Boston has recently announced it's going to throw out the written portion
in its promotion exam for cops and replace it with, ahem, oral interviews--at a
cost of an additional $2.2 million.
From what I'm reading, the movement is also afoot in New Hampshire to do similar shenanigans. All in the talismanic name of...DIVERSITY.
I'm reminded we're taking ten steps backwards. Remember the improvements by progressives in the 1920s to do away with patronage and cronyism and institute professionalism, such as using objective measures for hiring and promotion instead of the old way, "So who sent you? Who do you know?" We're going from civil service exams back to nepotism.
This is a bad dream, a joke in a saner world (where whites had some healthy self-pride and weren't so spineless); and the assertion that everyone makes from the U.S. Supreme Court to my retired neighbors, liberals from New Haven, Conn., is the following: "Diversity is a good thing."
Prove it. Real diversity is not accidents of birth, it is what we do with our lives, what we put in our brains, how far we've come through adversity. I attended UNH as a proponent of constitutional monarchy, making me very unique indeed. Where was my promotion? As far as I knew I was the only such advocate. Ah, silly me, I was born wrong. The wrong sex and race. White male. Not very good for much these days.
What am I supposed to tell my three white sons? Is it any wonder my brother and best friend both married women of partial hispanic origin. It's prophylactic on the resume for their offspring.
Wait. Does my half-Sicilian wife count? Hey, it worked for Lizzie Warren.
Diversity. It's always asserted without an effort at proving it. And from Robert Putnam of Bowling Alone fame, we now have evidence that diversity lowers social capital and trust. It hurts civic life! And he's a lib.
That's the whole point of the exercise, ladies and gentlemen: to screw over whites in favor of more politically advantaged groups. Community organizing has come to town.
And by doing an end-around objective, unbiased written tests to ones more biased, less objective, more unfair--such as the oral interview where it's much easier to cover up deficiencies--we will certainly see less qualified applicants being promoted. You can bank on that assertion. Is that what we are all about?
From what I'm reading, the movement is also afoot in New Hampshire to do similar shenanigans. All in the talismanic name of...DIVERSITY.
I'm reminded we're taking ten steps backwards. Remember the improvements by progressives in the 1920s to do away with patronage and cronyism and institute professionalism, such as using objective measures for hiring and promotion instead of the old way, "So who sent you? Who do you know?" We're going from civil service exams back to nepotism.
This is a bad dream, a joke in a saner world (where whites had some healthy self-pride and weren't so spineless); and the assertion that everyone makes from the U.S. Supreme Court to my retired neighbors, liberals from New Haven, Conn., is the following: "Diversity is a good thing."
Prove it. Real diversity is not accidents of birth, it is what we do with our lives, what we put in our brains, how far we've come through adversity. I attended UNH as a proponent of constitutional monarchy, making me very unique indeed. Where was my promotion? As far as I knew I was the only such advocate. Ah, silly me, I was born wrong. The wrong sex and race. White male. Not very good for much these days.
What am I supposed to tell my three white sons? Is it any wonder my brother and best friend both married women of partial hispanic origin. It's prophylactic on the resume for their offspring.
Wait. Does my half-Sicilian wife count? Hey, it worked for Lizzie Warren.
Diversity. It's always asserted without an effort at proving it. And from Robert Putnam of Bowling Alone fame, we now have evidence that diversity lowers social capital and trust. It hurts civic life! And he's a lib.
That's the whole point of the exercise, ladies and gentlemen: to screw over whites in favor of more politically advantaged groups. Community organizing has come to town.
And by doing an end-around objective, unbiased written tests to ones more biased, less objective, more unfair--such as the oral interview where it's much easier to cover up deficiencies--we will certainly see less qualified applicants being promoted. You can bank on that assertion. Is that what we are all about?
And who says cops in leadership
positions need to know how to reed and rite? No paperwork involved for the lieutenant? I can see the lawyers making hay of paperwork riddled with grammatical and syntactical errors in a murder investigation to show the jury what a bunch of morons are in charge.
It's the principal reason DC a couple of decades ago--after adopting homerule (cops had to live in the city) and rejecting rigorous written tests (they got rid of all math, for example), the rate of solving murders was around forty percent. Is that what we want?
I was right before when I dealt with this exact type of situation--a "tingle up the leg" during an oral interview in hiring a cop a few years ago in the small town my co-blogger lives in. How'd that work out? I don't care if I pissed off the police chief; rather, townspeople should have been upset an under qualified candidate by any measure was being hired to make a guy feel like he was sensitive and caring. Screw that. That's not your job, police chiefs. Your job is to hire the best qualified candidate for the position. Period. Not someone you think will make you look good.
The beancounters want numbers. Less intelligent minorities, like blacks and hispanics, who score lower on written exams, aren't as representative as some would like. Blacks, for example, are on average four years behind whites and asians when to comes to reading comprehension in school. It's really quite extraordinary.
But the pernicious disparate impact theory in the law, which needs to be abolished, says blacks need to be represented up the entire chain of command based on their numbers, regardless of certain basic facts, such as those The Bell Curve revealed 17 years ago. And the evidence has only gotten stronger, while the arguments against IQ have been weakened. In the case of Steven Jay Gould's very influential anti-IQ book, The Mismeasure of Man, which invariably people referenced to me in discussion of The Bell Curve, it's been a dramatic reversal of intellectual fortunes.
We have to make a choice: Equal opportunity or preferential treatment. And the great Thomas Sowell has written how destabilizing and counterproductive affirmativeaction racism has been in other societies--while doing very little to help its intended beneficiaries.
What we should be doing is making it freely available to anyone online to see not only the results of the test by each individual, but the subsequent salary he or she would have. All this murkiness! That's the way they want it, the public interest be damned.
It's the principal reason DC a couple of decades ago--after adopting homerule (cops had to live in the city) and rejecting rigorous written tests (they got rid of all math, for example), the rate of solving murders was around forty percent. Is that what we want?
I was right before when I dealt with this exact type of situation--a "tingle up the leg" during an oral interview in hiring a cop a few years ago in the small town my co-blogger lives in. How'd that work out? I don't care if I pissed off the police chief; rather, townspeople should have been upset an under qualified candidate by any measure was being hired to make a guy feel like he was sensitive and caring. Screw that. That's not your job, police chiefs. Your job is to hire the best qualified candidate for the position. Period. Not someone you think will make you look good.
The beancounters want numbers. Less intelligent minorities, like blacks and hispanics, who score lower on written exams, aren't as representative as some would like. Blacks, for example, are on average four years behind whites and asians when to comes to reading comprehension in school. It's really quite extraordinary.
But the pernicious disparate impact theory in the law, which needs to be abolished, says blacks need to be represented up the entire chain of command based on their numbers, regardless of certain basic facts, such as those The Bell Curve revealed 17 years ago. And the evidence has only gotten stronger, while the arguments against IQ have been weakened. In the case of Steven Jay Gould's very influential anti-IQ book, The Mismeasure of Man, which invariably people referenced to me in discussion of The Bell Curve, it's been a dramatic reversal of intellectual fortunes.
We have to make a choice: Equal opportunity or preferential treatment. And the great Thomas Sowell has written how destabilizing and counterproductive affirmative
What we should be doing is making it freely available to anyone online to see not only the results of the test by each individual, but the subsequent salary he or she would have. All this murkiness! That's the way they want it, the public interest be damned.
Leave a comment