we were always told first to look for a minority. Well, that was fine, but in my very specialized field, there aren't that many who applied for the jobs open.

I have also noted that when a problem employee, who is a minority (AA in both cases in my experience) is disruptive and/or a poor performer (drugging and getting drunk at work, leaves for very lengthy periods of time during the day leaving the work undone), we are encouraged NOT to take action. Essentially, I was told "don't go there" because the agency didn't want to deal with any sort of charge of discrimination. So, the offender was just allowed to continue the poor work habits and destructive behavior in the unit. Very demoralizing.

Does being a minority under the EEO laws give you the right to act like a fool?

I also want to add that -- there is a difference between folks claiming that someone will file a discrimination lawsuit and someone actually filing. I don't think most people of color go around thinking 'hmmm..i might have a lawsuit here'

[Anonymous]

I worked in a DC Government agency back in the late 80s- early 90s. The head of the agency was a AA gentleman. It was widely known among caucasians that he preferred to hire other AA's. Many who had been trained in the field at his college, a historically black college.

After, I'd worked for several years, I did see that people getting promotions DID seem to be AA. Very qualified caucasians were passed over.

I could understand how life was rough for this head of the agency, but it didn't serve me well to stay there if I couldn't get promoted because I was some honky from the 'burbs.

So, I left and found another job.

I always felt they lost alot of talent that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worked in a DC Government agency back in the late 80s- early 90s. The head of the agency was a AA gentleman. It was widely known among caucasians that he preferred to hire other AA's. Many who had been trained in the field at his college, a historically black college.

After, I'd worked for several years, I did see that people getting promotions DID seem to be AA. Very qualified caucasians were passed over.

I could understand how life was rough for this head of the agency, but it didn't serve me well to stay there if I couldn't get promoted because I was some honky from the 'burbs.

So, I left and found another job.

I always felt they lost alot of talent that way.

who are you george jefferson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked in a DC Government agency back in the late 80s- early 90s. The head of the agency was a AA gentleman. It was widely known among caucasians that he preferred to hire other AA's. Many who had been trained in the field at his college, a historically black college.

After, I'd worked for several years, I did see that people getting promotions DID seem to be AA. Very qualified caucasians were passed over.

I could understand how life was rough for this head of the agency, but it didn't serve me well to stay there if I couldn't get promoted because I was some honky from the 'burbs.

So, I left and found another job.

I always felt they lost alot of talent that way.

who are you george jefferson?

G. Jefferson was black. Your analogy is stupid.

[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.

I am a federal employee (caucasian) and have worked for the Federal Government for twenty years. When we needed a new professional in my unit, we were always told first to look for a minority. Well, that was fine, but in my very specialized field, there aren't that many who applied for the jobs open.

I have also noted that when a problem employee, who is a minority (AA in both cases in my experience) is disruptive and/or a poor performer (drugging and getting drunk at work, leaves for very lengthy periods of time during the day leaving the work undone), we are encouraged NOT to take action. Essentially, I was told "don't go there" because the agency didn't want to deal with any sort of charge of discrimination. So, the offender was just allowed to continue the poor work habits and destructive behavior in the unit. Very demoralizing.

Does being a minority under the EEO laws give you the right to act like a fool?

In my agency, the problem employees that we want to get rid of (but can't) are older White males. Whenever you criticize them at all, the first thing they scream is age discrimination. These are the guys who sit in the cafeteria until 10:30, take two hour lunches and refuse to take order from their younger managers. So let's not act like it is just minorities acting a fool!!! There are poor employees of ALL races!!!!

That's not the law -- that's the weak ass management. I see this with folks of every color in a lot of private sector jobs. A lot of HR folk do not want to be bothered with firing anybody, dealing with any sort of "problem" employee. It's across the board, it just so happens in your case they use race as the excuse.

[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.

I am a federal employee (caucasian) and have worked for the Federal Government for twenty years. When we needed a new professional in my unit, we were always told first to look for a minority. Well, that was fine, but in my very specialized field, there aren't that many who applied for the jobs open.

I have also noted that when a problem employee, who is a minority (AA in both cases in my experience) is disruptive and/or a poor performer (drugging and getting drunk at work, leaves for very lengthy periods of time during the day leaving the work undone), we are encouraged NOT to take action. Essentially, I was told "don't go there" because the agency didn't want to deal with any sort of charge of discrimination. So, the offender was just allowed to continue the poor work habits and destructive behavior in the unit. Very demoralizing.

Does being a minority under the EEO laws give you the right to act like a fool?

In my agency, the problem employees that we want to get rid of (but can't) are older White males. Whenever you criticize them at all, the first thing they scream is age discrimination. These are the guys who sit in the cafeteria until 10:30, take two hour lunches and refuse to take order from their younger managers. So let's not act like it is just minorities acting a fool!!! There are poor employees of ALL races!!!!

That's not the law -- that's the weak ass management. I see this with folks of every color in a lot of private sector jobs. A lot of HR folk do not want to be bothered with firing anybody, dealing with any sort of "problem" employee. It's across the board, it just so happens in your case they use race as the excuse.

In my agency, the problem employees that we want to get rid of (but can't) are older White males. Whenever you criticize them at all, the first thing they scream is age discrimination. These are the guys who sit in the cafeteria until 10:30, take two hour lunches and refuse to take order from their younger managers. So let's not act like it is just minorities acting a fool!!! There are poor employees of ALL races!!!!

[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.

I am a federal employee (caucasian) and have worked for the Federal Government for twenty years. When we needed a new professional in my unit, we were always told first to look for a minority. Well, that was fine, but in my very specialized field, there aren't that many who applied for the jobs open.

I have also noted that when a problem employee, who is a minority (AA in both cases in my experience) is disruptive and/or a poor performer (drugging and getting drunk at work, leaves for very lengthy periods of time during the day leaving the work undone), we are encouraged NOT to take action. Essentially, I was told "don't go there" because the agency didn't want to deal with any sort of charge of discrimination. So, the offender was just allowed to continue the poor work habits and destructive behavior in the unit. Very demoralizing.

Does being a minority under the EEO laws give you the right to act like a fool?

In my agency, the problem employees that we want to get rid of (but can't) are older White males. Whenever you criticize them at all, the first thing they scream is age discrimination. These are the guys who sit in the cafeteria until 10:30, take two hour lunches and refuse to take order from their younger managers. So let's not act like it is just minorities acting a fool!!! There are poor employees of ALL races!!!!

That's not the law -- that's the weak ass management. I see this with folks of every color in a lot of private sector jobs. A lot of HR folk do not want to be bothered with firing anybody, dealing with any sort of "problem" employee. It's across the board, it just so happens in your case they use race as the excuse.

In my agency, the problem employees that we want to get rid of (but can't) are older White males. Whenever you criticize them at all, the first thing they scream is age discrimination. These are the guys who sit in the cafeteria until 10:30, take two hour lunches and refuse to take order from their younger managers. So let's not act like it is just minorities acting a fool!!! There are poor employees of ALL races!!!!

Based on your own logic, imagine what a manager is likely to do when facing a problematic minority AND older employee.

And then we are surprised there are not enough jobs for young people, or public funds to pay for lifelong pensions.