[IPAC-List] Ricci v DeStefano

Mark Hammer Mark.Hammer at psc-cfp.gc.ca
Wed Jul 1 10:07:42 EDT 2009

I'm not deeply steeped in this stuff with respect to the legal aspects, so I'll add an outsider's view.

Seems to me that one of the aspects of such cases that never gets discussed is...time. In other words, the actions of New Haven were based partly on one point in time (i.e., we don't have enough of THESE demographic group-members at THIS point in time), as opposed to any assumption about what could happen over time in the future (i.e., we didn't meet our goals today, but we will eventually). The perspective of the plaintiffs was also based on time: "But I qualified NOW. Why are you telling me that I will have to wait longer?".

Here in Canada, a 2000 report on increasing the representation of visible minority members in the federal public service (the so-called Perinbam Report) recommended aiming for 20% of all new recruits to be visible minority members. This target is, at present, well in excess of their actual labour market availability. So why such a high proportion? Simple - to make up for lost ground. Members of under-represented groups ask a very legitimate question: "If not now, when?". And the answer to the question can't be, nor should it be, "Wait. It will happen eventually." Of course, this is not the perspective of those who see things like a 20% hiring target as an artificial quota and.....wait for it.....a basis for valuing demographic characteristics over merit, when it comes to hiring. Still, the forecasting people look at our influx and outflow, and say "Jeez, if we stick with a target of 12% or even 15% in recruitment, it's gonna take us another 10 years or more to simply be juuuuuuust a little bit behind LMA.". And, like it or not, rate of accomplishment conveys a message that can easily speak louder than what management says. I.E. "They talk a good game, but how come I don't see any <XX> faces in here YET?"

So, from where I stand, a great deal of this debate revolves around time, how long people think things *should* take, and what organizations do (or not) to meet the time-related expectations of different agendas. Some of those agendas are clearly based on a sort of restitution model (i.e., we've been "shut out" for too long a time, let us in), and other agendas - particularly in a country based so much on immigration - are based on a the-government-has-to-reflect-the-country model. Certainly some of those time-related concerns can be addressed by the types of tools available and used. But it takes more than that. It takes messages, and "authentic acts" (i.e., acts of demonstrable integrity and sincerity), to create the sort of patience needed to fill in what selection procedures themselves cannot do. It is unreasonable to expect the selection process and tools alone to accomplish a broader social agenda at the pace that people expect. However, it is unreasonable to expect the social agenda to simply ignore the passage of time. There is a world - already in progress - that employers in all sectors have to face.

Mark Hammer

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list