I experienced an example of microaggression within my office at work during an office meeting. I am currently employed as an Enforcement Office for Domestic Relations which requires me to monitor, enforce, modify, and terminate child support orders established within the county in which I am employed. Due to the nature of the work conducted within my office, new procedures and system modifications are constantly created by the state to be implemented within each county.
Approximately three months ago the assistant director of my office scheduled an afternoon meeting with the Enforcement Unit to discuss a new procedure created by the state to be implemented within our county and other counties within the state. The state created a new procedure to the establishment and enforcement of child support orders in which a “payment score” would be used during the initial establishment of a child support order. The assistant director of my office described the “payment score” as a system used to evaluate and record a non-custodial parent’s ability to comply with his/her established child support order. The factor used to determine one’s payment score and likelihood to comply with his/her child support order was the individual’s residential address recorded during the initial establishment conference. Individuals with a residential located in middle to upper class cities received a higher payment score than individuals with a residential from lower class cities.
Myself and fellow colleagues felt that this new procedure was a clear example of stereotyping, unethical, and completely unnecessary. There is no possible way that one can determine an individual’s likelihood to comply with his/her child support order based solely on the location of their residential address. In fact once the procedure was implemented and utilized, it proved to be inaccurate as there are cases within our office in which the non-custodial parent and person paying support has a residential address located in a upper class location but fails to comply with his/her support order. Likewise we there are cases within our office in which the non-custodial parent and person paying support has a residential address located in a lower class location but maintains compliance with his/her support order.
I perceived this procedure as a form of microaggression, discrimination, and stereotyping. I was disappointed with the state’s creation and implantation of this procedure as it is a clear example of discrimination and stereotyping against non-custodial parents based on the social class and/or the social class of the location of their residential address. I would like to believe that we as a society have come a long way since the days of blatant discrimination and stereotyping against other individuals, but procedures such the “payment score” and others to the like have reaffirmed the fact that discrimination, stereotyping, and prejudice are still very much alive and present in our every day life.
The payment score system sounds absolutely bizarre. It's simply the age old strategy of red-lining that insurance companies, police, and politicians use. Truly discouraging.
ReplyDelete