President Kim's aggressive affirmative action was not limited to high-level executives. In 2015 and 2016, Kim launched two “recruitment drives for Sub Saharan Africa country nationals. This was followed by one for Caribbean professionals.
This was inexplicable. Nearly a year before the launch, Kim’s letter to the editor of the Chicago Sun Times defended the Bank’s diversity record, asserting: “Some 15% of our employees are from Sub-Saharan Africa and Caribbean countries. Among our managers, 40% hail from developing countries, 11% are from Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean.”
Sub Saharan Africa and the Caribbean regions account for less than 14% of the World population. This means they were well represented in the World Bank. Everyone in the World Bank knew that the race-based recruitment drive was a political payoff to buy Maxine Waters’ and CBS’ silence and to diffuse the uproar in Africa over Biru’s case. The World Bank promised to add 100 black staff.
This triggered the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region to demand a race-based recruitment drive. Kim’s policy faced signs of its demise when Saudi Arabia and Kuwait demanded special status. He promptly launched a recruitment drive to hire MENA nationals “with focus” on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
South Asian and Latin American countries were already on the affirmative action list. The program turned into a full-blown quota system after East Asian countries demanded for affirmative action status. Kim responded by launching recruitment drives for Korean, Japanese, and Chinese nationals.
Complicating matters, he was indulging in a race-based recruitment binge while implementing a major reorganization to cut 500 jobs. The Bank fired many staff members, forced others to leave under the threat of termination to create room for affirmative action recruits. Most of the victims were white.
As the number of victims of affirmative action grew without institutional accountability, white countries started applying for affirmative action status to protect their citizens from being victimized by the quota craze. Demark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Israel requested for, and were granted affirmative action status in 2018. A recruitment drive was launched in each country.
The Bank fired many staff members, forced others to leave voluntarily under the threat of termination to create room for affirmative action recruits. Most of the victims were white. There were also cases where Africans were forced to exit through the back door, while their compatriot African affirmative action recruits were ushered in with a fanfare through the front door to replace them.
The following four examples show how the World Bank Administrative Tribunal (WBAT) serves the World Bank to enforce the policy.
EJ v. World Bank (2017) - A white staff filed a complaint with the World Bank Administrative Tribunal (WBAT), alleging he was discriminated against when the Bank selected an affirmative action candidate over him for a management position. The Bank emphasized that the hiring managers needed “to use the opportunity to improve the diversity of our management cadre.” The Tribunal dismissed the complaint.
In DC v. World Bank (April 2017), The Tribunal reviewed a claim filed by an African male who was forced to leave the Bank “voluntarily” under a threat of termination. The Tribunal ruled in his favor and awarded him a three-year salary, but dismissed his request for reinstatement. His position had already been claimed by a quota candidate.
DO v. World Bank (2016) - An African staff filed a complaint with WBAT, alleging he was denied promotion by a manager who pushed back against the Bank’s "pro-black favoritism in hiring.” The African claimed that the manager decided to promote “a white staff in situ.” The Tribunal awarded the African financial compensation. In addition, it ordered the Bank to promote him or pay him an additional two-year salary.
DD v. World Bank (2015) - An African woman with 14-year of experience was unjustly terminated. The WBAT noted that she was performing at a “much higher” level than her pay grade suggests and concluded that her termination was unjust. Nonetheless, it ruled her reinstatement request was “not practicable under the circumstances…" Her position was awarded to an affirmative action recruit. In lieu of reinstatement, it awarded her financial compensation equal to a year and half salary.