Camilla's protector paid out

[rlg94086]

This is new…someone sued for being promoted above his abilities due to his race.

Link is to the original article. The quote below included comments from the blogger at the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web (I added the bold font):

opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007788

heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17757963%5E663,00.html

**
**’Overpromotion’

Here’s a fascinating story originally from England’s Daily Mail:A black police bodyguard who protected the Duchess of Cornwall has won $70,000 [Australian, or around US$53,000] compensation after suing Scotland Yard for “over-promoting” him because of political correctness.

Sgt Leslie Turner–the first black personal protection officer to guard the royal family–will receive the “racial discrimination” payout after reaching an out-of-court settlement with London’s Metropolitan Police.

His representatives argued he landed the prestigious job as Camilla’s bodyguard only because he was black.

It was claimed that as a result of being over-promoted and not receiving proper training and support, Sgt Turner made mistakes which led to him being re-assigned.

This suggests a tantalizing line of legal attack for opponents of “affirmative action” in American higher education. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that, at least for the next 22 1/2 years, “diversity” is a “compelling” enough reason to justify discriminating at the margins against people of pallor. But what if a black student were to sue, claiming he had been admitted to, say, Harvard and done badly there because he was not held to the same high standard as other students?

 

[MikeWM]

Being over-promoted and not receiving enough training and support, as it says deep in the article. It isn’t a great deal of use to ‘over-promote’ anyone for whatever reason.

Affirmative action is fine if it gives ‘equality of opportunity’. If the pendulum goes too far, it goes too far.

Here in Cambridge, the University looks upon applications from state school students marginally more favourably than those from public (ie. private schools), as those in the latter often get special training for Oxbridge interviews, have better teaching, etc. Cambridge wants the people with the best potential to succeed, not those that have had the lucky breaks or the richest parents. It is a successful policy, in my opinion.

Mike

 

[rlg94086]

The controversy here was the point system they used for admissions at some of the better universities. For example, you might get 40 points for your SAT scores, 20 for sports, 20 for community service, and 80 for your race (these are not real numbers, but I remember the race number being very skewed). IOW it is possible to get admitted to a university with a lower gpa and SAT scores than someone who is not in a race which doesn’t count (white and asian primarily). In this case, it is possible that someone would be ‘over-promoted’ into a school where he would not succeed.

As far as the workforce is concerned, I agree with you about the pendulum. IMHO it has swung too far in some cases but not all. It is a difficult problem. Philosophically, I still have a problem though with making any decision based on skin color or ethnicity.

MikeWM:

Being over-promoted and not receiving enough training and support, as it says deep in the article. It isn’t a great deal of use to ‘over-promote’ anyone for whatever reason.

Affirmative action is fine if it gives ‘equality of opportunity’. If the pendulum goes too far, it goes too far.

Here in Cambridge, the University looks upon applications from state school students marginally more favourably than those from public (ie. private schools), as those in the latter often get special training for Oxbridge interviews, have better teaching, etc. Cambridge wants the people with the best potential to succeed, not those that have had the lucky breaks or the richest parents. It is a successful policy, in my opinion.

Mike

 

[Karin]

What ever happened to giving the job/position etc. to the person who is best qualified for it?

 

[MikeWM]

Karin:

What ever happened to giving the job/position etc. to the person who is best qualified for it?

If you were to say ‘best able to do it’ I would agree with you, but qualifications aren’t everything. Hence my example with Cambridge University above. The people with the best exam results at 18 aren’t necessarily the ones capable of doing the best at University, though it is a reasonable indicator, as the results are skewed by the background of that person, what type of school they attended, etc. etc.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

The controversy here was the point system they used for admissions at some of the better universities. For example, you might get 40 points for your SAT scores, 20 for sports, 20 for community service, and 80 for your race (these are not real numbers, but I remember the race number being very skewed). IOW it is possible to get admitted to a university with a lower gpa and SAT scores than someone who is not in a race which doesn’t count (white and asian primarily). In this case, it is possible that someone would be ‘over-promoted’ into a school where he would not succeed.

I agree, that doesn’t seem helpful as the only set of indicators.

To use the Cambridge analogy one more time, they do try to interview all candidates, in order to assess ‘promise’ and ‘ability’ rather than just results or experience. Obviously those things count too, but they try to get a rounded picture.

As far as the workforce is concerned, I agree with you about the pendulum. IMHO it has swung too far in some cases but not all. It is a difficult problem. Philosophically, I still have a problem though with making any decision based on skin color or ethnicity.

I do too - though there are occasions where it does seem necessary, eg. recruitment of Catholics to the Northern Ireland Police Force in order to restore confidence in the police in the Catholic community.

Mike