Man rejected for police force for being white and heterosexual wins appeal

[laughing dog]

He was "celebrated" solely for his ethnicity.

That is not evidence he was hired because of his ethnicity.

It's yet another case of ethnically based hiring, which is what this thread is all about.

See above. While you are entitled to have your fact-free opinions, they are not evidence of reality.

I do not have proof, hence "I wonder". His actions when he murdered Demmond speak for themselves though.

So any police officer who guns down an innocent civilian was hired due to their ethnicity?

As does this

In his short time with the Minneapolis Police, Noor has had three complaints filed against him – two that are still open. The other was closed and Noor wasn’t disciplined.

Unless you have evidence about the usual number of complaints against rookie police officers and the proportion that are considered legitimate, once again, you are letting your biases drive your reasoning.

 

[fast]

The full article makes clear that the department rejected him specifically for his whiteness and heterosexuality, and the department accepted that's what they'd done.

If that doesn’t make one’s internal alarm go off, I don’t know what does.

The problem, of course, isn’t that our internal alarm is malfunctioning. Something in the milk definitely ain’t clean. The problem is that when our alarm goes off, our speculator device kicks on. Even that’s not the problem in its entirety. There’s a knob on our speculator device that has sometimes inadvertenty been left full throttle towards the imagination side.

It’s like a lawn mower where you can be in hot pursuit of a reason and push it to the bunny, or you can still dial it back to the turtle. His is clearly to the bunny. Too smart? Seriously? When I thought to myself and started making shit up, I just figured he wasn’t a good fit. What’s incredibly intriguing is that they actually decided to use such prior criticisms of that race and that sexual orientation as the basis for not hiring him. That’s about as believable as tardiness being the real underlying reason for firing someone who has a serious social awkwardness.

I can understand being resistant to the whole make shit up thing. I get it. But dang man, please don’t limit the truth of the matter to what the article says. We just ain’t dialed into it yet.

 

[Gun Nut]

I'm divided on this. On one hand I know for a fact I have been passed over being hired or promoted at least three times because I am white and male. The first two times I lost out to two females who had no training or experience for the job which I did. One time I could not get a job because the hiring manager was told to hire someone belonging to an ethnic minority. I was later told by the three people responsible for hiring or promoting that was what happened years later. Those times it sucked to be me.

On the other hand I know there are still plenty of racist and bigoted white men who would not hire women or minorities if they did not feel they had to.

There is nothing just about what happened to me or them for that matter. I am sure what happened to me in those three admitted occasions happens to others like me. I am sure it irks the women and minorities to think the only reason they got what they got was because they are women and minorities instead of just merits . It isn't fair but I do not know how to make things fair.

One thing all this politicking tells me is that most people can do most of the jobs out there now. If such wasn't the case hiring managers would not let things like gender or race be the deciding factors so much as they are.

The reverse is almost as bad...

There is a black lady in the executive leadership team at my wife's job. Totally incompetent, and everyone knows it. She is the only black female at that level of the organization, and it is all but literally spoken aloud that her position is bullet proof because the company cannot afford to not have at least one of her demographic... so they lose out on having the talent they should have at that level and get to have their token black lady who happens to be unprofessional and incompetent dressed up in an actual professional's clothes.

 

[Toni]

I'm divided on this. On one hand I know for a fact I have been passed over being hired or promoted at least three times because I am white and male. The first two times I lost out to two females who had no training or experience for the job which I did. One time I could not get a job because the hiring manager was told to hire someone belonging to an ethnic minority. I was later told by the three people responsible for hiring or promoting that was what happened years later. Those times it sucked to be me.

On the other hand I know there are still plenty of racist and bigoted white men who would not hire women or minorities if they did not feel they had to.

There is nothing just about what happened to me or them for that matter. I am sure what happened to me in those three admitted occasions happens to others like me. I am sure it irks the women and minorities to think the only reason they got what they got was because they are women and minorities instead of just merits . It isn't fair but I do not know how to make things fair.

One thing all this politicking tells me is that most people can do most of the jobs out there now. If such wasn't the case hiring managers would not let things like gender or race be the deciding factors so much as they are.

The reverse is almost as bad...

There is a black lady in the executive leadership team at my wife's job. Totally incompetent, and everyone knows it. She is the only black female at that level of the organization, and it is all but literally spoken aloud that her position is bullet proof because the company cannot afford to not have at least one of her demographic... so they lose out on having the talent they should have at that level and get to have their token black lady who happens to be unprofessional and incompetent dressed up in an actual professional's clothes.

Obviously, I don't know either of you or your personal circumstances or your wife's and I will assume that what you say is factually correct. But I have observed similar things being claimed by people who simply didn't care for the employee who happened to be not white (or male or....) and any issue they had with the other person was somehow related to whatever demographic characteristic(s) they found offensive and was an obvious demonstration of how bad AA is. Heaven knows I've worked with people who were not competent but who held their job because of demographics such as being related to the boss.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Let me get this straight. The straight white male police force decided it didn't have enough gay black men on the force and so when one of its members' sons, applied and was denied employment by the straight white male police force, he complained to the straight white male police force and courts. The courts and straight white male police force, especially his father, who was really pulling all the stops for him, making connections, helping him to know what they test for, etc, decided he was discriminated against. So they let this straight white male into the elite club of other straight white males. Problem solved. I think if the straight while male police interviewing this guy and deciding his employment or non-employment, just followed their own rule to use the best candidate except in the case of tie-breakers, this whole fiasco orchestrated and solved by straight white males could have been avoided.

 

[Metaphor]

Let me get this straight. The straight white male police force decided it didn't have enough

No. Lawmakers decided it and imposed it on its public service.

The police force is not 'straight', 'white' or 'male'.

gay black men on the force and so when one of its members' sons, applied and was denied employment by the straight white male police force,

No. That is not how selection panels work.

he complained to the straight white male police force and courts. The courts and straight white male police force, especially his father, who was really pulling all the stops for him, making connections, helping him to know what they test for, etc, decided he was discriminated against. So they let this straight white male into the elite club of other straight white males.

No. Being a straight white male does not get you into elite clubs, and nor is the British police force an elite club that is composed only of straight white males.

Problem solved. I think if the straight while male police interviewing this guy and deciding his employment or non-employment, just followed their own rule to use the best candidate except in the case of tie-breakers, this whole fiasco orchestrated and solved by straight white males could have been avoided.

No single person makes a hiring decision in the public service, and a selection panel would be required to have at least one male person and one female person (gender specials may change this in the future).

You are deeply misinformed and/or delusional on this subject.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Haha, sure, it's all my problem. Right....You are making it sound as if this alleged "selection panel" is any different from the police force and you are making it look like this was a law that was a problem as opposed to police procedures. According to the op article, the victim of discrimination was found in court to be such victim according to the law and the police force has to change its procedures. Ergo, the law isn't the issue but instead the procedures, i.e. the police force itself. If the police would follow the laws of the land and give proper feedback to those other police officers creating such procedures, then this whole thing could have been avoided.

You are deeply misinformed and/or delusional on this subject.

So then why did a tribunal find for the plaintiff that he was the victim of discrimination and then as a result, the police force is changing their procedure?

 

[Metaphor]

Haha, sure, it's all my problem. Right....You are making it sound as if this alleged "selection panel"

I guarantee you that any public service job in Britain involves a selection panel, including the police force:

https://www.how2become.com/blog/infographic-become-a-uk-police-officer-selection-process/

is any different from the police force

Do you believe selection panels in the UK consist of only white male heterosexuals?

and you are making it look like this was a law that was a problem as opposed to police procedures.

The law is, of course, the problem. The fact that race, sex, and sexual orientation can be used in 'tie-breaker' situations is absurd.

According to the op article, the victim of discrimination was found in court to be such victim according to the law and the police force has to change its procedures. Ergo, the law isn't the issue but instead the procedures, i.e. the police force itself.

It wasn't a court but a tribunal. In any case ... the law allows discrimination by race, sex and sexual orientation.

So then why did a tribunal find for the plaintiff that he was the victim of discrimination and then as a result, the police force is changing their procedure?

You characterised it as a problem created by white heterosexual males, when in it was nothing of the kind. But even if it had been, in what universe would it be acceptable for white hetersexual males to discriminate against others on the basis of race, sex and sexual orientation?