Queensland police discriminated against 200 potential male recruits in favour of women: this week in gender equity

[Metaphor]

From The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...male-recruits-in-favour-of-women-report-finds

Two hundred men missed out on joining the Queensland police force because recruiters discriminated against them in favour of women, a new report states.

The Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission has said the state police service’s 50/50 recruitment strategy resulted in discriminatory practices being used against male candidates.

Instead of advertising some positions exclusively for female candidates, the commission found that Queensland police recruiters discriminated against 200 eligible male candidates between 2016 and 2017.

Interesting that The Guardian (or the report, it isn't clear which) thinks female-only positions are somehow not discrimination.

The commission’s report, which was tabled in parliament on Wednesday, said in some cases ineligible women had been selected over male applicants who had performed to a higher standard across entry assessments.

“If the various discriminatory practices had not been implemented, the CCC estimates approximately 200 more meritorious male applicants would have been successful in their attempt to join the QPS,” the report stated.

The commission said: “What started as a nobly intended strategy was poorly communicated to front line staff who were tasked with its implementation and discriminatory practices were implemented to achieve its goal.”

What's noble about gender equity in police officer positions?

The CCC chairman, Alan MacSporran QC, said the QPS recruiting section used misleading, deceptive and false reporting practices about recruitment. He said management knew discriminatory practices were being used and provided misleading and deceptive information to QPS executives.

The report said part of the problem was that the then-police commissioner, Ian Stewart, never clarified whether the 50/50 target was real or aspirational.

I have this problem at work myself. Often I fail to ask whether the tasks assigned to me are real or aspirational, and I go ahead and do them as if they were real. More fool me!

...Carroll said six women identified in the report who were recruited despite failing to meet the minimum entry standards had successfully graduated from the academy.

This, of course, means many many hours were wasted admitting women who were not only under the minimum entry standards but who dropped out before graduating.

And of course, that's in addition to the 200 women who were not under the minimum but who performed worse in their entry standards than men who were not admitted.

She said the assistant commissioner Charysse Pond would conduct a review of recruitment practices to strengthen transparency and ensure the episode was not repeated.

“I am committed to independent, transparent and impartial entry testing for all prospective police recruits,” Carroll said.
“When I was sworn in as commissioner, I said that while it is important to be inclusive and diverse, we should always take the best possible applicants regardless of their gender or ethnicity.

“The public, as well as our own police officers, rightly expects no favours or preferential treatment for any applicant.”

Then somebody has incoherent objectives. The public can either expect equity or it can expect no preferential treatment. Achieving equity precludes 'no preferential achievement'.

Now, because the Guardian left out some particular damning details (by accident, I'm sure), I refer you to another article (I assume the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a sufficiently left-wing source for my friends on this board--if you doubt its leftie credentials, half of its staff vote for the Australian Greens).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05...iting-women-crime-corruption-report/100133594

The report said staff at the QPS recruiting section were "so intent" on achieving that target that discriminatory recruitment practices were used, with different standards applied to female and male applicants.

"Females [were] selected in preference to male applicants who had performed to a higher standard across entry assessments," the report said.
"By late 2017… some female applicants were approved for progression by methods including: lowering the required standard for female applicants on cognitive assessment [including for female applicants who had already previously been told they did not meet the required standard]."
​

Female applicants who had failed aspects of the physical assessment or were previously deemed not suitable on psychological grounds, were also allowed to progress, the report found.

But then, all cops are bastards, so who cares what psychological tests they failed?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm surprised the Guardian would actually report on this.

I'm not at all surprised that it happened. This is the sort of thing that normally happens when easy to verify rules (ie, hire 50:50) conflict with hard to verify rules (ie, hire only qualified people.)

 

[Metaphor]

I'm surprised the Guardian would actually report on this.

Frankly, so was I. But the report was tabled in Parliament so it was too big to ignore.

 

[Derec]

The big problem is this false idea that gender equality means (at least) a parity in all traditionally male dominated fields.

 

[Trausti]

 

[untermensche]

200 men spared from a crap job protecting the power structure and harming the citizenry.

They will thank those women one day.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Metaphor, I am in agreement that this was a flawed policy and that this shouldn't have happened.

Really curious how you have information about ABC staff voting habits, though.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor, I am in agreement that this was a flawed policy and that this shouldn't have happened.

Really curious how you have information about ABC staff voting habits, though.

It's a claim I remember having read but not one I can source/verify. However I think anybody in Australia would be willing to concede that the ABC is considerably more left-leaning than the Australian population.

 

[Patooka]

Metaphor, I am in agreement that this was a flawed policy and that this shouldn't have happened.

Really curious how you have information about ABC staff voting habits, though.

It's a claim I remember having read but not one I can source/verify. However I think anybody in Australia would be willing to concede that the ABC is considerably more left-leaning than the Australian population.

Nope. Most used and most trusted in Australia. Even with Ita Buttrose gutting the fucking shit out of it. It's certainly more left leaning than anything Murdoch or Peter Costello churn out, but that's like being taller than your average Baby Yoda.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor, I am in agreement that this was a flawed policy and that this shouldn't have happened.

Really curious how you have information about ABC staff voting habits, though.

It's a claim I remember having read but not one I can source/verify. However I think anybody in Australia would be willing to concede that the ABC is considerably more left-leaning than the Australian population.

Nope. Most used and most trusted in Australia. Even with Ita Buttrose gutting the fucking shit out of it. It's certainly more left leaning than anything Murdoch or Peter Costello churn out, but that's like being taller than your average Baby Yoda.

I made no claims about how used or trusted it was. I made a claim that it was to the left of the Australian population. Nothing in your link refutes that.

EDIT: Completely off topic, but what specific charges are you bringing against Ita Buttrose?

 

[bigfield]

Trausti raises a good point: feminism ought to be intersectional and advocate for the working class. So third wave! Much progressive! Wow!

 

[Rhea]

All of this assumes that the existing qualification standards are an accurate measure of what makes a good cop.

In America, being an effective thug does not actually correlate to good policing skills. But physical strength is a qualification standard. The cognitive tests are not about psychological decision-making, but about erturning force with force.
Maybe that’s different in Australia?

We are currently having quite a strong public conversation about how social workers would handle many police situations better than police do. They don’t need to be the strongest or most thuggish to be effective at what is needed.

So the assumption that failure to pass the current, especially physical, test correlates (or is causitive!!) to poor police performance is an argument without supprt a this time.

 

[Metaphor]

All of this assumes that the existing qualification standards are an accurate measure of what makes a good cop.

All of "what"? The claim is that QPS discriminated against men using their own established criteria for admission. That doesn't rely on those standards being an 'accurate' measure of anything, though it would be absurd to say they have no correlation whatsoever with the job of being a cop, as if these standards were made in a vacuum.

In America, being an effective thug does not actually correlate to good policing skills. But physical strength is a qualification standard. The cognitive tests are not about psychological decision-making, but about erturning force with force.
Maybe that’s different in Australia?

We are currently having quite a strong public conversation about how social workers would handle many police situations better than police do. They don’t need to be the strongest or most thuggish to be effective at what is needed.

So the assumption that failure to pass the current, especially physical, test correlates (or is causitive!!) to poor police performance is an argument without supprt a this time.

Males and females already had different fitness standards to qualify for entry (of course, the female fitness tests are less demanding).

I assume that the psychological tests, on the other hand, do not have different standards based on sex. (It would be difficult to verify this because of course the particular psychological testing instruments and methods must be kept secret).

But if you think that Queensland Police Service recruitment is incompetent in the standards it has set, what evidence do you have for that argument?