GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Executive diversity legislation gains support

• 39238
  

  Notice: I'm a white male homo sapien and am an endangered species. Where do I go for a handout?

  Michael Posted December 7, 2007 2:59 PM
• 38803
  

  It's too bad that there is not anything similar to a profit motive in the USG. Otherwise the USG will never be a meritocracy, but a tool of politics and for social engineering & experimentation. The number of buffoons getting promoted to high grades is depressing. As a minority I want people to know that I earned my position vice being perceived as a "quota hire".

  gman Posted December 4, 2007 11:16 AM
• 38794
  

  We need yet another piece of legislation governing issues that are already covered by existing statutes and policies like a hole in the head just as we don't need one more highly paid oversight group, another set of rules and an additional data reporting requirement. May the good Lord grant our elected representatives the wisdom and insight they are so clearly lacking at this time and may he in the future not allow them too much time on their hands so that we are saved from further completely unnecessary proposals.

  HR Specialist Posted December 4, 2007 9:22 AM
• 38783
  

  WOW! Just reading some of the comments and one can understand why there is a need for legislation of this nature. I am employed at the Federal Agency that has access to all the data which shows there is a beaming gap between minorities in the SES ranks. And for some of you to say there is no problem or no need to address this is why the gaps exist. I refer back to GAO's report on disparity between minorities in performance appraisals etc... Even if you do not want us in the SES ranks we still have a problem getting accurate performance ratings as well. I wonder what is the make-up of the staff under you? Good enough to help you shine but not good enough to shine. SAD!

  glen Posted December 4, 2007 8:20 AM
• 38749
  

  We all agree that it is upon senior leadership to foster diversity in the workplace. I also agree that programs should be made available for ALL personnel (regardless of race, gender, creed, age etc.) to receive training/mentoring/internships in order to gain the required skills and life experiences necessary to enter into the SES program. I am not an expert on this particular legislation, but I do know that I don't want to be labeled as a "token" or having met someone's quota. If management is going to implement this program, then it needs to be available for everyone to have access to. This way, when I make it and I will, it will be on my own terms and because I am qualified rather than someone's check in the box.

  There are many of us young 30-somethings out here in the federal workforce fighting our way up the ranks for a chance to enter this program. What I am disappointed in is how quickly retired O-6 and above military personnel are quickly admitted into the SES program while it takes years for non-military personnel to make it there. If you truly want diversity in the work place, please stop this practice and make everyone apply on equal turf. If you make it good for you, and if not better luck next time...

  Future SES Candidate Posted December 3, 2007 3:00 PM
• 38718
  

  This is just wrong. If there were ever a time to wake up and see what the Democrats are doing to this country, now is the time. Oh, and by the way - I'm a female SESer.

  Mary Smith Posted December 3, 2007 9:38 AM
• 38643
  

  By the way, White women have benefited the most from affirmative action and although the overall demographic distribution for minorities and women in the federal workforce is higher than the non-government civilian labor force, they are primarily in middle to low level grades. Diversity professionals are supposed to ask why, conduct inquiries to determine if there are barriers. If further inquiry does not reveal any barriers, that it is simply a matter of they were not best qualified (based on objective criteria) then, IT IS WHAT IT IS!

  Federal EEO Manager Posted November 30, 2007 12:55 PM
• 38642
  

  Wow! The irony is that many of the comments expressing opposition to Diversity programs/initiatives actually validate their necessity. The sentiments underscore the prevailing bitter attitudes towards EEO programs and the perception of those who benefit from them (i.e. minorities and females). This is not new; since this country was founded, there have been perceptions of some groups benefiting while other suffered. It's not surprising that every time a minority (racial, cultural, or ethnic) or female is promoted or selected over a White male, they are viewed as incompetent, minimally qualified, and a "token/quota" for the EEO/Diversity program. If we removed all of the categories (race, ethnic, culture, gender, physical abilities, sexual orientation, religion, age), I doubt that anyone reading this article would argue that the real issue is one of equity and fairness. Whether it is in employment, housing, education, medical care, etc, we ALL want equitable and fair treatment and services! Unfortunately, when Diversity initiatives are implemented poorly, we strengthen perceptions that one group is benefiting while another suffers. Ill-defined program objectives that focus on "counting heads" versus "making heads count," deteriorate the effectiveness and intent of these programs. The true focus of Diversity is INCLUSION. Most people don't want hand-outs; they want someone to extend a hand. They want organizations and leaders to have the fortitude to remove attitudinal barriers that prevent ALL from competing fairly. We don't want to miss out on the talents and contributions that can be made by a White male because someone wanted to "right" the numbers. Conversely, we don't want to miss out on the talents and contributions from the minority and female because someone felt the texture of hair (dreadlocks) did not look professional or the caring and passionate attitude was too "emotional," etc. Discrimination extends well beyond the protected categories. Smart, rotund professionals will be passed over for promotions because they don't fit the corporate leader image. Non-conformists, who think outside of the organization's cultural box, will not excel because they are not a "good fit."

  Federal EEO Manager Posted November 30, 2007 12:54 PM
• 38525
  

  Something has to be done. Wishful thinking hasn't worked. Those who say that old tactics don't need to be revived, I would say are dreaming and not in touch with reality. All one has to do is look at labor diversity statistics. Unfortunately for us minorities we live and work in a world where social norms haven't changed much. When they do it sometimes is temporary and then back to the status quo. Blacks still live mostly in their neighborhoods and so do Hispanics. Whites mostly promote within their common parentage. Society is slow to change, but it can change with positive programs and education as those now being suggested.

  Manny Marroquin Posted November 29, 2007 1:17 PM
• 38453
  

  Yeah fixing discrimination with discrimination is a GREAT TACTIC! Whatever. This is legislation is utter non-sense. It makes no sense to push diversity at all costs. In what world is it diversity preferable to principle? or quality? Not that I think that any minorities, including myself!!!, would be less any less principled or have less quality in our abilities/work ethic, i just think that EVERYONE should promoted or hired based off of their own merit. Not the color of their skin, their gender, their race, or their age.

  I really hope that such legislation is not enacted. As a 24yr old i am among the most unrepresented crowd in the federal government(or the professional workforce). I really do believe that market will settle things out for itself.

  But if you want to bring in diversity, bring in more people like me to the ES or SES. If your going to discriminate against anyone its really stupid discriminate against your future. Anyways lets just not discriminate at all. Lets leave legislation like this where it belongs, in the Communist Manifesto.

  Valek Posted November 29, 2007 8:15 AM
• 38383
  

  This proposed legislation is typical of the obsolete view held by those who hold authoritative positions. The issue is no longer one of stimulating diversity based specifically on gender, race, or ethnicity. And "more training" (block checking) is definitely not the solution. The real problem is a lack of diversity in attitude - and the attitude at issue is no longer one that is simply prejudiced against visible or overt facets of an individual's makeup. The main obstacle to diversity is the elitist attitude of superiority based on pride of placement, narcissism, assumptions of merit based on position, aggregate disinterest in and dismissal of alternative views, and the tendency of these individuals to promote based on similarity of thought patterns and confirmation of beliefs (none of which are necessarily derived from reality or in-depth research), if not political expediency and/or agendas of self-serving aggrandizement. Women and minorities who have already made it to the senior ranks, are likely to have succumbed to the same "superior" attitude (consciously or sub-consciously), either as a method of "fitting in" or by virtue of expecting to gain exactly what others have received - that is, all that comes with a "superior" status. Until we reach a point where words like "humility" and "unpretentiousness" are immediately associated with discussions about the Senior Executive Service, there will be little or no diversity. If we can reach that point, knowledge of how to get into the "feeder pool" should be readily accessible to all - and there should be no need for further legislation in regard to mandating gender, racial, and ethnic diversity.

  Cindy A. Posted November 28, 2007 2:25 PM
• 38334
  

  The tactics called for in this legislation (stacking the selection deck, bean counting based on flawed calculations or unfounded assumptions of under representation, political pressure to make selections based on unwritten and illegal guidance) are exactly like those employed by organizations such as the FAA. At least in the FAA, as a result of the Ryan v. Mineta case (after nine years of bureaucratic delay, obfuscation, denial and arrogant stonewalling) was forced to remove all such guidance and, hopefully, to end these practices.

  Perhaps we need legislation that says "Comply with the Constitution."

  John Larsen Posted November 28, 2007 9:00 AM
• 38332
  

  after some 32 years of federal service, it is my professional opinion, that in order to foster and advance diversity there must senior leadership support. This support unforunately must be mandated and made part of those individuals performance appraisals, that are empowered to make change happen and advance women and minorities into the SES service. Moreover, specific milestones, goals, and objectives must be established in order to facilitate the needed change. I would like to be part of the Executive Committee.

  frank m. billue Posted November 28, 2007 8:55 AM