Of the 43 people who had been hired or promoted, 42 were African-American or female. One was a white male. Posted on 09/23/2002 3:13:58 PM PDT by white trash redneck
Dennis Worth had been working happily and winning high performance evaluations for 16 years in the Department of Housing and Urban Development's St. Louis office when things started going sour. In 1994, he was turned down for two promotions for which an independent merit-staffing panel had rated him "highly qualified." By 1995, it "kind of hit me," Worth recalls, "that minorities and women were being promoted and advanced, and white males were not."
| Of the 43 people who had been hired or promoted, 42 were African-American or female. One was a white male. |
Since 1994, all but one of the dozen or so promotions and transfers that Worth has applied for have gone to black or female applicants whom he considered no better qualified than he, and in most cases less qualified, because they had far less relevant experience and seniority. Some of them had little or no college education. (Worth has a B.S. from Washington University.) He and similarly demoralized friends would ruefully remark that HUD "may as well put 'white males need not apply' on the job vacancy announcements." This pattern, which Worth initially attributed to the Clinton administration's passion for racial and gender preferences, continued into the Bush administration. Since 1997, only one of the 16 hires and promotions in Worth's division has gone to a white male.
Now the 55-year-old Worth is the name plaintiff in a nationwide class action against HUD and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The suit (pdf file) alleges unconstitutional discrimination against white males both at HUD and throughout the government. Filed in August by the Washington-based Center for Individual Rights, which boasts a string of groundbreaking legal victories, this potential bombshell claims that the EEOC has perverted its mandate and become the primary architect of a racial- and gender-based spoils system that has trumped the congressionally mandated merit selection process.
The lawsuit seeks no monetary damages, but rather a simple court order telling HUD and the EEOC to stop discriminating. It also puts the Bush administration on the spot: Although the administration has strained mightily to duck affirmative-action controversies, it may have a hard time finessing a lawsuit that plausibly accuses agencies that it now administers, and that it represents in court, of pervasive discrimination against a group that happens to be part of the president's political base.
Some caveats are in order: Allegations in legal complaints tend to be one-sided; white males are no more immune than anyone else from the temptation to blame their disappointments on sometimes-imagined discrimination; statistics can be manipulated to mislead; "overrepresentation" (to borrow from the EEOC's lexicon) of minorities may not extend to the highest-paying jobs and may be explained to some extent by the demographics of the Washington area, where HUD is based; and the government has not yet presented its defense. (HUD declined to comment.)
But the evidence cited by Worth's attorneys consists mainly of HUD's own thick, EEOC-approved "affirmative employment plan" for women and minorities, together with the government's own statistics on the racial and gender breakdowns of its employees and of the relevant labor pools.
Among the lawsuit's statistical claims: Racial minorities as a group have a larger percentage of jobs in every one of the 40 departments and agencies listed in a federal Office of Personnel Management report last year than their percentage of the qualified labor force. Minorities have roughly twice as many federal jobs as they would under a system of proportionate representation of qualified workers in all groups. With only 15 percent of the relevant labor pool, minorities make up 46 percent of HUD's workforce and 61 percent of the EEOC's workforce. And yet all of these agencies still enforce EEOC-mandated "affirmative employment plans" for minorities as well as for women.
The more-detailed HUD numbers show that in all four of its major job categories, the department employs disproportionately large numbers of women and most minority groups and disproportionately small numbers of white males. (The categories are "professional," "administrative," "technical," and "clerical.") The affirmative employment plan nonetheless requires racial and gender preferences for minorities and women in a wide range of employment decisions, in effect pushing to reduce even further the number of already-under-represented white males. This despite the fact that no pattern of discrimination against minorities or women has occurred at HUD since it was created in 1965.
A little law: The 1964 Civil Rights Act bans "any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" in government personnel actions. The Supreme Court has held that governmental job preferences are unlawful except when necessary to redress past discrimination or (perhaps) to reduce a "manifest imbalance" in "traditionally segregated" job categories. HUD's plan and the EEOC's regulations purport to require preferential hiring or promotion "goals" only when the percentage of blacks, Hispanics, other preferred minorities, or women is so disproportionately small relative to their percentages of the workforce as to amount to a "manifest imbalance."
So how can HUD justify continuing to give preferences to women and to minority groups that are already overrepresented in its workforce? It does so, the Center for Individual Rights asserts, by manipulating the numbers in at least four ways, producing an intricate formula for evading the law while aggravating the already dramatic under-representation of white males.
First, HUD subdivides its major job categories into so many narrowly defined sectors that women or specific minority groups are statistically under-represented in some of them even though they are overrepresented overall. For example, HUD's plan claims that there is a "manifest imbalance" among its construction analysts because black females are statistically under-represented -- even though black females have four times as many jobs in the "administrative" category (of which construction analysts are a subset) than they would have under a system of strict racial and gender proportionality.
Second, HUD classifies even the tiniest statistical under-representation either of women or of any of several preferred racial groups, in any job sector, whether or not "traditionally segregated," as a "manifest imbalance" requiring use of preferential goals. For example, when HUD calculated in 2001 that the number of Asian males in its "professional" job category (3.4 percent) was lower by one-tenth of 1 percent than the number in the relevant labor force (3.5 percent), it set a preferential "goal" of hiring more Asian males. This seems likely to come at the expense of white males, who are already under-represented in the "professional" category.
Third, HUD's plan explicitly provides that the under-representation of white males is of no concern and has no bearing on the requirement of preferences for women and minorities in each and every corner of the department in which they are under-represented. Thus HUD is happy to have white males, who make up 36 percent of the relevant labor force, compose only 5 percent of the 1,200 employees in the broad "technical" job category.
Fourth, in especially bold defiance of Supreme Court precedents, HUD continues to use preferences even after any under-representation of women or minorities in some sector of its workforce has been eliminated, if necessary to maintain proportionate or supraproportionate representation indefinitely.
Like other agencies monitored by the EEOC's race-and-gender cops, HUD provides powerful pressures for its managers to meet their preferential racial- and gender-based goals. HUD documents state that managers are "held accountable for utilizing every hiring, promotion, reassignment, and employee development opportunity for meeting the Department's goals." Those who fail "to take the necessary actions" risk poor performance ratings and thus reassignment, demotion, or removal.
Legal issues aside, this lawsuit raises a fundamental question of policy for President Bush and his EEOC appointees, who could end official job preferences in the federal government with a few strokes of the pen: Why should the nation's largest employer, which has been running a system of preferences for women and minorities for decades, perpetuate that system even though the white males against whom it discriminates are now under-represented in its workforce?
No it's not. We can thank LBJ for thinking up the phrase, and Richard Nixon for implementing it with his "Philadelphia Plan" in the late 60's. Thanks for NOTHING, Tricky Dick.
2. yes, there are more minority employees than you can shake a stick at.
3. don't cross these people or they will make your life miserable.
i stood up to the fraud and liberal policies and was black-balled (no pun intended )for 2 years AFTER i left there. everyone is tremendously overpaid and underworked, so it attracts the most riff-raff; and, of course it is the riff-raff who get promoted
once again, my advice to anyone who works at HUD; DO NOT cross these people or they will DESTROY you (financially especially)
(and i am a white female who was turned aside for promotions so as to promote black females who are so inept, they needed a primer on the alphabet).
When Affirmative Action Is Nothing But Discrimination
This is hardly new! Every government agency, and almost every state government agency has them. Every company that has contracts with federal and state governments also has them. And, they've had them going back to the Nixon administration. I'm an engineer in the aerospace industry and I've actually read some of the guidelines and this was back in 1981 and it was quite an eye-opener. In fact when I initially went to work for this company I'd completed the interview process gotten the plant tour and I was sure I had the job. Well, one week passed and I called to find out about the job. They basically said call back later. Another week passed and I called again; same result. This went on for a month and a half. Finally, they called me and told me I was hired etc.
Three years later we were trying to hire two engineering aides. We had two candidates one anglo and one hispanic While we were in the process of hiring these two guys my boss got a call from human relations that they were willing to hire Gus(hispanic) but not Jeff(anglo). My boss went thru the roof and while he vented I found out why I had waited so long to be hired into this company; they wanted to fit a minority into the slot. Interestingly both these guys were good friends and when Gus found out what was going on he told HR that they either hired Jeff as well or he wasn't taking the job. HR relented in this case and we hired both of them.
My husband had to make a career change (not career, but change to another company), due to economic changes int he area and we didn't want to move. Now he had over 20 years experience, 10 of those in management with a tremendous record.
He interviewed with a company, they were impressed and told him he was hired. Since my husband had been with the other company so long, he did not want to leave and they had insinuated they could 'make something happen'. He had told the prospective employer this, up front, and the man said he understood, give it a few weeks, but he had the job. After a month, my husband realized nothing was going to 'happen', so he called the new company. There was some embarrassing moments and then he was told they were not hiring. After some discussion, he was told, confidentially, that they had been told the next job had to be filled by a minority and they could hire my husband, but he would have to wait until they had found a qualified minority to hire first. Someone in the company had found out they were going to hire my husband and filed a complaint to force them to fill this position with a minority.
It was so funny because my husband smiled and said, "Will a Choctaw Indian fill the bill?" So he became known as the minority employee.
The upshot is that conflicts between private organizations and government regulatory agencies will increasingly take on racial overtones.
This strategy is a classic "divide and conquer" that is being utilized by the white liberal elite similar to what the Brits did in their overseas colonies. Namely, the Brits would elevate one specific tribal group in the colony to favored status and plug them into the machinery of the colonial govt. Thus, they could be assured that that group would be loyal and would carry out colonial policy against the rival groups in the region.
The blacks are the sepoys of the white liberal overlords.
Actually, if the numbers are as high as you say, I'm more worried about it than I was before. 5/140 may not seem like a lot to you, but it does to me. That's 5 million people in jobs which they did not earn and for which they are not the best candidates (if they were the best candidates they wouldn't have needed AA, you see). This is at once stupid, wasteful, unfair, and (in some cases) downright dangerous. (If your home is on fire do you want the fireman to have earned his job, or gotten it because of his, or her, skin color, or genitalia?)
There are still plenty of white only jobs, president of US, vp of US, US Senator, gov. of almost every state, major network news anchor, almost any acting role on prime time TV at abc,nbc or cbs, local tv network news anchor on every station I've ever watched, etc.
That's a load of crap, and you know it (unless you are an idiot). None of those jobs are "white only". All of those jobs can be obtained by nonwhite people; there is nothing whatsoever preventing this. So what the h*** are you talking about?
Sure, if you are non white, you can try for the white jobs, but unless for some reason you are a hundred times more qualified in other areas, you are doomed to failure.
There are still plenty of white only jobs, president of US, vp of US, US Senator, gov. of almost every state, major network news anchor, almost any acting role on prime time TV at abc,nbc or cbs, local tv network news anchor on every station I've ever watched, etc.
Where do you get this?
Nearly every single company, every major corporation and every government agency in the country has an aggressive affirmative action program.
Perhaps few are as egregious as the one detailed above but nearly all of them have little to do with remedying discrimination and instead promote it against whites.
Somehow I doubt that amounts to such a small percentage as you claim despite what you see (or don't see - I happen to see mostly non-white news anchors, tv programs, etc.) on televison.
Racism runs amok in any job, period. Why? Because everybody engages in at least some "affirmative action", and affirmative action is racism. You want to reduce racism, end "affirmative action".
That means there can not be a non white tv anchor unless the audience is non white.
Holy crap this is such bull**** I don't even know where to start. TV networks want ratings and they want to be liked, and one surefire way to be liked is to be seen as "embracing diversity". This is true even if the entire audience is white - in fact, in left-leaning areas, it's true especially when the audience is white (and leans left). It's very flattering for white wealthy Connecticut leftists to turn on the TV, have their news read to them by three nonwhite women, and then congratulate themselves on how non-racist they are for watching it.
You can't be white and be elected to senator in hawaii and you can't be non white and get elected almost anywhere else
As a practical matter, you are right that these things will rarely happen (in general). However, I don't care. There are no barriers preventing these things, which is all I was saying. You said these jobs were "white only", and that's crap. All are welcome to try out for these jobs, it just so happens that these jobs (unlike most jobs, by the way) are selected by popular vote, and there is a human tendency to vote for someone who "looks like" oneself.
By the way, if you want to reduce this tendency, eliminate affirmative action, which is a divisive policy and helps reaffirm the psychological need people have to vote for someone who "looks like them" in the first place. If not for affirmative action there'd be no practical need for one's senator to "look like" oneself in the first place, but given the group-rights think of affirmative action, such a racist voting pattern is quite rational.
Ditto for tv. If you are white, you can forget about a prominent role on the hispanic or black tv channel and if you are non white you can forget about being on cbs, nbc, or abc.
If you would like some nonwhites to have a role on CBS, NBC, or ABC, then write and/or create a program which would have appeal to their audience (thus enabling them to make money, which is their raison d'etre), and hire nonwhite people to perform in it. Worked for Cosby. Nothing's stopping you.
Similarly, if you are white and would like a role on "the hispanic or black tv channel" (whatever that is), then write and/or create a program which would have appeal to their audience, and hire white people to perform in it. (I'd give examples here to parallel Cosby, it's just that I have no freakin' idea what the "hispanic or black tv channel" is.) Nothing's stopping you.
There are a whole lot of jobs in the US that are defacto "white" only because the white consumers won't stand for anything else.
Who cares about de facto? The NBA is de facto "black only" but I'm not complaining; I wouldn't have it any other way. As long as it's not "black only" as a matter of policy, which it's not. And neither are all those jobs you mentioned "white only" as a matter of policy. They're not. That's all I care about.
These "white" only jobs are far more prevalent that the number of affirmative action jobs for "non whites or women" only.
Bullcrap statement for two reasons. 1. There are no "'white' only jobs". 2. You have no idea how many "affirmative action jobs" there are (apparently you just pulled that "5 million" number out of thin air), so in essence you have no idea what you're talking about.
Sure, if you are non white, you can try for the white jobs,
What "white jobs"? There is no such thing as a "white job". The only exception to this would be something like: the role of Lou Gehrig in a movie about his life would probably not be filled by an Asian woman. But apart from silly extreme cases like that, you're full of it.
but unless for some reason you are a hundred times more qualified in other areas, you are doomed to failure.
Paraphrase: you're saying that nonwhite people are "doomed to failure" when it comes to trying to get perhaps 90% of all jobs. This is quite a racist statement; obviously you have no faith whatsoever in the intelligence or capabilities of nonwhite people to accomplish things on their own.
Apparently you've never watched less qualified people advance while you were held back.
Apparently you've never seen your son or daughter denied admission to their favorite college in favor of someone with SAT scores 300 points lower.
Apparently you've never lost a small business contract (to a HIGHER bidder )because of minority set-asides.
That's why it's no big deal to you.
In which case I am in full agreement with you. And since my particular ethnic classification (Slovenian-Tatar) is woefully underrepresented, I share your enthusiasm for simply placing underrepresented groups in positions of importance and qualifications be damned. Whether they are immensely incompetent in their new jobs and disaster befalls them and the country is of no importance. Being politically correct and getting revenge is far more important.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.