Insight into Diversity
Shirley J. Wilcher
June 2011 Issue
Since the signing of Executive Order 10925 in 1961 and Order 11246 in 1965, the person assigned the responsibility to promote equal opportunity through affirmative action has had an evolving role. The affirmative action officer’s profession in 2011 reflects the changes society has made since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and the divergent views about affirmative action itself. Executive Order 11246 requires that federal contractors not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Order also requires that a contractor 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. The regulations implementing the Order require that non-construction (supply and service) employers with 50 employees and $50,000 in federal contracts prepare a written affirmative action program for each of their establishments. This document is a “management tool designed to ensure equal employment opportunity.” The regulations go on to state:
A central premise underlying affirmative action is that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor's workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects. Affirmative action programs contain a diagnostic component which includes a number of quantitative analyses designed to evaluate the composition of the workforce of the contractor and compare it to the composition of the relevant labor pools. Affirmative action programs also include action-oriented programs. If women and minorities are not being employed at a rate to be expected given their availability in the relevant labor pool, the contractor's affirmative action program includes specific practical steps designed to address this underutilization. Effective affirmative action programs also include internal auditing and reporting systems as a means of measuring the contractor's progress toward achieving the workforce that would be expected in the absence of discrimination.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines the function of “EEO [equal employment opportunity] officers, representatives, or affirmative action coordinators” to include handling equal employment opportunity matters. “They investigate and resolve EEO grievances, examine corporate practices for possible violations, and compile and submit EEO statistical reports.” Over time, employers who were not covered by the Executive Order also created the affirmative action position to prepare, establish and implement comparable programs. Thus, the affirmative action profession includes contractor and non-contractor establishments. In the federal government, such professionals are responsible for compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sec. 2000e-16. [Section 717], which requires an “affirmative program of equal opportunity” in government agencies. Management Directive 715 forms the guidance for implementing affirmative employment programs.
Full Story: http://www.insightintodiversity.com/diversity-issues/magazine-articles/60-magazine-articles/840-the-evolving-role-of-the-affirmative-action-officer-by-shirley-wilcher.html
Showing posts with label affirmative action officer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label affirmative action officer. Show all posts
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Twenty-Nine Years of Being on the Front Lines Of Affirmative Action
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
By ANONYMOUS
May 1, 2008, 12:33
Twenty-nine years ago when I started working in this field, I knew little and had no exposure to the underpinnings of this difficult compensatory process called affirmative action. I sought friends who were working in the field and began a process of acquiring all the knowledge I could about the laws and what they were intended to do. An aggressive nature, the use of trial and error and a real desire to make a difference in the field of higher education kept me motivated to change the profile of an institution.
As an affirmative action officer, you are a change agent who is fighting every day to make the institution a better place. In the course of carrying out the mandate of affirmative action, there are overt attacks on one’s creditability and integrity. There are minefields and potholes out there — some you will see and others you won’t until it’s too late.
If you are successful in carrying out your affirmative action role, they will eventually come for you. Coming for you could mean phasing out your position, changing your reporting structure and finally reassigning and/or terminating your position.
I would say to anyone who is considering this field, it is difficult, and in all probability you have not actually been trained to do this type of work. Be prepared to learn as you go and connect with others who are willing to share their experiences. My own entry into this field came when I was already holding down a job at another college. My charge was to put together the first affirmative action plan for this other institution, and I spent many hours reviewing and learning the laws that govern this field. I completed the affirmative action plan but resigned from the position shortly thereafter because the institution was interested only in window-dressing and not in changing the profile of the faculty and staff. This was a predominantly White institution, whose hiring patterns in 1971 had only recently made allowances for people of color to be hired. My desire to work in the field of AA/EEO became a paramount career objective after this assignment, and I began to search for a fulltime AA director’s position.
My next two appointments in affirmative action were at public institutions. At the first institution, I was introduced to the old boy’s network, which worked to hire people who had political connections. This institution continues to operate unabated and usually produces no women and no people of color. My efforts to change this archaic system were met with resistance. I frankly told the institutional leadership to include people of color and women in this process.
Other battlegrounds that will emerge will include the following: credentials, the hiring process, diversity of the short list, providing a warm and receptive environment for new hires, the quest for tenure and promotion, and the issue of qualified versus most qualified, among others.
While neither time nor space will allow me to explore each one of these battlegrounds, just know that they fall within the jurisdiction of a proactive AA officer, and if your efforts are not accepted by the powers that be, they will come for you.
I was once told by the president of one of these institutions that the affirmative action pool approval process was too intrusive. The final straw that overrode all the progress made was the institution’s loss of a reverse discrimination complaint. My office took the major hit for the loss of this case. The university president immediately killed affirmative action, and all of the processes that brought success in AA were dismantled. In essence, they came for me. [To read the entire article, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11095.shtml ]
By ANONYMOUS
May 1, 2008, 12:33
Twenty-nine years ago when I started working in this field, I knew little and had no exposure to the underpinnings of this difficult compensatory process called affirmative action. I sought friends who were working in the field and began a process of acquiring all the knowledge I could about the laws and what they were intended to do. An aggressive nature, the use of trial and error and a real desire to make a difference in the field of higher education kept me motivated to change the profile of an institution.
As an affirmative action officer, you are a change agent who is fighting every day to make the institution a better place. In the course of carrying out the mandate of affirmative action, there are overt attacks on one’s creditability and integrity. There are minefields and potholes out there — some you will see and others you won’t until it’s too late.
If you are successful in carrying out your affirmative action role, they will eventually come for you. Coming for you could mean phasing out your position, changing your reporting structure and finally reassigning and/or terminating your position.
I would say to anyone who is considering this field, it is difficult, and in all probability you have not actually been trained to do this type of work. Be prepared to learn as you go and connect with others who are willing to share their experiences. My own entry into this field came when I was already holding down a job at another college. My charge was to put together the first affirmative action plan for this other institution, and I spent many hours reviewing and learning the laws that govern this field. I completed the affirmative action plan but resigned from the position shortly thereafter because the institution was interested only in window-dressing and not in changing the profile of the faculty and staff. This was a predominantly White institution, whose hiring patterns in 1971 had only recently made allowances for people of color to be hired. My desire to work in the field of AA/EEO became a paramount career objective after this assignment, and I began to search for a fulltime AA director’s position.
My next two appointments in affirmative action were at public institutions. At the first institution, I was introduced to the old boy’s network, which worked to hire people who had political connections. This institution continues to operate unabated and usually produces no women and no people of color. My efforts to change this archaic system were met with resistance. I frankly told the institutional leadership to include people of color and women in this process.
Other battlegrounds that will emerge will include the following: credentials, the hiring process, diversity of the short list, providing a warm and receptive environment for new hires, the quest for tenure and promotion, and the issue of qualified versus most qualified, among others.
While neither time nor space will allow me to explore each one of these battlegrounds, just know that they fall within the jurisdiction of a proactive AA officer, and if your efforts are not accepted by the powers that be, they will come for you.
I was once told by the president of one of these institutions that the affirmative action pool approval process was too intrusive. The final straw that overrode all the progress made was the institution’s loss of a reverse discrimination complaint. My office took the major hit for the loss of this case. The university president immediately killed affirmative action, and all of the processes that brought success in AA were dismantled. In essence, they came for me. [To read the entire article, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11095.shtml ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)