Diversity or Discrimination?
" ..I have a dream that one day my children will be judged, not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character..."
Martin Luther King, August, 1963
Seventeen white Milwaukee police lieutenants have just won a federal court suit against the City of Milwaukee, in which they claimed that they were passed over for promotion to captain because of their race by former Chief Arthur Jones. Jones responded that he promoted those he considered best qualified, and that if he had promoted all the plaintiffs, he would have been charged with discrimination by black officers. Who is right? Who is wrong?
Discretionary Hiring and The Spoils System
The issues can best be understood in the context of history. Until the last decades of the Nineteenth Century, the right of public officials to hire and promote employees of their choice was unquestioned. In practice, this meant that elected officials with appointive powers would hire their political supporters and members of their party. At that time, the idea that public employees could sue for being passed-over for promotion would have been considered totally ludicrous.
The politcal partronage system was based on the adage "To the victors go the spoils of victory!" Since political affiliation and ethnic identity were closely connected, members of politically-influential ethnic groups got the choice jobs. For example, after massive Irish immigration in the mid-1800's, the Irish came to dominate many big cities; soon thereafter the police departments of those cities became solidly Irish.
One downside of the " spoils system" was that political change would lead to mass firing of public employees and replacement by newcomers. Worse yet, many people appointed on the basis of political connections were corrupt, incompetent, or both. The police forces of many major cities were notorious for corruption and ineffectiveness. Reformers began to demand that police officers and other public employees be hired and promoted on the basis of "merit." Merit would be determined by objective tests.
Civil Service and the Merit System
The US Civil Service Act of 1883 established a system of examinations for filling about ten percent of all federal jobs; over the next decades more and more federal jobs were placed under civil service rules. New York and Massachusetts begin "employment by merit" programs about the same time, and other states and cities followed suit. In 1940 the US government mandated that state employees who administer federal programs must also be selected and promoted through a merit system (1).
The advantages previously enjoyed by members of politically-influential groups were negated by the merit concept. Success in publc service would be determined by individual ability and effort, rather than by membership in a preferred group. In New York City, for example, merit systems enabled Jews to take over both the public schools and the welfare system by mid-Twentieth Century.
Although a fair merit system would eliminate racial barriers to public-service jobs, African-Americans did not benefit much from the establishment of merit systems. Often educated in substandard segregated schools, blacks did not do well on standardized exams, such as civil service tests.
Milwaukee Police Face Racial Challenge
In 1911 the Wisconsin legislature established the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission, to be appointed by the Mayor, to act as the authority for hiring, promotions, and discipline in those two city departments. The purpose was to insulate law enforcement from politics. Originally police chiefs were hired for indefinite terms, and could be dismissed only for misconduct, but five-years terms were adopted about 1980.
Although applicants for police jobs were selected through a civil-service type of examination, promotions within the department were based on nothing but the recommendation of the Chief to the Commission. The Commission would seldom, if ever, question the choices of the Chief.
Although the black population of Milwaukee grew steadily during after World War II, very few black men were hired by the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) until the mid-1960's. Black officers were not allowed to drive squad cars for many years.(2)
Under pressure from both the federal government and local civil rights groups, the MPD began to hire more black officers in 1967.
Once on the force, black officers formed a group called the League of Martin (after Martin Luther King) and filed a federal lawsuit to demand promotions and hiring of even more African-Americans. In 1984, the US District Court for Eastern Wisconsin approved a consent decree that required the city to hire new officers on the basis of a quota system: 40% minority and 20% women (3).
Quotas meant the return to the concept of opportunity based on membership in a preferred group, rather than individual achievement. The difference was that now the preferred groups were those that had been previously excluded from police employment, rather than those who had always been advantaged. The quotas were dropped in 1997.
Arthur Jones Shakes-Up MPD
In 1995, Arthur Jones, previously the bodyguard for then-Mayor John Norquist, was selected by the Commission to be the first black Chief of Police. Jones had been a leader of the League of Martin, and had long claimed that MPD was systematically unfair to black officers and applicants. As Chief, Jones set out to make up for lost time by promoting black and female officers at rates never seen before. He took an antagonistic stance toward the police union and Commission. Even the League of Martin and Mayor Norquist turned against him. His response to criticism was "the race card." He labeled white critics racists and black critics Uncle Toms. When his term expired in November, 2003, the Commission dumped him. Jones charged the city with discrimination in federal court, where the case is awaiting trial. Meanwhile, he ran for Mayor in the 2004 election and finished near the bottom in a field of ten candidates in the Spring Primary.
Toward a Fair Policy
The white lieutenants claimed in their suit that they were more qualified than the officers promoted by Jones; that is, they deserved the promotions on the basis of merit. The trouble is that Milwaukee police rules did not specify any merit criteria for advancement in the ranks; Jones, like all his predecessors, selected captains on the basis of his personal judgment. The issue only went to court because Jones showed a strong preference for officers of his own race, not the race of 80% of the eligible lieutenants. They convinced jurors that race was the main factor in Jones' choices, and therefore they were victims of racial discrimination.
Mayor Tom Barrett and the editors of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel say that fostering "diversity" should be a legitimate criterion in police hiring and promotion. This means, in effect, that an applicant for hiring or promotion would be considered (in part) on the basis of how his or her race or sex would affect the proportions of each group in the job category. Not only is this inherently unfair to the applicant, but it is also unfair to the taxpayers, who deserve the best applicant in each job.
In a group of applicants including members of the various ethnic groups and both sexes, a selection process based strictly on merit (if measured objectively) should produce a diverse set of winners, even if diversity is not an explicit goal (4). To say that a particular minority would be severely under-represented in the ranks without preferential treatment is to say that the group is inherently incapable of competing successfully in a fair contest. Advocates of diversity will not state this view publicly, since it is obviously racist or sexist; but calls for preferential treatment to secure diversity imply that they do believe it.
Accordingly, I believe that merit should be the only criterion in hiring and promotion of public employees, and that diversity will be a natural consequence of a fair selection process.
Since leadership ability is harder to measure than possession of basic skills, establishing objective criteria for advancement is especially difficult. Nevertheless, merit criteria should be developed and open to public scrutiny. Before recommending promotions, the Chief (or a designated Deputy Chief) should examine employment records and evaluations and interview each applicant in depth. Applicants should be ranked on the basis of the merit criteria. For top positions, the Commission itself should meet with all qualified applicants before making a final decision. The mere opinion of any one person should never be the decisive factor, as it was in the case of the lieutenants versus Jones and the City. Although a totally-objective promotion process may not be achievable, it should be our goal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)World Book Encyclopedia,1977, Volume 4, page 471.
(2) "MPD not far on path to diversity", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Page 3B, April 10, 2005.
(3)Women were hired by MPD as parking checkers and school crossing-guards since the 1940's. When patrolman positions were opened to women applicants in the early 1970's, very few could meet the height requirement (5'8") or pass the physical-agility test. To satisfy the consent decree, the height-requirement was eliminated.
(4)For example, major league baseball teams today are selected on the basis of only one criterion: ability to play baseball; all teams have a mix of black, white, and Hispanic players. Black players were excluded until 1947, when Branch Rickey hired Jackie Robinson for the Brooklyn Dodgers and thereby improved the quality of his team. Other teams soon followed suit, not because the owners wanted diversity, but because they wanted the best players.
Martin Luther King, August, 1963
Seventeen white Milwaukee police lieutenants have just won a federal court suit against the City of Milwaukee, in which they claimed that they were passed over for promotion to captain because of their race by former Chief Arthur Jones. Jones responded that he promoted those he considered best qualified, and that if he had promoted all the plaintiffs, he would have been charged with discrimination by black officers. Who is right? Who is wrong?
Discretionary Hiring and The Spoils System
The issues can best be understood in the context of history. Until the last decades of the Nineteenth Century, the right of public officials to hire and promote employees of their choice was unquestioned. In practice, this meant that elected officials with appointive powers would hire their political supporters and members of their party. At that time, the idea that public employees could sue for being passed-over for promotion would have been considered totally ludicrous.
The politcal partronage system was based on the adage "To the victors go the spoils of victory!" Since political affiliation and ethnic identity were closely connected, members of politically-influential ethnic groups got the choice jobs. For example, after massive Irish immigration in the mid-1800's, the Irish came to dominate many big cities; soon thereafter the police departments of those cities became solidly Irish.
One downside of the " spoils system" was that political change would lead to mass firing of public employees and replacement by newcomers. Worse yet, many people appointed on the basis of political connections were corrupt, incompetent, or both. The police forces of many major cities were notorious for corruption and ineffectiveness. Reformers began to demand that police officers and other public employees be hired and promoted on the basis of "merit." Merit would be determined by objective tests.
Civil Service and the Merit System
The US Civil Service Act of 1883 established a system of examinations for filling about ten percent of all federal jobs; over the next decades more and more federal jobs were placed under civil service rules. New York and Massachusetts begin "employment by merit" programs about the same time, and other states and cities followed suit. In 1940 the US government mandated that state employees who administer federal programs must also be selected and promoted through a merit system (1).
The advantages previously enjoyed by members of politically-influential groups were negated by the merit concept. Success in publc service would be determined by individual ability and effort, rather than by membership in a preferred group. In New York City, for example, merit systems enabled Jews to take over both the public schools and the welfare system by mid-Twentieth Century.
Although a fair merit system would eliminate racial barriers to public-service jobs, African-Americans did not benefit much from the establishment of merit systems. Often educated in substandard segregated schools, blacks did not do well on standardized exams, such as civil service tests.
Milwaukee Police Face Racial Challenge
In 1911 the Wisconsin legislature established the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission, to be appointed by the Mayor, to act as the authority for hiring, promotions, and discipline in those two city departments. The purpose was to insulate law enforcement from politics. Originally police chiefs were hired for indefinite terms, and could be dismissed only for misconduct, but five-years terms were adopted about 1980.
Although applicants for police jobs were selected through a civil-service type of examination, promotions within the department were based on nothing but the recommendation of the Chief to the Commission. The Commission would seldom, if ever, question the choices of the Chief.
Although the black population of Milwaukee grew steadily during after World War II, very few black men were hired by the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) until the mid-1960's. Black officers were not allowed to drive squad cars for many years.(2)
Under pressure from both the federal government and local civil rights groups, the MPD began to hire more black officers in 1967.
Once on the force, black officers formed a group called the League of Martin (after Martin Luther King) and filed a federal lawsuit to demand promotions and hiring of even more African-Americans. In 1984, the US District Court for Eastern Wisconsin approved a consent decree that required the city to hire new officers on the basis of a quota system: 40% minority and 20% women (3).
Quotas meant the return to the concept of opportunity based on membership in a preferred group, rather than individual achievement. The difference was that now the preferred groups were those that had been previously excluded from police employment, rather than those who had always been advantaged. The quotas were dropped in 1997.
Arthur Jones Shakes-Up MPD
In 1995, Arthur Jones, previously the bodyguard for then-Mayor John Norquist, was selected by the Commission to be the first black Chief of Police. Jones had been a leader of the League of Martin, and had long claimed that MPD was systematically unfair to black officers and applicants. As Chief, Jones set out to make up for lost time by promoting black and female officers at rates never seen before. He took an antagonistic stance toward the police union and Commission. Even the League of Martin and Mayor Norquist turned against him. His response to criticism was "the race card." He labeled white critics racists and black critics Uncle Toms. When his term expired in November, 2003, the Commission dumped him. Jones charged the city with discrimination in federal court, where the case is awaiting trial. Meanwhile, he ran for Mayor in the 2004 election and finished near the bottom in a field of ten candidates in the Spring Primary.
Toward a Fair Policy
The white lieutenants claimed in their suit that they were more qualified than the officers promoted by Jones; that is, they deserved the promotions on the basis of merit. The trouble is that Milwaukee police rules did not specify any merit criteria for advancement in the ranks; Jones, like all his predecessors, selected captains on the basis of his personal judgment. The issue only went to court because Jones showed a strong preference for officers of his own race, not the race of 80% of the eligible lieutenants. They convinced jurors that race was the main factor in Jones' choices, and therefore they were victims of racial discrimination.
Mayor Tom Barrett and the editors of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel say that fostering "diversity" should be a legitimate criterion in police hiring and promotion. This means, in effect, that an applicant for hiring or promotion would be considered (in part) on the basis of how his or her race or sex would affect the proportions of each group in the job category. Not only is this inherently unfair to the applicant, but it is also unfair to the taxpayers, who deserve the best applicant in each job.
In a group of applicants including members of the various ethnic groups and both sexes, a selection process based strictly on merit (if measured objectively) should produce a diverse set of winners, even if diversity is not an explicit goal (4). To say that a particular minority would be severely under-represented in the ranks without preferential treatment is to say that the group is inherently incapable of competing successfully in a fair contest. Advocates of diversity will not state this view publicly, since it is obviously racist or sexist; but calls for preferential treatment to secure diversity imply that they do believe it.
Accordingly, I believe that merit should be the only criterion in hiring and promotion of public employees, and that diversity will be a natural consequence of a fair selection process.
Since leadership ability is harder to measure than possession of basic skills, establishing objective criteria for advancement is especially difficult. Nevertheless, merit criteria should be developed and open to public scrutiny. Before recommending promotions, the Chief (or a designated Deputy Chief) should examine employment records and evaluations and interview each applicant in depth. Applicants should be ranked on the basis of the merit criteria. For top positions, the Commission itself should meet with all qualified applicants before making a final decision. The mere opinion of any one person should never be the decisive factor, as it was in the case of the lieutenants versus Jones and the City. Although a totally-objective promotion process may not be achievable, it should be our goal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)World Book Encyclopedia,1977, Volume 4, page 471.
(2) "MPD not far on path to diversity", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Page 3B, April 10, 2005.
(3)Women were hired by MPD as parking checkers and school crossing-guards since the 1940's. When patrolman positions were opened to women applicants in the early 1970's, very few could meet the height requirement (5'8") or pass the physical-agility test. To satisfy the consent decree, the height-requirement was eliminated.
(4)For example, major league baseball teams today are selected on the basis of only one criterion: ability to play baseball; all teams have a mix of black, white, and Hispanic players. Black players were excluded until 1947, when Branch Rickey hired Jackie Robinson for the Brooklyn Dodgers and thereby improved the quality of his team. Other teams soon followed suit, not because the owners wanted diversity, but because they wanted the best players.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home