Immediately following the MCAD meeting and prior to Joan's new assignment in the Missing Person's Unit, the retaliation from O'D was at its highest level. Two of the other female troopers transferred out of the Major Crime Unit, but one offered great support for Joan by writing these two articles in the "Trooper Publication".
Article 1: March 1982
Discriminate - to make distinction in treatment; to show partiality or prejudice ( Webster's New World Dictionary)
Discrimination - a word known to cause various emotions such as panic, disbelief, outrage and/or derision, (ME).
Not a common word when discussing the Mass. State Police. If used at all, it is generally in the context of those steps taken by the job to avoid the negative connotations of the word.
Great amounts of time, money and planning are spent on our selection process to avoid discrimination. The Academy staff spends untold hours planning a non-discriminatory 5 month curriculum to insure graduation of a uniform, standard product labeled "Trooper". And barring basic personality factors, assignment to the road generally shows the job to be successfully and consciously aware of avoiding discriminatory tactics.
One would tend to believe, then, that the MSP has successfully managed to achieve a working level of awareness whereby a complaint of discrimination by sex can be handled and disposed of at lower levels. At this stage, there is little chance to make a distinction in treatment between a male or female trooper. Success has been achieved, until we move to another aspect of the job - the Bureau of Investigative Services.
It's amazing how the blatancy of discrimination within B.I.S. has gone undetected for as long as it has. Not undetected by those female troopers subjected to it - but by the uppermost levels of management who have previously spent such effort to avoid it.
Four female troopers have been transferred into the Bureau - none by request. What happened to all those letters on file by male Troopers patiently awaiting a chance to work in Investigative Services. Policewomen in the past have always been assigned to B.I.S., but where does it say female Troopers are to be arbitrarily transferred to said assignment.
Maybe it's the fault of those four females who have been, or are, in the Bureau. Afraid to broach the subject for fear of "rocking the boat and making waves". (Don't forget all those negative connotations!) Or, is it the fault of ranking officers, who, when quietly approached on the subject slam the door in their faces with such statements as "Female Troopers cannot work night shifts," or " You will spend your twenty years assigned to the Major Crime Unit," or "I can't give you to a CPAC unit, because if I give you to one, then all the other DA's will want one, and there aren't enough to go around".
Enough what? Troopers? or females? Why is there suddenly a "distinction in treatment" made? Our Academy training and road experience seem to be part of another job - where its constantly pounded in our brains that we will not be given any special or preferential treatment - that there are no distinctions made for a Trooper of wither sex. Much can be written on the overt and covert discriminatory statements and actions taken against females in B.I.S. by management.
The "sit and answer the phone and wait for someone to be raped" theory of usefulness went out with the PW's years ago. Special assignments, such as narcotics or gaming invests are handed out like sugar plums - "We'll let you go out and work if you're a good little girl and don't complain about working conditions." Missing National Guard Property and stolen typewriter invests seem to be as much as a female trooper can be entrusted with beyond a morals invest.
And not assigning a female to a DA's office until there are enough females in B.I.S. to go around? Does that mean loading up the Major Crime Unit with ten female troopers (waiting for some poor woman to be raped so they'll have some work to do), until POOF - mass exodus to the CPACs? What about seniority, and all those male Troopers with their letters submitted? Would it be fair to them? We don't want a senior Trooper bumped out of a D.A.'s office. But, if, and, when, there is a legitimate opening within a unit, why isn't a female given the same opportunity to transfer, instead of being told "Don't bother even submitting a letter, it won't be considered anyways." The right to develop your career potential is every Trooper's right - not just males.
The "inherent natural tendencies" attributed to females for work in morals cases can only cover so much. Many male officers are just as qualified at handling such a case. They are often relying now on female Troopers assigned to a barracks to assist in a special case, instead of going through GHQ to request a female assigned to MCU to travel 50 to 100 miles to take a statement. (Not to mention being told to wait until tomorrow because there's no OT to cover it, anyways!)
"For the Good of the Job" and "Specialized Expertise" can only be stretched so far in rationalizing assignment restrictions - and that elastic has broken many times. How can they tell any Trooper that because of his or her special expertise they must stay assigned to one unit within the Bureau? And when they request a transfer within the Bureau, are told that their "expertise" really isn't necessary after all. The parting shot is the classic - "If you're not happy here, leave!" It's nice for management to have the option now to replace an uncooperative female with an unsuspecting and timid junior Miss. That will work just fine - until she soon becomes aware of the restrictive limitations of her career. The 20th Century is still a long way off!
It's time, now, for those in charge to take a good look at this problem. Otherwise, all the time, money and effort spent on avoiding it will be wasted when steps are taken to force a change. We don't ask for anything more than to be a Trooper - and won't settle for anything less!
Article 2: April 1982
THAT DIRTY WORD AGAIN
Discrimination. The Earthquake last month had nothing to do with the use of the word in last month's article. There was no run on banks, riots or panic. As a matter of fact , the response from the management end was handled in the professional manner expected of them.
To regress a few months and offer some background to this picadillo. After receiving no indication from the B.I.S. upper echelons that they intended to pay any attention to the problem, this officer and TPR Joan Farrell contacted the U.S. Dept of Justice, Civil Rights Office, who sent a representative from Washington to investigate the complaint. We couldn't figure out why she kept laughing so hard as we unraveled our stories. She said she couldn't believe it was for real. So she returned to Washington with a folder full of notes, to begin working on a federal consent agreement, which would serve only as a basis for future proceedings--- should the problem continue after an agreement was signed.
Before she left, she recommended we contact the Mass. Council Against Discrimination, on the basis of the consent agreement currently in effect signed by Comm. Frank Trabucco. In the meantime, this officer was transferred out of B.I.S. TPR Farrell went to M.C.A.D. and met with their representative, who quickly got the ball rolling.
Mrs. Simonetti contacted Comm. Trabucco and a meeting was scheduled. Lt. Colonel (name redacted) and COL John R. O'Donovan met with Mrs. Simonetti and Tpr Farrell. Without repeating any of the conversation that took place, it appears that all parties left with the feeling that the misconceptions, antagonism and recital of facts had been discussed and handled in a courteous, professional manner. The air was cleared, the salient issues of discrimination were brought to light, and the parties separated on good terms.
The next step involved discussion of how to deal with the problem. With so many factors to consider (seniority, assignments, transfers, limited person power, etc) there was no cut and dried solution.
The only thing TPR Farrell asked for was that the discrimination levied against her within B.I.S. be stopped. To have the same rights and privileges as any other Trooper on the job, so that any female in B.I.S. now, or in the future, no longer be reduced to anything less than a Trooper, as we have been in the past. She's not looking for any redress of the situation, nothing to "make up for" past discrimination, and no special treatment now or in the future that could be misconstrued as a "let's make a deal" settlement to shut her up. With all the typical rumors and stories flying now, it's inevitable that whatever the end result, someone will scream bloody murder. Unfortunately, that's an inherent aspect of any discussion on discrimination.
Final negotiations are finished, and an agreement has been made to cease the discriminatory practice of the past. The first crack in the wall has been made and we'll chisel away at it until it crumbles. The problem has been aired and hopefully, there will not again be the need to go to an outside agency to solve internal problems. Hopefully, it will never again even be necessary to discuss this type of problem, now that it has been made public. If Troopers had been treated as Troopers from the start, then it might have never have gotten to this point.
Comments