what do you think? reverse racism?

[Dutch3]

It is racism, but they call it Affirmative Action. It was supposed to have been banned in California by prop 209 in 1996, but the practice continues.

[jdubs71]

since you're retired I'm assuming you're collecting a retirement. I've heard of places that aren't too keen on double dipping. I'm not sure why they would care, it would cost them the same regardless. Maybe it's age discrimination.

[J-cat]

Mainstream thought suggests you are racist for bringing this to our attention.

[CockedAndLocked]

there is no "reverse racism" only racism no matter what the race.... and this clearly quaifies

[yzErnie]

My question would be....would you want to work for them knowing what you know now? You know as well as I do the patterns continue with promotions, special assignments, etc, etc. I know I wouldn't want to work for some half witted agency like that.

[The Last American Hero]

Nothing reverse about it, you appear to have been rejected based on your race.

IMHO, same thing happened when I applied to the FBI in the early 1990s.

They were only hiring attorneys and accountants. I am an attorney from a military college and a top 30 law school. Top four of my graduating class at the citadel, top 10% of law school, familiarity with weapons.

Questions like "it's a semi military command structure, are you comfortable with that?" Are you comfortable with firearms. Would you object to carrying a firearm.

They claim I tanked the interview, but I was there and I didnt.

It's the only job I ever interviewed for that I didnt get.

I figure it's effed up from a consent decree standpoint. I decided it wasn't worth my time to fight to get in.

IMO having ANY sort of gradable Interview negates any good and fair aspects of the Civil Service which is supposed to be by Competitive Exam and "blind".

Applicants shouldn't even have names. It should be a number and a secret password, maybe with a 1cm square section of thumb print (so you can't tell how big the person might be lol) to verify it was indeed you that took the test and got that score. The exams need to be proctored in a double-blind system like they do in science (where getting good info actually matters). Also need some way to prevent any regional based bias from creeping in (don't want certain job's testing only in certain areas etc).

The Interview allows for both things like a Good Old Boys clique and "reverse" racism.

I'm willing to let written exam results be the sole factor in determining hiring for Govt positions. Since the job is doing something besides sitting before an interview board I don't care how well someone does on that for the same reason I don't care how well someone plays the piano if the job is auto mechanic.

Its like a religion where people have a belief they can "just tell certain things about people". Professional Fortune Tellers and highly successful salespeople probably can, but Govt interview board members can't. This would be borne out if ever investigated.

I've talked to people who have been on these boards who see how the majority of the members are hell bent on only selecting like minded people, as well as those in said majorities who delude themselves into thinking they are part of a fair process.

Obviously, looking at who is in these Govt jobs, these interviews haven't weeded out those with less than satisfactory personalities. I'm hard pressed to think of a single case from grammar school to college where test scores didn't match Quality of Personality, morals, etc and general fitness for hire. Even cases of "He is smart but he is a real prick" will be him "just playing", and reverse is also true.

All Govt positions should be open to Exam Challenge (once hired you can be knocked out if someone submits higher score, no safe positions).

I believe straight competitive written examination for all Govt jobs would result in an instant 99% change over in all agencies, and that would be the best thing to happen for USA since we won the Mexican-American War.