Minority hiring standards.

[HK_precop]

I was wondering if I could get a consensus on what you guys think of this controversial topic? How do you guys feel about minorities being hired according to a "quota" system in some depts (LAPD,NYPD,CHICAGO) from a consent decree? My personal opinion of the matter is i'm somewhere near the middle, I don't believe in affirmative action since it's hypocritical. I believe in a healthy balance in the police force that's representative of the population of the city. To me, it makes no sense to have a majority white or all black or whatever dept policing a city made up of a differing ethnicity. You're just asking for trouble when an incident happens because your whole dept will be accused of being 'racist' etc.. etc.. Unfortunately, the U.S. isn't all peaches n' cream when it comes to race relations. It's still a very volatile country when it comes to race, politics, and society. If this were Canada..it probably wouldn't be an issue at all. However, I think as things stand it's still a requirement to have a well balanced 'ethnicly diverse' dept.

[Ranger337]

I am very much against afirnmitive action. I have seen it "screw" highly qualified people out of jobs, and promotions just to fill the goverments standard on a "balanced" work force.

I see what the goverment was trying to do, but took the wrong path to get it. I my opnion affermitive action is a form of discrimination.

The best person with the best qualifications should get hired, or the promotion, soley based on his/her qualifications. PERIOD.

I also agree with you HK_Precop, it would be a bad situation for a police dept. to be all (or majority) a single ethnic group. That would cause major problems here in the US. Just like you said in Canada this probably wouldn't be a big issue, but here in the US we are still under racial tension. Untill we as a nation can over come this we will have to balene our work forces.

Ranger337

P.S. I apologize if I have offneded anyone, as that was not my intent.

Just FYI I am considered a minority, since I am of Asian decent.

[ToppDog]

If you do a search on "Quotas" or "Affirmative Action" you should find some real juicy posts to read, as we've gone round after round on this "always hot" topic.

[UN_Cop]

I think it should be illegal to ask any person about race, sex, religion, ethinic history, or so forth on any local, state, or federal job application. I am sure I have offended someone. Take care and be safe.

[Glock22]

I am an Asian American. I just got an offer from a PD. I am also against Affirmative Action. I beleive that there are a lot of qualified applicants that get turned down because a dept. needs to balance their ethnicity, gender, etc. count. I would hate to know that I was hired because of my race or ethncity. If i am not qualified, I would like to know because I can work on my qualifications. I would rather be unemployed than hired because of aff. action. just my 2 cents!

[22]

This is what concerns me the most about A.A.; Generally the larger Depts. have an active A.A. process. These same Depts. usually have some very dangerous divisions to patrol. So if you are fortunate enough to get hired, you could end up working in the worst part of the city and your partner, or backup, could possibly not be the best person for the job. Therefore, the A.A. could unintentionally be putting you in danger.

Before anyone states their opinions in this forum do they ever think back to what member"lapd23" once said; "if you think they are not looking at the stuff on this board, think again".

[HK_precop]

I agree however good training is supposed to ensure that this never happens. Backgrounds and the app process are in my opinion never 100% predictors on what kind of officer a person would end up being. I'm guessing by your reply that you automatically assume they are making grand leeways and exceptions to let minorities in. I feel this has not been true..at least in my case it hasn't. I'm an asian-american in the LAPD process and I can say they have not made ANY exceptions in my case. I'm not saying they should let every Joe on the force but as long as his character is reasonably solid on paper and he has no mental problems I think benefit of the doubt should exist for his sake. After all the initial application process is only a small part of the whole, the academy weeds out those who don't want to be there and don't have the right attitude.


Originally posted by 22
This is what concerns me the most about A.A.; Generally the larger Depts. have an active A.A. process. These same Depts. usually have some very dangerous divisions to patrol. So if you are fortunate enough to get hired, you could end up working in the worst part of the city and your partner, or backup, could possibly not be the best person for the job. Therefore, the A.A. could unintentionally be putting you in danger.

Before anyone states their opinions in this forum do they ever think back to what member"lapd23" once said; "if you think they are not looking at the stuff on this board, think again".

[22]

"I'm guessing by your reply that you automatically assume they are making grand leeway's and exceptions to let minorities in."

I am sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree. I certainly don't believe any grand leeway's or exceptions are being made to accommodate minorities. Especially in the wake of such incidents as LA's Perez scandal. In fact this past weekend on latimes.com I read an article that stated LAPD was making their background process more strict, I assume for everyone alike. In fact 93% washed out in the BI phase. All I am saying is, when there is a consent decree set forth to accomplish something there will be an effort to forward the decree. I.E. in LA the "increased representation of minorities and females".
I personally do not have a problem with increased representation in any category. However, as I stated before if the best possible applicant does not get the job who is left holding the bag?
I just feel like the process should be color and gender blind. Like professional sports. If you want a winning team you chose the best possible player.

[HK_precop]

Originally posted by 22


I am sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree. I certainly don't believe any grand leeway's or exceptions are being made to accommodate minorities.
I personally do not have a problem with increased representation in any category. However, as I stated before if the best possible applicant does not get the job who is left holding the bag?
I just feel like the process should be color and gender blind. Like professional sports. If you want a winning team you chose the best possible player.

Sorry for the mistake then, however choosing people in law enforcement is far from choosing someone in professional sports. In law enforcement there are lawsuits, citizen complaints etc.. etc.. which ethnicity is unfortunately all too commonly the subject matter. You don't see sports team getting sued for racial bias by citizens. I'd be a fool to say that an ethnicly diverse dept would solve all these problems but it certainly does NOT help to have one dept made up of one ethnic majority policing another in these volatile times. Btw, I read that latimes.com article you are referring to, 93% were washed throughout the entire application process not just the B.I. phase. I've heard from estimates by laweekly.com that the new polygraph testing accounts for around 40% of the DQs and the B.I. itself probably a substantial number as well. Not sure about the psych, but I can tell you when I went to take mine there was NOONE else there except me. The latimes.com article also characterized the application process as unfriendly and lengthy..unfortunately I have to agree with that but I knew what I was getting into.

[22]

HK,
Good luck with the LAPD process. I would give my pinkie toes for a job with them.

[JSavage]

I think UN_Cop touched on a very key pint. It IS illegal to discriminate against an applicant based on race, religion, national origin, sex, marital status.... but it is not illegal to favor one applicant over another using these same standards.

Ex. "No Mr. Smith, I didn't choose another candidate because you're white, I chose him because he's not."

As against racial bias as I am, the fact is you'll never see that sentence spoken with any other word replacing white, except maybe "a man". I think a better idea would be to hold all application processes anonymously and hire the best of the group. The interviews conducted via internet, and all personal contacts made without using a name but an assigned number. That will ensure fairness.

[donnie999]

In Chicago from what I can tell is that the African-American community is growing immensly (sp?) and I think they would like to hire african american police officers. Now this doesnt mean that they shouldnt hire other races. I think the force should be a diverse as possible, but in the same tone the force should slightly favor the population.

[Sig 20]

Hmmm...lots of hot talk on this one! Being as I am a minority that was hired, I can not honestly condemn this process. I believe that the population needs to reflect itself in the workplace of all PD's, but that sometimes this is the only way for minorities to get their foot in the door. I think that even if someone is hired to meet a specific quota, they should meet all of the qualifications, same as everyone else. They need to have a througho background, and be able to pass all the skills training, and be of the highest caliber, maybe in this regard, others will be happy to have them aboard!
I hope not to offend anyone, I just added my two cents!


:bounce:
Sig 20

[dano]

There is a little misunderstanding regarding AA on this thread.

Quotas are illegal (deamed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)! AA stipulates if you have two people with equal qualificaqtions, you hire the minority candidate if the minority group is underrepresented in your organization.

In practice, however, orgs are just concerned about passing government EEO audits and avoiding negative PR so the equal qualifications clause goes out the window. When I see on an add 'Minorities and women encouraged to apply,' frankly I do not see it as too different from 'White male need not apply.' Despite endles reams of rhetoric from organizations extolling the virtues of diversity, the mentality is often 'Fill the ranks and keep the wolves at bay.'

The result: less qualified candidates are often favored for the job. This engenders resentment both among white male candidates who feel they are denied jobs because they are white (sometimes justly and sometimes not) and women and minorities who are accused that they got the job/promotion because of their favored status (again sometimes justly and somtimes not).

Inequity exists in every institution in our society including: family, education, business and even sports (What percentage do minorities comprise of total professional athletes? Compare that to the percentage in coaching and management! Sports is all about merit? Don't fool yourself!). Anyway, AA is a stop-gap measure. It works insofar as it is a part greater, more serious efforts to level the playing field in all of our institutions. As a stand alone solution, its value is dubios and gets legislaters off the hook.

Why tackle this complex and serious social problem when we can simply play favorites in the job market? That should do the trick...NOT!!!

[22]

April 2001
" Los Angeles police Sgt. Mark Aragon is a far cry from the Sgt. Joe Friday image the department once exuded. A former East L.A. gangbanger, tattooed arms poke out of his uniform".

Anyone see this article in the LA Times? I have no idea what this individuals background was, but the word "gangbanger" is a direct quote from the Times. Let me say again BANGER?? They must have meant "member" because I can't imagine they would allow a "banger" in. Anyway, what do you do as a gangmember/banger? Play cards, hang out, play Tuesday night league softball, help your neighbor with his cranky lawn mower?
I am sure he must have turned his life around at some point previous to appointment, but.............. Sorry, I am just stirring the pot/thread.

[PPB8881]

WELL, HERE GOES THE STATE WITH THE LARGEST MINORITY
POPULATIONS DOES'NT EVEN USE AA AS A PRACTICE ANYMORE
(CALIFORNIA) AND WHEN IT DID I REALLY COULD'NT TELL THE DIFFERENCE. POLICING IS GENERALLY MOSTLY DOMINATED BY
WHITE MALES WHEN THE POPULATION OF THIS STATE IS JUST ABOUT HALF MINORITY AND HALF WHITE NOW. I THINK AA IS A GOOD PROCESS IF IT IS USED FOR THE RIGHT REASON.
BESIDES THERE ARE COPS OF ALL RACES THAT SHOULD'NT BE IN THE JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE WE ALL KNOW THAT. THAT'S JUST MY 2 CENTS!


PPB :bounce: :D :bounce:

[JerseyBoy]

This is a topic that kind of rubs me the wrong way. The department that I am putting my application in for just recently came up with racial problems. Shortly after these problems, the Chief came out saying that they will be testing for new officers. The first 400 people to pay $50 for an application. Sounds like an easy 20 grand for the department to me. It will be interesting to see what type of officers are hired.

[HK_precop]

You might want to clarify a little more on what you said. What do you mean they came up with 'racial problems' ?

Also paying $50 for an application?? Man, that's highway robbery especially when most depts are begging for people these days.

Originally posted by JerseyBoy
This is a topic that kind of rubs me the wrong way. The department that I am putting my application in for just recently came up with racial problems. Shortly after these problems, the Chief came out saying that they will be testing for new officers. The first 400 people to pay $50 for an application. Sounds like an easy 20 grand for the department to me. It will be interesting to see what type of officers are hired.

[JerseyBoy]

There has been an escalated assult on blacks in the community. One of which doing the assaulting happened to be the son of the director of public works. Of course the citizens of the community say that there has been a problem for a long time, though nothing was ever done about it. Now with the recent events of assaults, people don't trust the police department because they feel that they are not doing anything.

Yes $50 is a lot of money. I figure it will just discourage people to apply unless they really want it. I just need as much experience in taking the test as possible. I for one will feel more comfortable during the interview process rather than taking the test. Since I can afford it right at the present time, I might as well go for it. You just never know.

[gbcop]

I believe whoever is qualified should get the job.


David