Are historically "underutilized" minorities at LANL or LLNL, especially those in management, impervious to sexual harassment charges or other forms of misconduct? If so, why?
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
Comments
Why on earth would you bring this up. Obviously you have some kind of axe to grind. If not than the answer to you question is no.
Wow, you are certainly sensitive to the posted question. Being an underutilized or protected class of minority is just one of many reasons managers might get a pass on charges of sexual harassment or misconduct.
One could be a member of a self-protecting management clique, be a critical member of the labs PR team, or could have too much dirt on the conduct of other managers with comparable behavior. In your opinion, are these circumstances also off limits for blog discussion, or just the discussion regarding underutilized minorities? "Obviously" you are trying to protect a manager with a sketchy history. Good luck with that.
This is a blog about the labs. Sorry, but sometimes posted questions will not meet your expectations. Feel free to post a list of blog topics you find acceptable.
In NM, can a Hispanic female be an " underutilized minority"? Nope. Because Hispanic females aren't even a minority - they are the most prevalent ethnic/gender group in NM.
See how poorly you thought this question out? So, what exactly were you fishing for with this line of confused thinking?
Correct. However, you know that a fixed definition of what an "underutilized" minority is was not the topic question, and you know calling out a particular "underutilized" minority ____ as you did, is not the topic question either.
The question is if an employee is declared an "underutilized" minority, are they shielded from accusations of sexual harassment or other misconduct, over other lab employees with no such designation.
If one is an underutilized minority, should we also discuss the meaning of "is"? Why not, Bill did. Maybe you know of Lewinsky or Weinstein like conduct at the labs that you want to keep undisclosed. Your attempt to make the topic murky to avoid answering its prime question is a red herring, and only draws more attention.
Not to be picky but but the Lewinsky scandal and Weinstein scandal are completely different.
Lewinsky never claimed to be a victim. So what is your point of bringing this up?
It is obvious you are after something but it is not clear what. In any case if we take you for your word on this question it was already answered by another poster. The answer is No.
I know this is not the answer you want but there is no evidence for you assertion. Why not come clean with what you are really after? I am guessing you are the anti-LANL troll again since you seem to pose your questions in a similar vain every time and you are always fishing for something odd. So just come clean with what are you after already.
So why did you even ask this question when everyone, and I mean EVERYONE (including you), knows the answer is no?
The labs have always been in a cultural bubble, and that is why aggressive efforts are made to attract and retain women and minorities to the labs. This is a good thing.
But the pendulum can swing too far, and some employees do take advantage of their protected status. I have seen more than one lab "underutilized" minority (all males) employees get away with horrible repeated conduct and were later promoted anyway. It is not a secret to the offenders lab managers, it is just that most lab managers are scared to point a finger at an "underutilized" minority. So by default, lab leadership elects to enable.
UC/LANS hasn't taken appropriate actions in some cases irregardless of the alleged offender's ethnicity.
NM: American Indian 10.6%, Asian 1.7%, Black/African American 2.5%, Hispanic 48.5%
CA: American Indian 1.7% , Asian 14.8%, Black/African American 6.5%, Hispanic 38.9%
US: American Indian 1.3%, Asian 5.7%, Black/African American 13.3%, Hispanic 17.8%
To the extent lab jobs are filled locally for all assignments, the pool of available minorities compared to US stats suggest LANS would have more difficulty hiring Asian and Black/African American employees, and LLNS would have more difficulty hiring American Indian and Black/African Americans. The Hispanic population in NM and CA exceed 2016 national stats by more than 2x. These stats would likely be a factor in 2016 forward "underutilized" minority designations at the labs.
Underutilization status would be much more difficult to address if a given minority group did not by percentage, have the education or training for a given job classification compared to other minority or non-minority groups. If the local pool of a particular minority group was low compared to national stats, and that same minority group had a lower percentage of Mechanical Engineering graduates for example, they are likely classified as underutilized. How these 2016 stats compare with stats over the decades would be of interest too.