Why ‘Unconscious Bias’ Training in the Public Service Should be Wound Back
Submission to the Review of the Tasmanian State Public Service
Introduction
The Tasmanian Public Service is now rolling out mandatory ‘unconscious bias’ training to managers and staff. This policy is part of a broader strategy to achieve mandatory quotas in the public service , which is itself part of a broader strategy for radical social change. This strategy should be wound back for the following reasons:
• It is contrary to the letter and spirit of the State Service Act 2000 • It is contrary to evidence • It does not have a social licence
• It may not have been agreed by Cabinet
• It introduces serious biases into the PS
• It will harm service delivery and policy making in the longer term
• Fails to consider the broader social issues These are unpacked below.
Unconscious bias training and the radical socialist philosophy behind it presumes that bias is always bad. Bias is not always bad. Autism is at base a lack of bias. Without bias we cannot see because the brain uses heuristics that bias some information and bring it to our attention while discriminating against other information. All successful forms of human organisation bias competence and ability over incompetence and inability. Appropriate bias is absolutely essential to the delivery of services by the public service (PS).
Agency Heads Acting Ultra-Vires
It is evident from formal strategies agreed to by Heads of Agencies and published on the State Service Management Office website that the Tasmanian Public Service has chosen to make competence only one criteria for employment and is now hopelessly conflicted in its aims and objectives. Section 37 of the State Service Act 2000 states:
37. Appointment and promotion of employees
(1) The appointment of a person as an employee or the promotion of a permanent employee –
(a) is to be based on merit and made in accordance with Employment Directions;
Regarding Employment Directions the Act states:
17. Employment Directions
(1) The Employer may issue Employment Directions which relate to the administration of the State Service and employment matters relevant to this Act and which have effect according to their tenor unless they are inconsistent with or repugnant to other provisions of this Act.
‘Merit’ is not defined in the Act and so has its normal legal meaning. It follows that Heads of agency are acting ultra-vires if they prescribe policies that make any criteria other than merit of equal or greater importance to merit when employing, appointing or promoting staff. That includes gender or minority group status.
This is not altered by the State Service Code of Conduct. Section 9 of the Act sets out the State Service Code of Conduct. Subsection (4) states:
(3) An employee, when acting in the course of State Service employment, must treat everyone with respect and without harassment, victimisation or discrimination.
This does not relate to employment selection, appointment or promotion. Nevertheless the State Service Management Office publicises the document: Gender diversity in the Tasmanian State Service Heads of Departments – Our Commitment August 2016 which states an objective of 40 per cent women in senior management: “Achieving this target over the next four years will put the Tasmanian State Service on track to have gender equality in the Senior Executive, and across the entire State Service in the longer term” (p.6 emphasis mine). No evidence is provided for the assumption that women are being denied employment, appointment, or promotion within the PS based in gender. However the following heads of agency have endorsed a policy not of equality of opportunity based not on merit, but of equal numbers, as an objective in itself. This is prima-facie ultra vires in terms of the State Service Act and therefore prima-facie constitutes grounds for dismissal.
Is contrary to evidence
In effect this document, signed by heads of agency, states that the only acceptable outcome is equal numbers of different categories of people in each occupation and band level in the PS, and further, that unconscious bias is the reason why there is not equal representation. If that is true the following must also be true:
• Nearly every employment panel in the PS today and over the last 20 years is so unconsciously biased that they have turned away hundreds of deserving applicants based on gender; and
• This has occurred notwithstanding the current provisions of the State Service Act and existing HR policies and procedures including the requirement for gender balance on selection panels; and
• This has been allowed to happen by the same heads of agency that signed the document, and their predecessors; and
• This systemic bias cannot can be effectively addressed through unconscious bias training.
Really?
Where is the evidence for this startling claim and what methodology was used to gather that evidence? The only evidence provided is the fact that the PS does not have equal gender representation at all band levels in all roles. That could only be considered evidence if it were also true that equal numbers of equally qualified and experienced women applied for every position. Determining that would be a substantial and useful research project, one that could be done in concert with the University. However the basic research has not been done.
There are two additional fatal problems with presuming that unequal gender representation is evidence of bias:
Problem 1: it is based on a single variate analysis No credible sociologist would make such an extraordinary claim based on a single variant analysis – in this case gender vs absolute numbers in given band levels. That is not a sound form of analysis. A genuine approach would use a multi variate analysis that includes, inter alia, life choices and career preferences, pathways, and any barriers both internal and external. I will not attempt that analysis here but will point out the blindingly obvious: most women choose to have children. Biological realities cannot be legislated away. Even with supportive partners and childcare, mothers must take time away from the workforce and from other career building activities to care for their young, often at an age when those women are establishing their careers. Obviously that does not prevent capable women from advancing their careers. However, in a competitive merit based work environment it does place them at a systemic career disadvantage for highly demanding full time roles including executive roles. That would be a key reason for the 35/65 split in gender in executive positions. It is absurd to suggest that this is a consequence of unconscious bias on behalf of some mythical patriarchy and not in large part a natural consequence of biology. The presumptions around unconscious bias fail to explain the existence of majority or all female teams in the PS, for example, the Strategic Legislation and Policy team in DoJ is (or was) entirely female and has a female reporting/command structure at all levels up to Secretary. How is this possible in a patriarchy exercising systemic PS wide unconscious bias?
Problem 2: it assumes an equal appetite for all roles It is simply not true that equal numbers of women want to work in traditionally male roles. In Tasmania there is one female plumber and one female year 12 student likely to seek an apprenticeship. While cultural factors likely have influence they are not so determinative that effectively only men work in trades. Since there are no structural barriers, clearly women exercise preference.
Undoubtedly they also exercise preference in the PS. However we don’t need to speculate as this experiment has been run in Scandinavia. Aggressive policy changes to achieve equal gender representation in all professions at all levels failed. When all barriers to entry and advancement were removed and gender preference was fully expressed, women overwhelmingly chose caring professions of STEM professions and men overwhelmingly chose STEM professions over caring professions. The only way to change that would be to ban men from STEM related professions and women from caring professions which would lead to devastating staff shortages in both and deny human rights on a scale not seen outside the USSR or Mao’s China. In that context it becomes apparent that allegations of ‘unconscious bias’ is just a tool to advance the interests of privileged middle class women.
Social Licence
In light of the above it is self-evident nonsense that the issue is one of addressing unconscious bias, but rather a radical social agenda to somehow engineer a pre-determined outcome of 50/50 representation. The only available options are quotas and/or reverse discrimination. In other words, a policy of promoting less capable and qualified women over more capable and qualified men. Since this policy relegates the merit principle to second place, ipso facto it will result in poorer decision making and less value for money in terms of service delivery to the community. Government has a right to make that decision; but only if it has first been honest about that decision with the tax payers who will fund it. It does not have the right to pretend that thousands of deserving women are being turned away from positions because the patriarchy is exercising unconscious bias, and then exercise conscious bias based on gender discrimination (against men). Furthermore the strategies to address ‘unconscious bias’ are Service Wide and collectively represent a huge investment in PS time and also in salary for staff employed to rollout this agenda. The Cabinet process requires at least an attempt at cost/benefit analysis for any major proposal or legislative change. None appears to have been done in this case. Rather we have a bland assertion that: “The research shows that organisations with equal gender representation in their senior ranks and boards are more productive and successful”. That may be true but no studies were cited. There was no consideration of the selection process used by those ‘successful’ organisations, or any examples of proven learnings that can be applied locally. Assertion is not evidence. Given the intellectual turpitude that characterises the whole enterprise, confirmation bias can be assumed. Since this policy has not been contested or debated in Parliament or elsewhere in the public sphere it has and no social licence and no legitimacy. May not have been agreed by Cabinet None of the relevant documents publicly available on the State Service Management Office website referenced a cabinet decision; yet this is an agenda that impacts the whole public service (the State’s largest single employer), and the public they serve. It requires Cabinet endorsement. Has Cabinet agreed to impose quotas and/or reverse discrimination in order to impose 50/50 gender representation at all levels and band widths in the PS? If so, that needs to be publicly stated. If not, the policy has no legitimacy. Introduces Serious Biases Since the choices of women do not show a desire for 50/50 participation at all levels in all roles, equal gender representation cannot be achieved without some form of coercive bias. Since most women choose to have babies, 50/50 participation can only be achieved if women are convinced to stop reproducing and/or widespread child neglect is normalised. Currently the reproduction rate in Australia and most of the Anglosphere is below replacement. A policy of encouraging childlessness, parental neglect of children and abortion, in the context of mass immigration from non-Western countries, amounts to a policy of racial replacement. That is a bias against racially white people and is racist. It is also biased against a class of people based on age, location and developmental status: babies in utero or in the home. A cursory examination of the literature and programs around ‘unconscious bias’ shows a much broader agenda than ‘gender equality’. The next bias introduced by ‘unconscious bias’ training is LGBT ‘inclusiveness’. Male homosexual acts are forbidden in the sacred texts of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, and are illegal in many countries. A requirement that all PS staff endorse these lifestyles is a conscious bias against members of three of the world’s major religions and is unacceptable in a multicultural society.
The SSMO website references ‘Ally networks’ for LGBT allies defined as “someone who … chooses to challenge homophobic, transphobic and/or heterosexist values of others”. These terms are not defined, but it is reasonable to assume that they are meant to apply to any of the three million Australians who voted against same sex marriage many of whom work in the PS. Furthermore the use of the affix ‘phobic’ introduces a derogatory element by implying that anyone with conservative values on sexuality suffers from a clinical mental condition. It is also a falsehood. Phobias are serious psychological conditions that require treatment. A difference of opinion or values is not a psychological condition.
Thus, far from militating against unconscious bias, this agenda introduces conscious bias against:
• Men
• Babies
• Mothers
• White people
• Orthodox Jews
• Biblical Christians
• Muslims
• Conservatives
When they are honest, advocates for ‘equality’ admit that unfairness is acceptable to them so long as it is directed against those they perceive as privileged.
"We all understand fairness, or think we do, but very few of us understand equality. …And, sometimes, in order to achieve equality, it’s necessary to be unfair - that’s because much inequality derives from past unfairness. For those who perceive themselves as being on the receiving end of the unfairness aimed at redressing past inequalities, the world is out to get them - hence the continuing unpopularity of positive discrimination."
Will harm service delivery and policy making in the longer term.
While the ’Inclusivity agenda’ began with ‘women’s liberation’ it has grown to include more and more societal groups. The SSMO website references with approval a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade publication that states: …”as the department that represents Australia to the world, it is important we reflect the diversity of the Australian population. Diversity relates to sex, gender, age, language, ethnicity, cultural background, disability, sexual orientation, intersex status, religious beliefs, educational level, professional skills, work experience, socio-economic background, career obligations and/or other factors that make us unique.”
The Australian community includes:
• Mentally retarded and low IQ people
• People who are dangerously psychotic and violent
• Pretty much every racial, linguistic and religious group on earth including groups that promote anarchy and groups promoting religious violence
• Every form of sexual minority (the LGBT claim 60 forms of sexuality and counting) including pederasts
• People who don’t speak English
• People who don’t speak etc
Should all of these groups enjoy a quota system that gives them proportional representation at all levels of the PS? What about the emergency services? Once we accept the principle that merit or competence is not the overriding criterion, what level of granularity is required? Is it sufficient to employ a quota of lesbians? What about Aboriginal lesbians? What about intersex enquiring Aboriginal lesbians? Do Trump supporting white Anglophiles qualify for a quota? What about Catholics etc. Since we are all ‘unique’ and ultimately all individuals, this system of victim based promotion eventually eats itself.
The SSMO states that similar initiatives are being taken in other jurisdictions as if that were a reason or an argument. The experience of other jurisdictions should give us pause. Some US campuses have ‘bias response teams’ which act to prevent open discussion, shut down thinking and punish thought crime. In many universities a culture of intellectual suppression is enforced with strong bias against anyone who does not have a radical ‘progressive’ world view. This encourages group think, prevents free discussion, punishes innovation, and provides perverse incentives e.g. PC and gender as a path to career advancement rather than competence and achievement.
These policies if fully implemented can only hard the Public Service and the result in poorer outcomes for the community it serves.
Conclusion
I have no doubt that the author(s) of SSMO program and agency heads genuinely wish to do good; but good intention is not a substitute for analysis. The current program should be wound back and the false assumptions upon which it is based acknowledged. Cabinet needs to agree on whether there is a case to address equity issues in the PS. For that decision to be informed, it would be necessary to conduct PhD or Masters level research examining the number of applications and their scoring for positions viz gender. Given the unconscious and confirmation bias that typify social research be leftist/feminist academics, any research needs to be contested and reviewed, not necessarily by peers.
Additional Sources http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/ssmo/workforce_diversity_and_inclusion/diversity_in_employment
https://www.utas.edu.au/equity-diversity/ally-network
An Ally is someone who … chooses to challenge homophobic, transphobic and/or heterosexist values of others.
https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/department/pages/workplace-diversity.aspx
Moreover, as the department that represents Australia to the world, it is important we reflect the diversity of the Australian population. Diversity relates to sex, gender, age, language, ethnicity, cultural background, disability, sexual orientation, intersex status, religious beliefs, educational level, professional skills, work experience, socio-economic background, career obligations and/or other factors that make us unique.
http://equalpayportal.blogspot.com/2018/01/this-wasnt-about-gender-pay-gap.html
In terms of its treatment of the gender pay gap, the interview could have been better. Neither Newman nor Peterson understood the distinction between fairness and equality. We all understand fairness, or think we do, but very few of us understand equality. I’m not sure I do, even after thirty years in the game. And, sometimes, in order to achieve equality, it’s necessary to be unfair - that’s because much inequality derives from past unfairness. For those who perceive themselves as being on the receiving end of the unfairness aimed at redressing past inequalities, the world is out to get them - hence the continuing unpopularity of positive discrimination
https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/
