Quotas don’t really work in the Police Service – or for any other organisation for that matter.
It seems to me that police services are now more responsive to the needs of political correctness, the agendas of our political masters and the social engineers who drive the inclusiveness and diversity dogma, as opposed to the general public, who regrettably become the victims of increasing levels of crime in society.
Now ask yourself these questions, is it really that hard to believe that a policing career with the obvious downsides of shift work and exposure to sometimes life threatening or dangerous situations is more appealing or more suited to able bodied, biologically and psychologically aligned male members of the human race?
Is it really necessary to believe that a police service is only capable of being representative of the community they serve, if they statistically mirror all elements of that community?
Can it possibly be enough for individuals drawn to the vocation of policing to share the common goals and values of their community through demonstrating good character, proficiency, professionalism and leadership?
Is it really that easy to believe that if a police service doesn’t represent every facet of a community, that it is incapable of performing its functions efficiently and effectively and can only be salvaged through use of a quota system to ‘fix’ it?
Is the merit system of selection which relies on aptitude, competence and potential so broken that a captain’s pick is the only solution?
Whilst many police services have evolved in largely closed societies, worldwide some societal demographics are changing rapidly due to wars, social unrest, economic conditions and the availability of modern transport.
Whilst it can be easily argued by armchair theorists that police services have an obligation and in fact a duty to include people of diverse culture, beliefs, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, gender and fluidity of gender, shouldn’t personal choice and suitability for the role be the determining factors as opposed to an imposed quota?
If an individual police officer demonstrates good character through being trustworthy, responsible, fair, caring and demonstrates proficiency through knowledge, skills, ability, good judgement and shows professionalism through acting with honour, courage, composure, competence, respect, and pursues self-improvement, thereby generating public trust, respect, confidence and further displays leadership to improve situations, takes command of situations, achieves socially positive change and positively influences others, is that not enough?
If these outcomes are achieved, hasn’t ‘the market’ and ‘merit’ determined the most appropriate mix of individuals to perform the necessary policing functions – is a ‘quota’ intervention really necessary and if so, for what purpose?
Satisfying an ideological experiment or curiosity would hardly seem an appropriate justification, nor should satisfying ideological zealotry.
Whilst socially progressive individuals and groups have become the standard bearers of the diversity and inclusiveness crusade, they seem to have forgotten other social demographics, which seem to have also been conveniently ignored by most parties.
Who is championing the rights of individuals with either convictions or who have otherwise transgressed against the laws of the state and hence been deemed unsuitable to become police officers?
Aren’t criminals ‘rehabilitated’ as a result of incarceration and having paid their debt to society, why should they be denied the opportunity to repay the community they initially offended against, seems ‘fair’, doesn’t it?
Statistics extrapolated from the research of Tyler (1990) conducted in Chicago, USA suggests that some sixty-nine percent of people surveyed claimed to never break the law, some twenty-seven percent break the law when the benefit outweighs the associated risk and four percent feel free to break the law without limitation.
As we all hope for and expect, police are required to be 100% ethical 100% of the time, so at best, only sixty-nine percent of the community would be considered as having appropriate levels of integrity to be considered for potential employment as police officers.
The potential employment pool becomes further restricted by excluding amputees, the visually impaired and those suffering from other debilitating illness, injury or other impairment, which limit their capacity to actually perform policing duties effectively.
When will the social warriors insist on equity through quotas for these and other elements of society?
Should members of society in fact be targeted and forced into a policing career against their will, just to get the balance right? Whatever that ‘correct balance’ may be!
I appreciate that the issues I have raised will no doubt leave me open to accusations of being a bigot, hater, or some type of ‘phobe’ or ‘ist’ for daring to offer what I suspect should be common sense to most thinking people, as opposed to what is deemed ‘politically correct’ and socially progressive by the quota proponents.
If I were to suggest that green was my favourite colour, that doesn’t mean that I automatically ‘hate’ every other colour, I am merely expressing my opinion and preference.
My preference is for a police service best capable of fulfilling its social contract with the public by selecting, training and deploying the best people possible to perform the policing role, irrespective of any quota induced hysteria.
Whilst some of the coming discussion focuses on the negative impact of female ‘affirmative action’ quota bias, it is in no way intended to minimise or detract from the good work and capability displayed by many female employees in diverse workplaces – displaying appropriate merit on a level playing field is always a cause for recognition, acknowledgement and appreciation.
In the 1990s the Queensland Police Service (QPS) recruited just below thirty percent female recruits, with a level playing field in place, today the quota designed to achieve a fifty percent membership in the organisation may in fact have a longer term detrimental effect, not just by lowering the standard of entry to make up the numbers, but by denying entry to better qualified candidates who do not meet quota specifications.
The QPS Executive Leadership Team in passively acquiescing to a political thought-bubble is deliberately sabotaging future organisational capacity and competence.
The police and public deserve better from supposed leaders!
Policing is a numbers game and despite claims to the contrary, police will always be reactively responding to emerging crime trends and developments.
It’s not rocket science to see that through artificially inflating female recruitment that future policing capacity will be compromised in terms of the impact of pregnancy, maternity leave, part-time work arrangements and the ability of the organisation to often ‘fabricate’ functions and activities to be able to offer interesting/challenging/engaging/developmental options for the part-time workers.
These all impact negatively upon operational policing capacity – which is probably the only genuine concern of the community.
In terms of service delivery, how is the organisation able to maintain appropriate performance standards, with numbers as opposed to availability of members, being the yardstick of service delivery, irrespective of actual operational deployment potential?
The QPS is not the only organisation where the tail is apparently wagging the dog and I am not alone in calling out the corrosive impact of quotas and bowing at the altar of political correctness.
Mark Latham on 9 October 2017, in the Daily Telegraph, spoke out against the erosion of the concept of ‘fair go’ when identity politics ‘reserves’ positions in the workplace denying the best person getting the job. He pointed out ‘female only intakes’ for both the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Federal Police, thereby denying well qualified male applicants serving their country simply because they had the wrong genitalia. Further that many lucrative employment sectors in Australia, such as the law, education, medicine and the Australian Public Service, now have more women than men. The AFP Diversity and Inclusion Strategy wants “LGBTI members to reflect 10 percent of the total AFP workforce by the end of 2020”. This is a significant over-representation, given that only 2-3 percent of Australians are gay or transgender and hardly consistent with an equitable quota. Read the full story here:http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/mark-latham-stop-diversity-police-this-is-just-too-much/news-story/4801d1a4e22f499c6288ec548ea4ee4e
Retiring United States General John Kelly, describes the ‘rape’ of the United States Marine Corps in a lunatic drive for ‘fairness’ on 16 January 2016 in the New York Post. Pressure for women in combat roles, erosion of qualifying standards, fabricated promotional opportunities, non-gender segregated boot camps and changing every ‘man’ label to politically correct titles within the Marine Corps – hence the loss of the term ‘rifleman’ – when every Marine is in fact a ‘rifleman’ above and beyond any specialty. The Fire Department of New York (FDNY) has bitter experience with the same drill. The New York Post runs regular exposés of the efforts to bend (already lowered) FDNY standards with an eye to a ‘better’ gender balance. Whilst we can admire the efforts of a woman who keeps trying even after she’s failed a key FDNY physical test six times, it’s shocking to see her become a firefighter without ever passing. It’s beyond troubling to think about the potential impact on public safety and firefighter safety. Read the full story here:http://nypost.com/2016/01/16/the-rape-of-the-us-marine-corps-a-lunatic-drive-for-fairness/
Closer to home, Andrew Bolt questions why the Australian Defence Force is focusing on gender issues in an environment of Australia’s falling military capacity within our region. It takes a long bow to contend that breast jobs and transgender surgery have a direct relationship to military prowess. Yet the Defence Minister, Marise Payne, justified Defence spending more than $1 million in taxpayer funds on cosmetic surgery for troops. When Defence isn’t funding nips and tucks for troops, it’s busy banning boys from jobs. The Australian Army banned male recruits in a majority of positions advertised in early August 2017. Last year Chief of Army Lieutenant General Angus Campbell addressed a Defence Force conference on recruitment. He said: “The number one priority I have with respect to recruitment is increasing our diversity, with a focus on women and indigenous Australians.” Read the full story here:http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/when-defence-is-this-weak-why-focus-on-gender-instead/news-story/dabb3c34554decf1286889dcd1dfb4cd
Matthew Benns, in the Daily Telegraph on 16 February 2016 outlined how the Australian Army mandated halal certified food for Australian diggers. One third of combat rations offered to all Aussie troops now has to be halal-certified, despite the Australian Defence Force having fewer than 100 Muslims amongst its 57,000 strong permanent force. Senator Cory Bernardi, who was a member of the senate inquiry that looked into halal certification, said the order “demonstrates just how our military has been captured by minority interests and appears to have suspended the application of common sense”. “Our military should be defending our way of life, on and off the battlefield. Decisions like this suggest it has become more an instrument of supporting minority interests rather than being focused on the national interest,” he said. Documents obtained under Freedom of Information show that ADF combat ration packs should contain a variety of menus including vegetarian, halal and kosher “to meet ADF’s commitment to providing an inclusive working environment.” Read the full story here:http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/halal-certification-army-mandates-muslimcertified-food-for-our-diggers/news-story/5cabceeedab44dff055f32116aae21e0
David Wroe reporter with the Sydney Morning Herald reported on 3 March 2015 that Assistant Defence Minister Mr Robert said progress on cultural diversity within the ADF needed to happen more quickly. "It is clear the growth of a culturally and linguistically diverse workforce, that represents the changing face of modern Australia, is moving too slowly," Mr Robert said. "This is going to change." He said there would also be a ‘dedicated recruitment strategy’ to target sections of the community from which soldiers, sailors and airmen and women are not typically drawn. Mr Robert stressed this was not about appearances or ‘social engineering’ but rather was vital to making the ADF a better fighting force. "This strategy is born out of the stark reality that combat power will be enhanced," he said. I’m not sure how this hypothesis can be proven, I find it hard to believe that marketing alone will encourage people to join the ADF, when they have expressed no interest in doing so previously. This enforced ‘change’ appears to be exactly the opposite of the rationale being offered by Mr Robert. If the desired ‘change’ is so irresistible and resistance futile, why not rely on evolution instead of revolution to achieve that outcome? Read the full story here:http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-defence-force-to-get-its-first-muslim-imam-20150302-13t18l.html
It seems apparent that senior executives of military and para-military organisations in Australia and worldwide are currently laying the foundation for diminishing future organisational capacity, for the sake of diversity and inclusiveness, both of which offer no obvious organisational enhancement. I find it equally telling that the architects of this ‘progress’ will be well and truly disassociated from the organisations when the damage becomes evident, even to those who are wilfully blinded by political correctness, the need for quotas and identity politics. It is time for leaders to stand up and actually lead, as opposed to rolling over for a belly scratch and other rewards for ‘appearing’ to do something ‘necessary’, even if it’s only in the minds of zealots, as opposed to the actual practitioners and ultimately acting against the interests of society at large.