This is actually sort of an interesting look at the other side of d&i. I don’t think that there should be some kind of standardized test to promote police officers, but if there is, and 3 people...
This is actually sort of an interesting look at the other side of d&i. I don’t think that there should be some kind of standardized test to promote police officers, but if there is, and 3 people get promoted over 11 higher-scoring candidates, then that’s fishy. A big asterisk here is how big is this population? Is it 600 cops and numbers 12-14 got promoted, or is it 14 cops?
Anyways, it gives the white supremacists a foothold with the “changing the goalposts” argument. In 1979, I assume it was supremely difficult to get promoted as a minority or female officer. But SF is so liberal that I doubt it’s an issue today (source: my ass), but this artifact that they put in place to even the playing field is now being used against them.
Can’t speak for SF, but even many liberal cities have fairly conservative police forces. They usually pull people from the more conservative rural areas and suburbs.
Can’t speak for SF, but even many liberal cities have fairly conservative police forces. They usually pull people from the more conservative rural areas and suburbs.
So even if the test might be imperfect, because it exists, it should be the primary and only factor? That's like saying the most skilled driver in the world is the one that got the best license...
I don’t think that there should be some kind of standardized test to promote police officers, but if there is, and 3 people get promoted over 11 higher-scoring candidates, then that’s fishy.
So even if the test might be imperfect, because it exists, it should be the primary and only factor? That's like saying the most skilled driver in the world is the one that got the best license exam score, and if you disagree, then we should get rid of the license exam. An imperfect test can work great as a filter to throw out candidates that fail to meet some low bar without having to be the sole determinant.
If the test is imperfect, then it makes sense to round out its results. If you were blind, trying to find the tallest person, and had a super easy to use laser measuring device that was often up to several feet off, it might be fine to use the device to decide to skip people it said were only about as tall as toddlers, but if it said Bob and Charlie were the tallest people by a longshot and Bob was an inch taller than Charlie, then you'd probably consider it as if the device gave them the same height, and you'd try other ways to determine which of them was taller. There isn't enough signal in the answer the test gives to justify paying attention to such tiny differences in score. If the device usually said a dozen people were within a few inches of each other, it would probably be sheer coincidence if the person it said was tallest actually was.
If the test was introduced in the 70s as a way to make sure minorities were getting promoted, then by your logic, the same people that were not promoting minorities in the first place could “round...
If the test was introduced in the 70s as a way to make sure minorities were getting promoted, then by your logic, the same people that were not promoting minorities in the first place could “round out” the results and continue to not promote them. If that happened then, minority police would probably file a similar suit right?
I guess I let my ignorance color my comment, but the part about the SF cops being progressive is besides the point. My main point is that if you set a standard of some kind, then ignore it, you're...
I guess I let my ignorance color my comment, but the part about the SF cops being progressive is besides the point. My main point is that if you set a standard of some kind, then ignore it, you're opening yourself (or in this case, your cause) up to issues. It's just a broad take based on skimming the article, and I'm not trying to delve into the situation specifically so much as call for as much careful planning and forecasting as possible when designing systems.
This is actually sort of an interesting look at the other side of d&i. I don’t think that there should be some kind of standardized test to promote police officers, but if there is, and 3 people get promoted over 11 higher-scoring candidates, then that’s fishy. A big asterisk here is how big is this population? Is it 600 cops and numbers 12-14 got promoted, or is it 14 cops?
Anyways, it gives the white supremacists a foothold with the “changing the goalposts” argument. In 1979, I assume it was supremely difficult to get promoted as a minority or female officer. But SF is so liberal that I doubt it’s an issue today (source: my ass), but this artifact that they put in place to even the playing field is now being used against them.
Can’t speak for SF, but even many liberal cities have fairly conservative police forces. They usually pull people from the more conservative rural areas and suburbs.
What's "d&i"? I don't recognise this abbreviation.
Diversity and inclusion. It’s a phrase we use at my office a lot.
Thanks for clarifying.
So even if the test might be imperfect, because it exists, it should be the primary and only factor? That's like saying the most skilled driver in the world is the one that got the best license exam score, and if you disagree, then we should get rid of the license exam. An imperfect test can work great as a filter to throw out candidates that fail to meet some low bar without having to be the sole determinant.
If the test is imperfect, then it makes sense to round out its results. If you were blind, trying to find the tallest person, and had a super easy to use laser measuring device that was often up to several feet off, it might be fine to use the device to decide to skip people it said were only about as tall as toddlers, but if it said Bob and Charlie were the tallest people by a longshot and Bob was an inch taller than Charlie, then you'd probably consider it as if the device gave them the same height, and you'd try other ways to determine which of them was taller. There isn't enough signal in the answer the test gives to justify paying attention to such tiny differences in score. If the device usually said a dozen people were within a few inches of each other, it would probably be sheer coincidence if the person it said was tallest actually was.
If the test was introduced in the 70s as a way to make sure minorities were getting promoted, then by your logic, the same people that were not promoting minorities in the first place could “round out” the results and continue to not promote them. If that happened then, minority police would probably file a similar suit right?
I guess I let my ignorance color my comment, but the part about the SF cops being progressive is besides the point. My main point is that if you set a standard of some kind, then ignore it, you're opening yourself (or in this case, your cause) up to issues. It's just a broad take based on skimming the article, and I'm not trying to delve into the situation specifically so much as call for as much careful planning and forecasting as possible when designing systems.