So I was researching the State Department today to find out about what career opporunities are available, and I stumbled upon this video - "I advocate for America."
Michelle and Mary, U.S. Diplomats, Public Diplomacy Career Track, Political Career Track
"Mary let her career development officer know that I was going to be starting A-100, which is the orientation class, immediately prior to me joining the service. And they assigned us to serve together in Jerusalem. And in fact, even before it became policy to work to try to keep us together the way they keep together married opposite sex couples the department has been very good to us in terms of working to keep us together and having us serve together."
This is an official video promoting the State Department's advocacy of homosexual couples wanting to serve together - http://careers.state.gov/learn/who-we-are/employee-experiences?movname=jayne Apparently the video has a masked direct link so I can't upload it on here, but I just wanted to get this blog's take on the promotional nature from within a government department of homosexuality in the workplace. It's another aspect of the "Great gay debate" and this aspect to me comes off as....well unprofessional. Why? Because sexual orientation is not something to be discussed in a professional work environment.
Gee do you ever discuss your spouse at work? Does your employer give you subsidized health insurance for your spouse? Does your employer have a policy on married couples working for the company? Do your unmarried co-workers ever discuss their dates? I guess it's only OK to discuss one's sexual orientation if it is heterosexual.
ReplyDeleteDo I ever talk about my wife at work with a co-worker - yes albeit rarely. My personal life is my personal life and I don't typically discuss intimacies of my personal life with co-workers. Do I participate in a promotional video paid for by taxpayers on the accomodation of a societally unaccepted practice? And when I say societally unaceppted it's exactly what I mean because homosexuality is not accepted by society per California's proposition 8, and the lack of voter acceptance nationally of legislation accomodating a sexual perversion. Over and over again when legislation is proposed to the populace to accept legislatively more accomodation for homosexuality, it is voted down. -GWH-
ReplyDeleteGiven the amount of money put into marketing and PR prior to voting, I'm not sure that any vote accurately reflects what society accepts and doesn't accept. First of all, most of society doesn't vote. Second, our right to equal treatment before the law is enshrined in the Constitution and is not subject to a popular vote.
ReplyDeleteThe State Department should attempt to attract the best and brightest individuals to the Foreign Service and since it involves a great deal of hardship and disruption of one's life, it would be important to let people know that their relationships with their marital partner will be supported.
Enshrined in that outdated document you said we should discard? So you agree with me then, that votes oftentimes are misinformed by the media, and further the electoral college is a sound idea? I agree that the best and the brightest individuals should be incentivized to the State Department, but people engaging in a sexual perversion lacking the internal fortitude to fight against personal weakness falls into the category of the best and the brightest? I would just as soon not have a heterosexual guy cheating on his heterosexual spouse serving in the state department for the same reasons and further because he cannot be trusted.... -GWH-
ReplyDeleteOK so this video really bothered me for a few reasons.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Did the mullet chick on the left really say that they were told by the State Department that one of the FACTORS in their being hired was that they were gay? That the department wanted to represent that as a part of the American fabric to the rest of the world?
I thought the law was to not discriminate because of sexual orientation when it comes to hiring. How is this not discrimination in FAVOR of sexual orientation? Shouldnt the sexual orientation of these gals be a NON factor in the hiring process? Smacks of a double standard to me!
What if my wife and I were hired to the State Department and we posted a video that said one of the FACTORS in our hire was that we were LDS and the State Department wanted to project us to the world as a part of the American fabric? Can anyone imagine that there would be some issue with that amongst the public? Wouldn't that clearly be a case of a hire with discriminating religious preference on the part of the employer? How is this different?
The next part that bothered me is this. They refered to their pets as children with fur and children with wings. They drew a moral equivelance between children and pets! So now we are relegating animals to human status? What implications does that have down the road for meat, fur and use of animals as beasts of burden?
Then the gal states that since they couldnt take a bird to Cairo they didnt bid on that location. So that may be legit in how locations are determined, but it strikes me as odd that servants of the State Department (regardless of sexuality, which is your business)would choose their assignments not based upon whee they are most needed for thie skill sets, but where they can take their birds?
This video just rubbed me the wrong way from start to finish, and as you have read, it isnt about these women being gay. Its about preferential hiring treatment for the sexuality. Its about a push on the part of the State Department to represent that lifestyle which the American fabric largely rejects as part of our official image to the world. Its about people drawing a moral equivelence between children and pets, and then making career choices in a job that deals with national and international security and diplomacy based upon those pets.
If this is todays State Department, then it is in sad shape and needs to be gutted out and completely redone!
I completely understand 1) You don't like one of the women's haircut.
ReplyDelete2) You are upset that the State Department wants to represent all Americans in their work force. 3) You didn't like these two talked about their pets and they obviously like them too much. No wonder you think we should gut out the State Department and completely redo it!
While diversity is sometimes overworked here, compared to a lot of countries, the US is very tolerant and accepting of people with different backgrounds, religions, orientations and races. It might be a good idea to reflect that diversity in our overseas embassies and consulates, especially in more repressive nations.
While I can appreciate the humor in response 1 in the same manner that I sent it went (and yes it is a bad haircut), your other two responses are sad in how little they deal with the issues I actually raised. If those are your real responses I would give you an "F" in reading comprehension.
ReplyDeleteYou said "You are upset that the State Department wants to represent all Americans in their workforce". Seriously? That is what you pull from my comments?
I guess I will back way up in my assumption of shared philosophy and start with some foundational premise work. It is NOT the job of the State Department (or any governmental department) to represent all Americans in their workforce. Their job is to execute their appointed mission with Americans MOST QUALIFIED to carry it out. Period.
Did you not see my response about a scenario where my wife and I would be hired and then told a large factor in the decision was that we were an LDS couple, and that the State Department wanted to represent an image of LDS couples to the world as part of the fabric of America? If I were truly upset that the State department wants to represent all Americans in its workforce, I would be all for the given scenario, but I am not. The mission of the State Department is NOT to represent LDS couples to the world as a part of the “American fabric” any more or less than it is to represent gay couples to the world in like manner. Their mission is other than representing American fabric. The “fabric” can represent itself through the people who naturally rise to positions based upon their own qualifications to do these jobs, DESPITE whatever their personal backgrounds are.
The bottom line is that this all makes for lousy policy. The purpose of EEO legislation is to PREVENT these types of hiring factors creeping into the process, not to make agencies HIRE people in order to make themselves look like some kind of patchwork quilt of various aspects of American society!
As far as the birds thing, yes it is pathetic to see people (of ANY persuasion) telling us that they are making career choices in a job that deals with international diplomatic efforts not based solely on where they are most needed as public servants in critical positions, but where they can go with their birds? It is pathetic to see that the State Department then broadcasts this as some kind of recruiting tool!
Our job is not to reflect diversity in hiring but to staff jobs with the most qualified people regardless of those things with which "diversity" seeks to highlight. That is the purpose of EEO legislation.
This is an interesting post for today which is MLK day, seeing as how he was a man who supported EEO for sure, but NEVER affirmative action, which this smacks of.
Part of the job of the State Department is to represent America in the countries where they serve. If they have all white, or all Jewish, or all straight Americans on their staff, they're sending the wrong message about America.
ReplyDeleteI did see your reference and am aware that the State Department is often involved in aiding American LDS missionaries who face problems in foreign countries. I would see nothing wrong with them seeking out LDS applicants for the foreign service. I would want foreigners to realize that the USA does not discriminate against LDS people.
EEO is not really the point here, it is having a diplomatic corps that reflects America overseas.
You are still missing the point here Charles. EEO IS the point I am amking. Having the State department aid Americans overseas is a core mission of theirs. LDS missionaries fall in that category, but that is getting sidetracked from the point here. If all applicants for a particular job happen to be all of one background or other, WHO CARES? That is not what EEOis all about is it? EEO is about hiring whoever is most qualified REGARDLESS of background. This video approach seems to try to have it both ways.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting note is that we call it "EEO" not "EEG". Just because there is opportunity does not mean that all backgrounds will equally seize upon it, and that is OK. Equal employment guarantee is not the issue. We do not guarantee that all organization workforces will perfectly mirror every demographic in their population percantage of the American populace. That is insane! We guarantee that the opportunity will not be witheld because of background but it goes both ways. We also do not promote or favor because of background either. Rather, we should not be. This seems to admit that we are.
How do you not see that?
EEO is designed to insure that companies don't discriminate. The State Department is trying to do something quite different, because its mission is quite different from any corporation and most government agencies - the State Department represents the government and people of the United States in foreign countries. That is a unique mission. That's why they want to make sure that their workforce reflects the diversity of America.
ReplyDeleteThat's just it Charles, they are not saying, "America is a diverse country." They are saying, America is a pro-gay country. Guess what, we are not. We shouldn't be. We shouldn't be PRO any group. Equal Opportunity is not equal outcome Charles. It is as simple as that. The second that any government agency singles out such a group like this they are no longer Equal Opportunity. That balance is difficult to maintain, and in someways, impossible.
ReplyDeleteBut this video goes to show that singling out of a group like this is a violation of their own policy. Anyone who feels otherwise is kidding themselves.
Is the State Department saying we're a pro-LDS country when they hire Mormons? Are they saying we're a pro-Catholic country when they hire Catholics? What they are trying to say is that here in America we accept all our citizens regardless of their race, religion, sex, orientation or ethnic background and that you can walk into any embassy or consulate and see that for yourself.
ReplyDeleteThe two women in this video might be better able to turn a homosexual or feminist activist in a repressive country into a valuable source of insight into the internal affairs of the nation. They might make the difference in winning the confidence of an important official in some foreign government. That's why we want a wide diverse representation of Americans in the foreign service.
It is not who they hire, it is who they advertise that they hire to. Did this video say anything about hiring mormons? If it had, that would be inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteWell, here again it doesn't seem we are making any progress on this topic. If there had been a video about how great it was for a Mormon couple to work at State, and not one about a gay couple, I doubt you or Pahoran would have objected.
ReplyDeleteWe are more or less at the same point in regard to equal opportunity for gays that we were for minorities prior to the 1960's. An employer who was forward looking and wanted to demonstrate their openness of opportunity to minorities prior to the EEO act might have had to make a special effort just like the one State is making today for gays.
Did you read the comments? We all said that if there was a video endorsing mormons for hire in the FBI or otherwise that would be inappropriate. Being gay is totally different than being black. I will let you figure out how they are different, and therefore how incongruent your comparison really is.
ReplyDeleteCharles you are not coming to terms with the issue that one of the gals flat out said that they were told that their gayness was a FACTOR in their being hired. Watch it again. If I or James were hired for that same job and were were told that being LDS was a FACTOR in that decision, you bet we would have issue with it.
ReplyDeleteI know you have better critical thinking skills than you are displaying here Charles.
James, I did read that but I'm guessing that had there been a video endorsing Mormons for hire but not one about gays, there would never have been a post here at all. Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't see the strong opinions here against favoritism to Mormons that I see about favoritism toward gays.
ReplyDeletePahoran, I thought I was clear that I believed that State Department foreign service hiring is different from other corporate and government hiring and that they should make every effort to bring in people of varying backgrounds. You may not agree of course, but I don't want a homogeneous diplomatic corps.
Gayness is the "Opression du jour". What's tomorrow's going to be? The government must now hire gender neutral clown's who rape chickens - because gender neutral clown chicken rapists are born that way and not hiring them is restricing their right to rape chickens? Not to mention the side benefit of having gender neutral clown's who rape chickens representing that thread of the fabric of American society to the rest of the world? STOP THE INSANITY!!! -GWH-
ReplyDeleteI thought chicken raping was a choice. Are the gender-neutral clowns born that way?
ReplyDeleteCharles you are guessing wrong about no post here had there been a State department video of one of their staff claiming that being Mormon was a FACTOR in their decision to be hired. Of course there would be a post here about that, for it would be wrong!
ReplyDeleteAnd you have a very warped idea of what the mission of the State department is. They need to focus on hiring the best qualified people for thier jobs. I dont care how homogenous or multicultural it makes the agency look externally. That is irrelevant. Let those chips fall where they may. Besides, real diversity comes from differences in apprioach to thought and by personality and attitude, not from external things that ought NOT to have bearing on a decision to be hired for a job.
Careful Pahoran.... it's almost as if you're leaning towards preaching the words of the "radical" Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. saying that it's what's on the inside that counts, not an external such as skin color. -GWH-
ReplyDeleteThank you GWH. If you wanna be gay, your choice, nobody elses business. But to be proud that it became a FACTOR in your employers decision to hire you does not stike me as something to be proud of. In fact it is a clear violation of EEO legislation.
ReplyDelete