\doc\web\98\03\seafire.txt Arthur Hu RE: Seattle Times 2/8/98 Affirmative Action in real life In your article, it states that "At the fire department, minorities and women are still under-represented in relation to the available labor force" First, it is completely absurd to imply that the correct % of women firefighters is the same as that in the general population, regardless of differences in physical qualifications or mechanical aptitude. Los Angeles recently hired exactly 50% of white firefighter hires as women, which shows just how deeply ingrained this flawed notion is, and resulted from complaints even from women firefighters over the quality of new recruits. Moreover, compared to city population, analysis of race breakdowns from their web page show that Blacks are much BETTER represented than whites by 10% overall. But when broken down by rank, Blacks are 3 times better represented than whites at the Official and Administration level, 2 times at the clerical and paraprofessional level. At the time of Harris's resignation, all 3 top fire officials were black in a department that serves city that is predominantly white. Of course, this is no indication of unfair racial bias in the fire department. The ONLY minority which is significantly under-represented compared to whites are the Asians, who consider firefighting to be a dangerous and low-status occcupation compared to engineering and medicine fields favored by Asian students and parents. One African American fire chief in San Jose stated that the proudest accomplishment of his career was hiring a class of firefighters which deliberately excluded all but one white male out of 22, even though African Americans were over-represented in a city that was less than 4 percent black. Now your story says that in 1993, the city denied employment to all of the nine white men who completed training, and that was considered to be a valid application of "equal opportunity" hiring. The mission of the fire department is to control fires with a minimum cost in life, not maximize the hiring of minorities. . It is clear that Harris was well qualified to be the city's first black firefighter, but his main qualification to be chief was his race, not his skills or background. When more attention is paid to racial diversity than the primary mission of an institution, affirmative action has gone too far. Arthur Hu 12422 107th Pl NE Kirkland Wa 98034 425-557-1000 x4504 \doc\96\06\seafire.wk1 Seattle Fire Department by Race Parity Seattle Fire Department by Race 3-Oct-96 http://www.pan.ci.seattle.wa.us/seattle/fire/stat_bud.htm UNIFORMED AND NON UNIFORMED EMPLOYEES BY ETHNIC ORIGIN/RACE NATIVE EEO CATEGORY WHITE BLACK HISPANIAMERICAASIAN WOMAN TOTAL Official & 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Admin-Non-Uniformed Official & Admin-Unifor 7 3 1 0 0 0 11 Professional-Non-Unifor 14 0 0 0 1 7 15 Professional-Uniformed 62 9 2 1 3 3 77 Technician-Non-Uniforme 4 0 0 0 0 2 4 Technician-Uniformed 173 29 8 4 10 17 224 Protective Svcs-Fire Fi 508 77 28 13 43 54 669 Paraprofessional 4 1 0 0 0 5 5 Clerical 17 5 3 1 4 30 30 Skilled craft 5 0 0 0 0 1 5 Service Maintenance 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 TOTAL 796 124 42 19 62 120 1,043 Races ranked by Fire Department representation TOTAL NatAm 1.28 Black 1.09 White 1.00 Hisp -1.18 Asian -2.76 Woman -4.77 Blacks and Native Americans are better represented than whites, not under-represented. Therefore there is no need for further racial preferences for these groups. Only Asians and Women are significantly under parity Black Representation compared to White, ranked by ratio EEO CATEGORY WHITE BLACK HISPANIAMERICAASIAN WOMAN Official & Admin-Unifor 0.92 3.01 2.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clerical 0.81 2.07 2.84 3.15 1.09 2.45 Paraprofessional 1.15 1.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.74 Technician-Uniformed 1.11 1.18 -1.34 1.24 -3.72 -7.32 Protective Svcs-Fire Fi 1.09 1.06 -1.13 1.37 -2.54 -6.76 Professional-Uniformed 1.16 1.02 -1.93 -1.16 -4.44 -14.86 Official & Admin NonUni 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.39 Professional-Non-Unifor 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.01 -1.44 Technician-Non-Uniforme 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.44 Skilled craft 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.60 Service Maintenance 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.65 0.00 At every level where there are blacks, they are at parity or better compared to whites. At the highest official level and clerical, they are 3 and 2 times better represented compared to whites. Black representation INCREASES with rank. Arthur: Thanks you for your e-mail. I appreciate the thought and effort you put into your response. The graph you cite is based on the Fire Department's own determination of "available talent." Most government affirmative action plans stopped using population as a measure by the early 1980s. Please see today's story about how most affirmative action plans for employment are created. As to whether that is how government should go about hiring, you certainly are encouraged to come to your own conclusion. I am seeking only to shed light on how it is done and how the labor force overall has changed during the past two decades. Should you wish, I will be happy to discuss this with you further. Thank you. Tom Brune Reporter The Seattle Times Arthur Hu wrote: > > In your article, it states that > > "At the fire department, minorities and women are > still under-represented in relation to the available > labor force" Thanks for responding, since you've done so much research I might as well point you to my affirmative action web page at http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/hu1st.htm I have been writing pieces on affirmative action since the mid 80s,and I may the only man alive who is honest and smart enough to figure out what really happened during the Asian quota wars of the 80s, and how affirmative action REALLY works What really gets interesting is when quotas protect blacks and Hispanics, but not whites against over-represented groups like the Asians. Then you get UC Berekeley where whites are only 30% of freshmen, but 60% of high school graduates, yet blacks and Hispanics are very close to their high school numbers, because they are getting squeezed out by Asians, but they are the only group NOT protected by a quota. In such a situation, blacks and Hispanics should not be any better represented than whties. IF whites are at only 1/2 their population, then blacks nad Hispanic goals should be set at the same level. The same may soon happen here. My basic position is that racial preferences and quotas CAN be justified if the goals are openly discussed, but what usually happens is that officials say the process treats races equally but they implement policies that require preferences, or quotas, or outright exclusion. My preferences would not be to ban all prefernences, but limit goals to half-way between a pure quota, and pure merit, and not pretend, as most affirmative action programs do, that all groups should be equally represesented because they can be assumed to be equally qualfied, regardless of differences in experience, test scores etc. It is completely outrageous for programs like the plus 3 program to claim it's only a little difference when there can be a huge difference in the qualifications of people advanced by such a system. I can bet that you haven't noticed that the ONLY under-represented minority in UW's law school classes are the whites, that some UW departments complain that even with 50% minorities, they need more money to meet their "diversity goals" My point with looking at black, not minority under-representation is that a shortage of Asians and Hispanics is often used in places like California to justify preferences for blacks, even though more often than not, blacks are already equal or over their population among fire and police, and this is something that you can help illuminate in your series. plus three program: how does it work? Seattle Times Feb 9, 1998 p. A7 An agency normally asks for the top 7 candidates. But to fill out the rest of the top ten, 3 are taken from the top of an affirmative action pool, such as blacks or disabled. The agency may select from any of the top ten, even though the best black might not even be in the top 100 or 1000 best candidates overall. "By law affirmative action requires employees to hire and promote the best person for the job, regardless of hiring goals". To Tom Brune: When you write that "affirmative action requires hiring the best qualified person", you contradict yourself by explaining how the plus three system allows placing 3 affirmative action candidates into the top 10. What you do not say is that this raises affirmative action candidates into the top 10, regardless of whether they might otherwise be ranked in the top 100 or top 1000. When you are permited to hire the 1000th or 10,000th person in preference over the top 7, that is NOT the best qualified. The truth of affirmative action is that race itself often becomes the most important and decisive qualification. It totally negates the whole notion of merit and excellence when race and diversity defines excellence. Arthur: I will check out your web page, and then maybe early next week give you a call to discuss the issues you are raising. You clearly have given this thought. Thank you and I look forward to talking with you. Tom Thanks, please feel free to use me as a anti-affirmative action voice, I was mentioned by many papers when I was in the SF bay area, but haven't really been noticed since I moved up here in 1994. You'll find I've probably done more to change affirmative action nationally than anybody else living here now, I just don't have my Asian week column any more. Michelle Malkin also mentioned me, the article is also on my web page. tbru-news@seatimes.com Yes there are blacks at microsoft. I worked with both of them. But seriously, in the group I was in there were literally only two in the entire building, the largest concentration was among the cooks who work for marriot. One was written up as being one of the stock millionaires, the other has his name all over the mouse driver code used by 98% of PC's in the world. While MS did have an intern program that seemed seriously skewed towards blacks, overall, it's really hard for a company like MS to hire on the basis of anything but ability, and that ability at the moment is concentrated in white and asian men, as you'll find in the engineering schools. That's the labor pool it's drawing from, not the population. Yet we still expect the fire department, if not the armed forces, to be 50% women. Is this nuts or what? -- +- Views do not reflect any other organization or group--------------+ Arthur Hu Join my diversity mailing list or arthurhu@halcyon.com Check index and articles on web: Kirkland WA http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/ Date sent: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:53:56 -0800 From: Tom Brune Send reply to: tbru-new@seatimes.com Organization: The Seattle Times To: arthurhu@halcyon.com Subject: Re: Microsoft Arthur: Thanks for the note. Ah, Microsoft. That's the thing about the available work force -- if no blacks are prepared to do the job, they won't get jobs. I don't think affirmative action, when managed properly, requires anything else. And just for the record, I looked at the most recent city of Seattle affirmative action plan. You should get a copy. Here are the goals for women in the Fire Department: Professionals: 43.5 Uniformed technicians: 7.9 Uniformed Protective Services: 9.7 Keep reading and reacting. Thanks. Tom Arthur Hu wrote: > > Yes there are blacks at microsoft. I worked with both of them. > > But seriously, in the group I was in there were literally only > two in the entire building, the largest concentration was among > the cooks who work for marriot. One was written up as being > one of the stock millionaires, the other has his name all over > the mouse driver code used by 98% of PC's in the world. > > While MS did have an intern program that seemed seriously > skewed towards blacks, overall, it's really hard for a company > like MS to hire on the basis of anything but ability, and that > ability at the moment is concentrated in white and asian men, > as you'll find in the engineering schools. That's the labor > pool it's drawing from, not the population. Yet we still expect > the fire department, if not the armed forces, to be 50% > women. Is this nuts or what? > > -- > +- Views do not reflect any other organization or group--------------+ > Arthur Hu Join my diversity mailing list or > arthurhu@halcyon.com Check index and articles on web: > Kirkland WA http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/ Thanks for the goals, that's the first time I've ever seen a sensible goal with respect to women in firefighters. Again, I'm the only guy that dug up the fact that Los Angeles in 1994 hired only 25% whites under a decree that allowed 50%, and reserved exactly 12.500000% for women, or HALF. That proves that some fire departments, if not Seattle do believe that goals should be set at population in actual fact, if not written policy, and that should be an excellent example of how idiotic the rules can be applied. The fact that nobody I told in LA cares shows that the same could happen in Seattle, and I bet you a million bucks that every politician would tell you that it would be perfectly justified. If you don't believe me, ask some people what they think of this policy. But one thing you should work harder to bring out is the difference between the original concept and application, and the fact that you can't have BOTH selection by equal qualification, and selection by equal proportions. You can have one (quotas) , or the other (prop200 ), or something inbetween, (my idea) but you can't have both unless all your groups are equally qualfied, and that's why politicians have to lie about qualifications to get the equal numbers that they really seek. Affirmative action, to quote from a previous issue: "The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" President Lyndon B. Johnson Executive Order 11246 Sept 24, 1965 Seattle Times Feb 1, 1998 vs. That means the original purpose was to insure equality of qualification standards, NOT equality of outcomes. Now prop200 proponents offer inequality of outcomes as the ONLY evidence of discrimination, and justification for preferences, not the hiring of lesser qualified whites and men over better qualified women and minorities. The hiring of Harris as firefighter was under the original defintion of affirmative action. His promotion to chief over better qualified whites is an example of what affirmative action has become.