Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

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

  1. Top | #1
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,599
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,573
    Rep Power
    61

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

    From The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/australi...n-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-...port/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?

  2. Top | #2
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    33,055
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,807
    Rep Power
    100
    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.)

  3. Top | #3
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,599
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,573
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    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.

  4. Top | #4
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    20,700
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    36,386
    Rep Power
    91
    The big problem is this false idea that gender equality means (at least) a parity in all traditionally male dominated fields.

  5. Top | #5
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    8,621
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    8,993
    Rep Power
    69

  6. Top | #6
    Member *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,504
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    41,057
    Rep Power
    0
    200 men spared from a crap job protecting the power structure and harming the citizenry.

    They will thank those women one day.

  7. Top | #7
    My Brane Hertz spikepipsqueak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    4,225
    Archived
    8,811
    Total Posts
    13,036
    Rep Power
    59
    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.

  8. Top | #8
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,599
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,573
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by spikepipsqueak View Post
    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.

  9. Top | #9
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,009
    Archived
    229
    Total Posts
    4,238
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by spikepipsqueak View Post
    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.

  10. Top | #10
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,599
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,573
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Patooka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by spikepipsqueak View Post
    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?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •