GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Lawmakers probe agencies' diversity efforts

• 23660
  

  It is apparent from previous posts that ignorance and bias are alive and well. I cannot speak for other organizations or even FEW (this is my personal opinion), but FEW is NOT about promoting women ahead of anyone just to promote women. It is about having a fair and level playing field for nearly half of the people in our country!

  I would disagree that there are not enough qualified, diverse applicants for jobs. I have sat on enough boards to know there are, they just are not selected for the positions.

  How "membership in FEW ...is not representative of the population served by the Government or the employees of the Government" is mind boggling. Half of the U.S. population is female, and while half of the federal employees may not be female, perhaps they should be.

  As far as "being allowed" to set policy, no one but Congress does that. What FEW is doing is called lobbying, something men have been doing for a very long time.

  Liz Steenson, President, Greater Jacksonville Chapter of FEW Posted May 19, 2007 11:56 AM
• 23520
  

  I am neither a racist nor a conversative, but I am a little uneasy about the idea that a "replacement workforce" should follow the same ethic percentages as the general population. I am sure there are cases where minority workers are overlooked for promotions based on the organizational culture or the bias of whoever is involved in the selection process, however, let's use an analogy. What if we said that all professional sports leagues in the U.S. had to mirror the same ethnic percentages as the general population? Would the quality of play improve? Would it be fair to the athletes? I think we need to find a way to focus on ability and eliminate bias, whether it's racial bias or the bias of a "quota system".

  Dale Posted May 17, 2007 1:44 PM
• 23406
  

  Mr. Brown says "We must have a replacement workforce that will represent the mosaic of America." So I guess we will be needing to recruit many illegal aliens into our ranks.

  A Dept. of Homeland inSecurity Employee. Posted May 16, 2007 7:28 AM
• 23322
  

  In response to the article on diversity. Here at this facility there are less than 5 African Americans in upper management positions. The core group of African Americans are represented at the GS 4-9 levels. We are consistently overlooked for positions we are qualified for. There is a deficency in upward mobility for most African Americans. In addition to this there is great disparity in implementing disciplinary action when necessary. This results in disqualifying msot African Americans for promotions. The comment previously posted is so appropiate and right on point. I believe in effort to promote diversity in theory should start at the top and flow downward perhaps that is the problem and not the solution. This facility has undergone some changes but there is so much more work that need to be done. The core positions for most African Americans here are Food Service, Housekeeping, Nursing Assistant and Clerical. The morale here is virtually non-existent. There are individuals here in upper management with highschool diplomas only and some with GED's How is this possible! Nepotism ios alive and well here!

  Most African Americans here fear speaking out for fear of retialliation from upper management it can be a frightening experience. Where can we go! How do we eradicate this malignancy and prevent further spread of the cancer infecting this facility!

  adell williams Posted May 15, 2007 8:05 AM
• 23293
  

  I reviewed the OPM Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program report to Congress. One item in the report Executive Summary caught my interest: "overall minority groups are better represented in the Federal workforce than in the CLF with one exception - Hispanics." There was no corresponding explanation to the anomaly. I would offer that OPM require each Federal Department as part of the OMB Score Card array personnel data by Position Title and Number including each federal minority designation. The postal ZIP Code from each employees address record in the personnel data repository file can be used to identify geographically where the population of each group resides and by organization. A similar report was done for the IRS Commissioner some years ago as part of a diversity task force work group I was on. We used personnel software to derive the data. The data could be used for comparative analysis within the Federal Government and/or the private sector in recruitment and retention of for example, engineers. The information could be used by each agency to develop a multi-year Succession SES Plan with developmental training for their "pipeline" cadre to identify -Leaders. Federal departments generally select their SES candidates from their major program staff. The OPM report summarizes where the major percentage of employees reside, as illustrated in the report African-Americans reside as a greater percentage in "Clerical" and "Technical" with the exceptions of the Asians/Pacific Islanders in the "Professional" and the Hispanics in the "Other" categories. The latter two are the most underrepresented in SES positions. Hispanics are the largest minority population in the United States.

  The Department of Commerce economic census data shows a population and industrial shift to the "Sun Belt" states from the Southeast to the Southwest regions. These regions also are highly populated with all of the major minority groups including veterans. Academic institutions in these regions, for example are: North Carolina A&T, Florida International University, University of Texas at El Paso, Cal Poly at Pomona and are highly populated with engineering and business graduates.

  I would suggest seeking solutions to this potential dilemma from the great resources available from the hinterland of the United States and break away from the "Beltway Paradigm".

  Frank M. Ramos Posted May 14, 2007 4:52 PM
• 23276
  

  It is not surprising to see that Mr. Davis has joined the support group - after all he headed the Committee that was in charge of this for many years. How many minority, disabled veterans, or underprivileged women did he have on his staff then and how many does he have now? The time for his support was when he was in a position of power to provide real help not in the background as a cheerleader.

  Training is needed at the very bottom of the ladder and not at the top. Minorities need to be trained and able to move up the ladder to top management positions. The practice of just sliding them in at the top over the top of males and other minority employees that have worked to earn the position does not improve the workforce. The practice of putting unqualified at the top does help the politicians. This can be seen in most every agency of the current administration. Few agencies can say that they have not had a high ranking manager removed under a cloud of improper actions, these are not managers that have risen through the ranks; they are appointees, many of them women and minorities. They were put into these positions even though they were not qualified in order to make a good political impression.

  The money spent on the membership and conferences of FEW could be much better spent providing training to all employees. The membership in FEW and conference attendance is not representative of the population served by the Government or the employees of the Government. Unless FEW represent a cross section of minority Government employees, it should not be allowed to have a leading role in formulation of the practices of the Government.

  Les Oden Posted May 14, 2007 12:46 PM
• 23274
  

  Affirmative Action is alive and well utilized mostly by white males. In other words it is called "the good old boy network." We hire who look like us, who think like us, and who share our values. This is why they get the higher echelon jobs in government and everywhere else. Unless there is a governing board sanctioned by federal mandates on the local level this will NEVER cease.

  RAL Posted May 14, 2007 12:34 PM
• 23270
  

  What is your overall definition of diversity? Does it include individuals with disabilities and disabled veterans? The article should have mentioned the most underrepresented group, individuals with disabilities to include disabled veterans. Individuals with disabilities should not be considered in the same category as women and minorities. Leaders should recognize that individuals with disabilities have excelled educationally and should be recognized in a viable pool of employees or potential employees with valuable knowledge and skills. We need to remove the myths that disabled means less able of functioning at full capacity. We need to change the mindset that IWD can not perform at or above average. What incentives are there for agencies to use the Special appointing authorities for individuals with disabilities and disabled veterans.

  Sheila M. Young Posted May 14, 2007 11:51 AM
• 23266
  

  I am an Africian American Female. I have been a federal employee for years. I have two bachelor's and one Master's degree. It has been like pulling teeth to advance into the senior ranks. I have tried so many times, and never chosen. We have no black female managers in IT above a GS-13. It's pretty sad.

  Mainly, it is still friends of the boss that receives the promotions to the senior ranks. I have also been told that I scare managers because I have more degrees than they do.

  It would be nice for once to really hold managers responsible for diversity verses just lip service about diversity.

  Dovey Woodson Posted May 14, 2007 11:22 AM
• 23258
  

  What is it about senior executive positions that necessitate the mentoring of women and minorities but not White males? Are White males somehow better trained "on the way up" than the others? Perhaps people need to look at the lower levels of government service to see why this disparity in training is happening at the lower levels instead of adding "special" training for those who didn't receive it when they should have.

  nathan wolfson Posted May 14, 2007 9:00 AM
• 23250
  

  Did this study include persons with disabilities? My understanding is the number of employees with disabilities has been declining and that little is being done to encourage agencies to hire people with disabilities.

  Barbara Stansbury Posted May 14, 2007 7:56 AM
• 23245
  

  I noticed right off the top, no mention whatsoever about the disabled employees in their "diversity" discussions, when in fact, the disabled are the most under-represented of all.

  Ronald Jantz Posted May 14, 2007 6:59 AM