Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RDKirk" data-source="post: 76379328" data-attributes="member: 326155"><p>A war story:</p><p></p><p>Back in the 1970s, the Navy's Signals Intelligence field began admitting large numbers of women because there was no practical reason why not. The Navy SIGINT field is utilized both in shore facilities and aboard combat ships. Through the next decade, the Navy prohibited women from serving on ships, including the women in the SIGINT field, although they served capably in the shore facilities.</p><p></p><p>But by the latter 1980s, as female SIGNINTers gained promotions, a problem became apparent. The Navy promotion boards were informally--but very definitely--using the Surface Warfare combat award as the basic discrimination factor for promotions to Chief Petty Officer (a major promotion increment). It was the first thing the promotion board looked for, and they automatically disqualified candidates without the SW badge. At first glance, that made sense because surface warfare is what the Navy is all about...the idea of a seaman in a leadership role who had never been to sea seemed ludicrous.</p><p></p><p>The problem was that at least six months of sea duty was required to gain the SW badge...and the Navy was prohibiting women from sea duty. There were always many more people qualified for promotion than there were available slots, and many more men who held SW badges than there were available slots. So by immediately eliminating people without SW badges...no woman stood a chance for promotion to CPO. And when the Navy actually looked at promotion folders, they found that many times in every other way, women candidates were superior to male candidates...except for that badge. </p><p></p><p>That is what was defined at the time as <strong>structural </strong>sexism. The Navy determined that for that particular career field, the SW badge didn't make for any better leader, so promotion boards were instructed to stop using lack of the SW badge as an automatic disqualification and to look at the entire promotion folder. If a woman's record showed that she'd done everything else possible to be promotable, she deserved the promotion more than a man who done little more than the six months at sea to get the SW badge.</p><p></p><p>But then, by the 90s, the Navy discovered another problem. Even though they had removed the structural barrier, woman promotions still lagged behind statistical predictions. That is what you call "systemic" discrimination. Something was happening in the system that had nothing to do with the written process.</p><p></p><p>Promotion boards were instructed to take another step. After selecting all the promotees for the cycle, they compared the proportion of women selectees against the statistical predictions. If their selection was below prediction, that served as a <strong>flag</strong> of possible sexist discrimination. Promotion boards were instructed to take a second look at the highest rated woman <strong>non</strong>-selectee and compare her record again with those who were selected. If in that second evaluation, the board could identify specific reasons for the difference, the tally would stand. But if indeed, that highest rated non-selectee did actually have a record comparable to the selectees, she would become a selectee. Then they would look again at the next highest rated non-selectee, and so on until they got down to one who was justifiably not selected.</p><p></p><p>Now, the point to all this was not to achieve "equity"--meaning promoting as many women as necessary to make the statistics look good. The point was to ensure a <strong>fair procedure</strong>...and then let those chips then fall where they may.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RDKirk, post: 76379328, member: 326155"] A war story: Back in the 1970s, the Navy's Signals Intelligence field began admitting large numbers of women because there was no practical reason why not. The Navy SIGINT field is utilized both in shore facilities and aboard combat ships. Through the next decade, the Navy prohibited women from serving on ships, including the women in the SIGINT field, although they served capably in the shore facilities. But by the latter 1980s, as female SIGNINTers gained promotions, a problem became apparent. The Navy promotion boards were informally--but very definitely--using the Surface Warfare combat award as the basic discrimination factor for promotions to Chief Petty Officer (a major promotion increment). It was the first thing the promotion board looked for, and they automatically disqualified candidates without the SW badge. At first glance, that made sense because surface warfare is what the Navy is all about...the idea of a seaman in a leadership role who had never been to sea seemed ludicrous. The problem was that at least six months of sea duty was required to gain the SW badge...and the Navy was prohibiting women from sea duty. There were always many more people qualified for promotion than there were available slots, and many more men who held SW badges than there were available slots. So by immediately eliminating people without SW badges...no woman stood a chance for promotion to CPO. And when the Navy actually looked at promotion folders, they found that many times in every other way, women candidates were superior to male candidates...except for that badge. That is what was defined at the time as [B]structural [/B]sexism. The Navy determined that for that particular career field, the SW badge didn't make for any better leader, so promotion boards were instructed to stop using lack of the SW badge as an automatic disqualification and to look at the entire promotion folder. If a woman's record showed that she'd done everything else possible to be promotable, she deserved the promotion more than a man who done little more than the six months at sea to get the SW badge. But then, by the 90s, the Navy discovered another problem. Even though they had removed the structural barrier, woman promotions still lagged behind statistical predictions. That is what you call "systemic" discrimination. Something was happening in the system that had nothing to do with the written process. Promotion boards were instructed to take another step. After selecting all the promotees for the cycle, they compared the proportion of women selectees against the statistical predictions. If their selection was below prediction, that served as a [B]flag[/B] of possible sexist discrimination. Promotion boards were instructed to take a second look at the highest rated woman [B]non[/B]-selectee and compare her record again with those who were selected. If in that second evaluation, the board could identify specific reasons for the difference, the tally would stand. But if indeed, that highest rated non-selectee did actually have a record comparable to the selectees, she would become a selectee. Then they would look again at the next highest rated non-selectee, and so on until they got down to one who was justifiably not selected. Now, the point to all this was not to achieve "equity"--meaning promoting as many women as necessary to make the statistics look good. The point was to ensure a [B]fair procedure[/B]...and then let those chips then fall where they may. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?
Top
Bottom