DARD also appointing more Catholics than Protestants (as well as DCAL and DRD)…

Well, without adding too many caveats to this one, I think Jim Allister is on to something with his posting of the latest employment figures at DARD

It’s a spectacular outcome when you consider “24 Protestants were appointed from 159 applicants and 20 RCs from just 74 applicants”.

Now the caveats. We really ought to see what the picture is across all departments. And as one commenter on Slugger’s Facebook page noted:

…with Catholics being majority at universities here, they may well be better levels of education and therefore best qualified for jobs?

However, all department across the local administration would do well to explain how it comes up with such seemingly anomalous results. Not least since we have been reassured that employment patterns have generally been 1:1 across all departments.

, ,

  • Mister_Joe

    Obviously I know nothing about the whole “business” but, as noted in the blog, it would be unfair to individuals to suggest that they are something less than qualified for their positions.
    If there is rot, it lies not with the applicants but with those making appointments.

  • if we are getting bogged down with Catholics and Protestants, what hope is there for a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Shinto, a Buddhist, a Scientologist, a Christian Scientist, a Baptist, a Jew, an Atheist, a Baha’i, a Taoist, a Confucianist, an Agnostic, a Satanist, a Pagan, or a Spiritualist of getting a job here.

    So much for religious freedom

  • Mick Fealty

    NOt the point Joe… the point is there are supposed to be controls against discrimination… If there is a obviojus answer to this, we ought to it, but this is the third in a row… and we’ve heard nothing from DRD and DCAL…

    Time to open up the whole lot surely? The n we can see how these cases stack up agains the others…

    Unless there’s an agreement the equality legislation was only about penalising Protestants?

  • MIck,
    Are the total ratios available including existing staff? I’m curious as to whether this is a rebalancing act or straightforward prejudicial employment sharp practice.

  • Mister_Joe

    .. the point is there are supposed to be controls against discrimination…

    As there should be. But who is in charge of “policing” them and what have “they” to say? Did it take a question from Allister to uncover this?

  • Mick Fealty

    Rebalancing is presumed to take place over the long term if you have an equal employment law in place.

    You can’t rebalance by other means, without bring that law into disrepute or disuse.

    On the face of it, someone is having their cake, and eating it.

  • Dec

    Presumably this is the TUV notion of discrimination: only 4 more Protestants got jobs than Catholics.

  • Mister_Joe

    Dec,

    Don’t be disingenuous. It’s not the numbers, it’s the proportions.

  • Dec

    And until we have details of those applications, nothing can be deduced other than 24 protestants got jobs as opposed to 20 Catholics. (You could argue from those figures that there’s a marked reluctance from catholics to apply for these positions.)

  • Count Eric Bisto von Granules

    So of the 44 positions open, Catholic got 45% of them and Protestants got 55%.

    Wow. Sorry, wheres the news here? We’re speculating as to the quality of the candidates and not the result.

  • wild turkey

    mick
    mick

    The Equality Commission can investigate the employment practices of any Northern Ireland employer at any time. Where the Commission considers that affirmative action is required to ensure fair participation, it may seek an undertaking from the employer that he will take such action. If an undertaking is not given or not complied with, the Commission can issue a legally enforceable direction.

    however, this isn’t a positive action issue as the number of protestant applicants is more than double that of catholics. given the above numbers, in the overall applicant pool, catholics are far more likely to be successful in securing a post than protestants. given a most cursory examination of the numbers, the issue does merit further investigation.

    “‘ Presumably this is the TUV notion of discrimination: only 4 more Protestants got jobs than Catholics.”

    well Dec, numeracy ain’t your strong point. i suggest when the feeling arises, or deflates as the case may be, go have a barny with Jim McAllister. Ever see two bald men arguing over a comb?

  • Mister_Joe

    There are reasonable grounds for suspecting that discrimination MAY be going on. Asking for an explanation is therefore reasonable too.

  • carl marks

    On the face of it there seems to be a case to answer. Catch up on existing inequality is not a acceptable excuse although fair employment legislation has been in force long enough that there should not be that much difference in levels of employment across the religious/ political divide.
    The facts are needed e.g.; does this trend apply across all levels from management to labour, in what way has more Catholics attaining higher education results affected the standards of applications how long has it been going on,. If it’s the outcome of a level playing field resulting in better education making Catholics better suited for the vacancies then fair play to them, however If it is discrimination then it has to be dealt with at once.

  • These are short-term ministerial appointments to public bodies.

  • Drumlins Rock

    Rememeber these are not run of the mill Civil Service jobs, they are Ministerial appointments, normally to the trusts and boards that still make the day to day decisions about running the country. The politicians have some scope but are still accountable to the law. Maybe it isn’t fair to question the quality of those appointed, but Murphys example at DRD certainly did not give grounds for confidence.

    (btw. the equality commission still has not resolved its own bias, in fact it has got worse with on 33% protestant representation!)

  • JR

    If this is a case of straight forward case of discrimination then it needs delt with but there are other possibalities at this stage. Because the numbers are so low statistics don’t mean an awful lot.

    Take for example Two jobs. For one job there are been 5 protestants and 1 catholic applying and a protestant gets it. The next job there are two catholics and one protestant and a catholic gets the job. In total that is 6 protestants and three catholics going for 2 jobs with one sucessful from each community. Although in this example 33% of catholics were sucessful and 16% of Protestants. It dosent mean a catholic is twice as likely to be sucessful going into a given interview.

  • Mister_Joe

    Does that mean that the Ministers are the only ones who can answer and that there is no one who can make them answer if they decide to remain mum? Only recourse then being individual legal action?

  • Chris Donnelly

    DARD also appointing more Catholics than Protestants

    Mick
    Pretty basic and misleading error in the headline there, no? After all, 24 would appear to be a greater number than 20….

    Not least since we have been reassured that employment patterns have generally been 1:1 across all departments.

    Mick
    Would this not suggest the Department is actually over-employing protestants on the basis of that purported 1:1 ratio, which does not seem to have any reference to applicant numbers (which, in any case, aren’t always valid given the fact that many applicants fail to meet criteria.)

  • Greenflag

    There are 6 Catholics and 3 Jews on the 9 benches in the USA Supreme Court . If that isn’t a case of blatant anti protestant discrimination then I don’t know what is ? Ironically all of the judges were appointed by Presidents who were at least nominally ‘Protestant’ apart from Reagan who was about as religious as the current incumbent of the Oval office .

    Meanwhile at NI groundzero even short term ministerial advisory positions have to be divvied up on the basis of denomination .

    As pashaluk elaborates above in a modest attempt at whataboutery

    What hope for those who are neither Catholic or Protestant in community background in the grand divvying up of spoils ? i.e Muslims, Hindus, a Sikh, a Shinto, a Buddhist, a Christian Scientist, a Baptist, a Jew, an Atheist, a Baha’i, a Taoist, a Confucianist, an Agnostic, a Satanist, a Pagan, or a Spiritualist

    Note to pashaluk

    Scientology is not a religion . It’s a cultish money making business which is extremely secretive about it’s brainwashing methods. Yes the others indulge in brainwashing as well but they are much more open to public investigation than the nutjobs of Scientology .

  • wild turkey

    (btw. the equality commission still has not resolved its own bias, in fact it has got worse with on 33% protestant representation!)

    DR, and i believe the percentage of males, regardless of religion, in the commission might even be lower than 33%. Whether this gender and religous profile might present a chill factor, a cold house if you will, for males and/or protestants applying for posts in the commission would, of course, be a none sense as the commission is fully committed to the equality agenda. evidence? uh, the breakdown of its workforce by religion and gender.

  • wild turkey

    Chris

    the ratio is NOT the actual numbers appointed, it is the relative success rates

    1:1 should apply, in the statistical long -run (whatever the fuck that is) to comparitive sucess rates. put simply there should be an equal likliehood that a catholic and protestant candidates are appointed from whatever applicant pools.

    and now to issues more important…. who do you fancy in the world series this year? i see a classic yankee v giants.

  • “After all, 24 would appear to be a greater number than 20….”

    It is, Chris. I presume the fair employment rules apply to actual appointments, not to the number of applicants, and the numbers appointed appear to more or less reflect the community balance.

  • Have a little gander at what Uncle Sam thinks of the shenanigans in the North, with this peek at released diplomatic cables …….. Belfast Consulate

  • Toastedpuffin

    “with Catholics being majority at universities here, they may well be better levels of education and therefore best qualified for jobs?”

    For that to be relevant, there would have to be a significant number of Protestants applying for jobs in these departments without the necessary third level qualifications. I very much doubt that’s the case.

    “Because the numbers are so low statistics don’t mean an awful lot. ”

    Actually, the numbers aren’t that low, and the stats quoted should give cause for alarm. Apparently for some, they don’t…

  • RyanAdams

    “with Catholics being majority at universities here, they may well be better levels of education and therefore best qualified for jobs?”

    No. Not these type of jobs. As DR points out these jobs require high levels of experience and skill. It’s not exactly graduate level employment.

    On another note, one would also do well to conduct some research into degree classifications between the two communities. I some how doubt the anti-social ghetto that is the Holylands produces the same number of 2:1’s in comparison with the more mixed vibrant Lower Botanic/Stranmillis/Lisburn Road student communities.

  • jagmaster

    Jim Allister should be very careful quoting statistics to back up his case. Because I’m sure someone someday will dig up some statistics of their own to embarrass Jim and his party.

  • Fergie Pie

    ‘An Ireland of Equals’ indeed….

  • Alias

    “Following on from the findings of religious discrimination by the Industrial Tribunal in Lennon-v-DRD I tabled a series of Assembly questions to find out how Protestant applicants had fared in ministerial appointments under other Sinn Fein Ministers.”

    It looks like Jim Allister is more concerned about civil rights than that self-styled civil rights party, the SDLP, which doesn’t seem to be as quick as Jim to expose state sectarianism when it comes to discrimination against Protestants.

    And where were the DUP when all this was going on?

  • John Ó Néill

    There is a significant difference between an applicant and an applicant who actually meets the essential criteria stated in the brief for a post (plus the desirable criteria used for short-listing). Similarly, a single competition or two or three that were heavily oversubscribed might have attracted significant numbers of Protestants and skew the figures. Has anyone done this analysis or do we solely do tabloid on Slugger now?

    For anyone requiring a brief intro to job discrimination it took a large number of court cases where discriminatory job practices were proven, following repeated (detailed) statistical analyses and historical evidence (such as public statements advising against employing Catholics by government figures) before the issue was taken seriously. Those who never taken it seriously, eg Jim Allister, are only concerned with generating faux rage – as Christ and others have pointed out the outcome of the competitions themselves gave a 55/45 split – have any unsuccessful candidates appealed on grounds of discrimination (and won). That is evidence of discrimination, by the way, and doesn’t need caveats.

  • John Ó Néill

    *Chris* not *Christ*

    Damn iPhone autotype

  • Toastedpuffin

    John, the figures produced suggest that appeals such as you describe would have some grounds for proceding. It might come as a surprise to you, but the Huns aren’t any more attracted to jobs they don’t meet the criteria for than their (apparently) more employable Catholic colleagues.

    Neither is the religious breakdown of the community relevant here, only the breakdown of the applicants. I should have thought that fell into the category of Bleedin Obvious, but apparently not. Essentially, you’re ridiculing Allister for not taking the issue seriously when you’re not taking the issue seriously

    There is at the very least a situation here that requires further serious investigation. I can’t help but wonder if there would be quite so many ah-buts and might-haves from some Nationalist contributors had the figures suggested discrimination against Catholics…

  • Neil

    It’s a spectacular outcome when you consider “24 Protestants were appointed from 159 applicants and 20 RCs from just 74 applicants”.

    employment patterns have generally been 1:1 across all departments.

    Might I suggest an alternative headline:

    DARD attempting to follow DARD’s Equal Opps Policy, and doing ok.

    So a 1:1 employment policy leads to 20 Catholics and 24 Protestants, I would surmise that those extra 4 Protestants can be explained through people moving across departments and people leaving. Or maybe it’s even better, maybe the policy is to try and have a staff who represent more or less a cross section of our community here? It is a bit of a non story though is it not?

    I some how doubt the anti-social ghetto that is the Holylands produces the same number of 2:1′s

    Jesus wept. Way to pigeon hole several thousand students. I assume there are hundreds of empty, affordable houses in Stranmillis these days? Certainly when I lived there as a student, it was pretty expensive and difficult to get a house in.

    As for the vibrancy of lower Botanic – LOL. Most people would just about refer to that as the Holylands only instead of being in the ‘ghetto’ it’s on the edge of it, beside the leafy suburbs of the Donegal Road and the Village (Lisburn Road).

    At any rate, the parties I attended in my long, checkered student career were just as regular and substance fuelled as they were in the ‘ghetto’, and the drinking was more sustained due to the plethora of bars on our doorsteps.

  • Toastedpuffin

    Neil, DARD equal Opportunities policy statement below. Note there is no mention of “1:1” (just as well, as it would be illegal):

    The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland (or DARD) is committed to providing equality of opportunity. It is our policy that all eligible persons shall have equal opportunity for appointment on the basis of their ability and aptitude for the work. Everyone has a right to equality of opportunity and to a good and harmonious environment and atmosphere in which everyone is encouraged to apply their diverse talents and in which no-one feels under threat or intimidated. This right is protected in many instances by legislation.

    DARD aims to create a culture where individual differences are valued and respected and which enables everyone to give of their best and helps us to respond more effectively to the needs of the people we serve.

    DARD seeks to maintain the confidence of the whole community. The Department will continue to promote equality of opportunity and fair participation within the framework of the law and will strive to achieve an organisation that is broadly representative of the society that it serves.

    It is the responsibility of all within DARD to be aware of and to apply this policy. Both Management and Trade Union Side are fully committed to the policy and will endeavour to ensure its full implementation

    Jesus did indeed weep.

  • John Ó Néill

    Toastedpuffin – all recruitment involves discrimination – discrimination which is supposed to be based on qualifications and experience etc, not religion. Jim Allister is merely interpolating a motivation into those statistics with no evidence to back up his assumption. I’ll ask again – has any unsuccessful candidate taken a case suggesting that they were discriminated against on religious grounds (they might not have had time to have had it heard, so obviously they wouldn’t yet be able to point to a judgement in their favour)?

    What it comes across as is that Jim Allister views past evidence of discrimination (which was against Catholics) as being purely an issue of smoke and mirror with statistics and wasn’t actually real, presumably because that is a preferable myth than dealing with the reality on institutional discriminatory employment practices.

  • Neil

    The Department will continue to promote equality of opportunity and fair participation within the framework of the law and will strive to achieve an organisation that is broadly representative of the society that it serves.

    So job done then.

  • Toastedpuffin

    Neil, your flippant attitude towards sectarian discrimination is hardly a basis for debate. Toodle oo!

  • grandimarkey

    Toasted Puffin:

    Neil, your flippant attitude towards sectarian discrimination is hardly a basis for debate. Toodle oo!

    Flippant though he may be, he has a point.

    The Equal Opportunities Statement states (as statements usually do)

    The Department will continue to promote equality of opportunity and fair participation within the framework of the law and will strive to achieve an organisation that is broadly representative of the society that it serves.

    Given that the employment ratio is 24:20, or 6:5, with the majority being from the Protestant community, this does appear to accurately represent the community as a whole.

    I think Nevin summed it up best @26 July 2012 at 7:27 pm:

    I presume the fair employment rules apply to actual appointments, not to the number of applicants, and the numbers appointed appear to more or less reflect the community balance.

  • Neil

    TP,

    you’re getting worked up over the implementation of a HR policy is also no basis for a debate. They have a policy, you posted it and by the looks of things they’ve implemented it to the letter. That policy is clearly paramount when making appointments. I don’t see how it can be sectarianism to employ approximately a cross section of the community here.

    The jobs are probably not requiring degrees in particle physics, probably a modicum of intelligence and half decent GCSEs would be enough. You’d rather they employed more Protestants because more Protestants apply, but why would they if all the people are qualified and they have an equality policy to implement – one which they will be judged on. None of this is flippancy, just an examination of they available facts.

  • Toastedpuffin

    John, you can’t have missed the recent finding of sectarian discrimination in DRD which highlighted the improbable statistics in employment in that department during SF’s tenure. These figures are less striking, but are nontheless statistically significant and warrant further investigation. If I’d been one of the rejected Protestant candidates, I’d be looking to take action against DARD, as the figures do suggest institutionalised discrimination on the basis of religious background (and not, as you somewhat fatuouly suggest, qualifications and experience). It’s troubling how eager you are with brush and lifted carpet.

    Your comments re Allister remind me of the closing line of Animal Farm: You are what you hate most.

  • Toastedpuffin

    grandimarkey,

    The figures suggest that Catholics had double the chances of Protestants of getting a job here.

    That isn’t equal opportunities. Overall, the department should reflect the community, but it is illegal to discriminate in order to achieve that. The whole community did not apply for these posts, the only relevant people here are the pool of applicants, and the figures do suggest discrimination.

  • HeinzGuderian

    Scientology is not a religion . It’s a cultish money making business which is extremely secretive about it’s brainwashing methods. Yes the others indulge in brainwashing as well but they are much more open to public investigation than the nutjobs of Scientology .
    …………………………………………………………………………..

    Quite obviously this chap has never heard of the catholic church……..

  • John Ó Néill

    Toastedpuffin – the DRD finding was actually: “In the view of the tribunal it was this process of handing forward unranked lists to the minister that really facilitated the appointment of Mr Hogan. It leaves open the possibility of cronyism and I think the tribunal really found in this case that they could not confirm the appointment of Mr Hogan on a basis of a process of merit.”

    I don’t think it used the phrase sectarian discrimination – it called in cronyism.

    The DARD figures don’t suggest anything without the information to back it up – an actual like-for-like comparison would be applicants who met the criteria for short-listing not just *applicants*. If anyone wants to use statistics like this they need reflect the reality – candidates who do not meet the essential criteria for a post won’t be appointed, won’t be considered for interview or short-listing so they shouldn’t be included in this type of statistic. A real assessment would be based on the numbers of candidates who met those criteria. For instance – any randomer can apply to be Professor of Rocket Science, it doesn’t mean they met the criteria to be actually considered for the post. Jim Allister is well capable of doing the real maths and requesting the meaningful figures but is choosing not to.

  • Toastedpuffin

    John:

    From the BBC:

    According to the tribunal, Mr Hogan was selected because “he was not from a Protestant background and because he was known to the minister and his (then Sinn Fein) ministerial colleagues”,

    I’m not sure in what world selecting someone because they’re aren’t from a Protestant background isn’t sectarian discrimination – yours apparently. Which leads me to think there is little value in continuing this discussion, however….

    The figures do most certainly suggest sectarian discrimination (a Catholic applicant had a 27% chance of being successful, a Protestant applicant 15%). What I am suggesting is that it warrants further serious investigation. The alternative possibilities you seem eager to forward to explain this away also seem unlikely (Protestants would need to be applying for jobs they aren’t qualified for at a rate twice that of Catholics before the solution you’ve forwarded had any merit) So given the Theory of the Stupid Prod, if you like, seems another improbable outcome, but let’s have it investigated properly, eh? Don’t you agree?

  • Pete Baker

    John

    Let’s not be trying to rewrite history. Nor the tribunal’s actual findings.

    The Tribunal is satisifed, having also weighed the credibility issues refered to in the previous findings of fact, that Sean Hogan, a Catholic, was appointed as Chair of NIW because he was not from a Protestant background and he was known to the Minister and his ministerial colleagues.

    Not forgetting, of course,

    The Tribunal is satisfied that there was a material bias against the appointment of candidates from a Protestant background within DRD.

    “That is evidence of discrimination, by the way, and doesn’t need caveats.”

  • Fergie Pie

    John Ó Néill (profile)
    27 July 2012 at 7:19 am

    There is a significant difference between an applicant and an applicant who actually meets the essential criteria stated in the brief for a post (plus the desirable criteria used for short-listing). Similarly, a single competition or two or three that were heavily oversubscribed might have attracted significant numbers of Protestants and skew the figures. Has anyone done this analysis or do we solely do tabloid on Slugger now?

    – – – – –

    John,

    I’m sure you would have accepted such an explanation from Unionists in the late 1960s….

  • Toastedpuffin

    “John

    Let’s not be trying to rewrite history”

    Perhaps he’s “only doing tabloid on Slugger now” 🙂

  • RyanAdams

    “Jesus wept. Way to pigeon hole several thousand students. I assume there are hundreds of empty, affordable houses in Stranmillis these days? Certainly when I lived there as a student, it was pretty expensive and difficult to get a house in.”

    Not anymore. Stranmillis to the roundabout would be 75% students with a growing number of HMO’s.
    http://www.propertypal.com/property-to-rent/stranmillis-belfast

    As for the vibrancy of lower Botanic – LOL. Most people would just about refer to that as the Holylands only instead of being in the ‘ghetto’ it’s on the edge of it, beside the leafy suburbs of the Donegal Road and the Village (Lisburn Road).

    Streets off Botanic Avenue still look in pretty good nick. Holylands would be summed up as everything South of University Street. The other areas look markedly better when compared with the holylands. Donegal Road / Village have students in tiny numbers – Lower Ormeau would even have more.

  • Barnshee

    “leafy suburbs of the Donegal Road and the Village (Lisburn Road). ??

    Must have missed those –or has irony struck again?

  • Toastedpuffin

    The Republicans seem to have gone rather quiet on this one. Are they tightening up their grasp of statistics? Christ, I hope so. I didn’t want to let on, but explaining simple proportions to folks can be a right pain in the ass!

  • Neil

    The Republicans seem to have gone rather quiet on this one. Are they tightening up their grasp of statistics? Christ, I hope so. I didn’t want to let on, but explaining simple proportions to folks can be a right pain in the ass!

    Well, to be fair, it would appear to me that you were the one who went quiet when I responded to your post three days ago. Allow me to post it again, as you’ve found your tongue:

    hey have a policy, you posted it and by the looks of things they’ve implemented it to the letter. That policy is clearly paramount when making appointments. I don’t see how it can be sectarianism to employ approximately a cross section of the community here.

    Now, I work in a large IT firm myself (my understanding of proportions is just tickety boo, thanks) and we have a HR equality policy. I’m certain that over the years there have been batches of applications that had an anomolous number of either Catholic or Protestant applicants. Did the company ditch the policy? Nope.

    You’ve posted the policy in question, and I would submit that you are incapable of suggesting where they have failed to implement the policy. Here it is again:

    The Department will continue to promote equality of opportunity and fair participation within the framework of the law and will strive to achieve an organisation that is broadly representative of the society that it serves.

    So, given the approximate breakdown of employees reflects the makeup of the community here, where have they gone wrong? As that’s their policy?

    Or do you believe they should leave that to the roll of the dice? We have an equality policy, but it depends how many Catholics/Protestants apply? If 90% Protestants apply for every job then the makeup of the company should be 90% Protestant? Silly.

    The policy is that the makeup of the company should reflect society. It does. What’s the problem?

    If you could avoid making baseless assertions regarding the mathematical (or other) abilities of people you don’t know , or for that matter, disappear for three days then come back and snidely suggest that other people have gone quiet under the glare of your argument, that would also be sweet. Thanks.

  • The Lodger

    “The policy is that the makeup of the company should reflect society.”

    Neil,

    Surely that policy does not allow for the hiring of less capable applicants merely for the purpose of making up the numbers of a particular religion. Would that not be illegal?

  • Toastedpuffin

    Neil:

    No, I didn’t go quiet, just chose to ignore your posts, which both myself and another poster (who took a different view from myself) found flippant.

    I’ll repeat what I’ve already stated in the interim just for you.

    It’s the aim of DARD to reflect the community it represents. It is DARD’s stated aim (not to mention it’s legal obligation) to achieve that fairly, and without discrimination.

    The figures show Catholics who applied for these posts had nearly twice the chances of Protestants who applied of getting a post. That suggests there was something unusual with the recruitment process.

    Now, it may be, as John suggested, that it just so happened that the protestants who applied where twice as likely to have applied for a job they didn’t meet the criteria for. It’s possible, but unlikely. Therefore I’m suggesting that it requires more detailed investigation, just as the earlier case highlighted by the Equality Commission and fair employment tribunal in DRD highlighted the improbable employment stats in that department.

    It’s not rocket science, and no amount of restating your ends-justifys-the-means selective quotation of DARD’s equality statement will make it disappeary. I do wonder at the insistent nature of the “nothing to see here lads, move on” attutude of some posters…. after all, what exactly is the harm in a detailed investigation into employment practice in DARD regarding ministerial appointments? Especially given the earlier cases of malpractice in DRD.

    Now, I’m sorry if you’ve been stung by my pointing out your lack of application to the study of basic stats, but puh-leeeese, take a closer look than simply snatching on to a sentence that suits your prejudice. There is something not right here, and it’s not a time for sticking by the Tribe.

  • Lionel Hutz

    It does appear as though there is anomoly. However, the stats are so small that anamolies can occur. The key is for an explanation. Without an explanation, you can draw an inference but the figures themselves are not proof of discrimination

  • Reader

    Lionel Hutz: However, the stats are so small that anamolies can occur.
    Chi Squared for (24,135,20,54) = .0468 – this is statistically significant. If there is an explanation, it won’t be a result of the sample size.
    By the way, for those suggesting that Prods may be over-applying, here’s an alternative bit of handwaving – if this discrimination has been going on for a while, there will be a backlog of qualified Prods, and they still aren’t being selected.

  • Lionel Hutz

    I agree that it is statistically significant, but it remains a small enough sample for there to be an alternative explanation. If you had such a percentage difference for wider employment within these departments, then it would be difficult to understand how there could ever be a plausible explanation for it.

  • Mister_Joe

    There is much agreement on this thread that, there MAY be discrimination (apart from the case already adjudicated) and that an explanation is needed to enable a definitive conclusion to be arrived at.