wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (06/25/85)
In article <4160017@csd2.UUCP> dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) writes: > >I think the claim made by the women who sued to become fire fighters >was that the tests for firefighters had parts which discriminated >against women, and *which were not really relevant to firefighting >ability* (i.e. doing pushups). The second point was the important >one; it's my understanding that if the court had decided that these >parts *were* relevant to firefighting ability, they would not have >ordered the tests changed regardless of whether they discriminated >against women. So the argument made was that these women were being >discriminated against because of factors unrelated to their ability >to do the job. > So what is the reason for still having any tests that vary by sex? If doing "n" pushups is irrelevant in judging whether the candidate can perform the firefighting tasks, it is *equally irrelevant* for men and women. That is, the tests were discriminatory against women because they enforced unrealistic standards that could only be achieved by certain stronger males. A large number of weaker males were also being discriminated against. The only valid result would have been for the court to mandate a single uniform test, for *all* candidates. (This would probably be the same as the one now applied only to women.) It is quite likely that the claims of discrimination were correct, and that the original tests were a method of discrimination. The remedy in this case would be to have some outside party or firm evaluate the firefighters' job duties, and prescribe a realistic physical-capabilities test, which would then be administered to every candidate, regardless of sex or other attributes. The problem here seems to be that the courts, or the parties involved, in collusion with the courts, did NOT follow this correct reasoning, but instead instituted a *double standard* in which females were evaluated on a different basis than males. I do not believe that *double standards* are considered desirable because of their use in discriminating *against* women for so long, right? Are they "politically correct" if they are used in this fashion? (Hmmm, I think the AA argument has just come round again... this seems endlessly circular :-) Will
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (06/26/85)
I would like to hear examples of the tests that were only used to discriminate
against women. The only example I've heard so far, doing pushups, sounds very
relevant to me. I think it is important for a firefighter to be able to pick
up someone overcome by smoke and carry them out. Or to use an axe and break
down a door when searching for victims, etc.
--
Gertrude Stein about Oakland, California: "There is no There there."
Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPAclayton@satan.DEC (07/01/85)
The Fire Department in my college town once tried to recruit me. Being 6' and fairly large build they figured I had a chance of passing the physical tests (but I would have miserably failed the eye test). They had NO WOMEN in the department and were actively trying to recruit some (I assumed for AA reasons). Anyway, the test for men and women was the same and very difficult. One of the hardest was the 'carrying test', you had to lift a large, heavy (around 75 pounds, I think) object to a minimum height of 4' and carry it X yards. This was to show competency at rescuing people. Sounded like a damn good idea to me. Through the grape vine I also heard that the department was very sexist, and that was the main reason they were unable to get women, NOT because of the test (although that was undoubtedly a large factor too). Elizabeth A. Clayton decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-satan!clayton
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/02/85)
In article <1813@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >I would like to hear examples of the tests that were only used to discriminate >against women. The only example I've heard so far, doing pushups, sounds very >relevant to me. I think it is important for a firefighter to be able to pick >up someone overcome by smoke and carry them out. Or to use an axe and break >down a door when searching for victims, etc. > > Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 Okey doke, Phil. Here goes: A few years ago the firefighters test here in NYC was judged to discriminate against women. So they changed the test. The Old Test: Part of it contained the requirement to pick up a 170 pound dummy, swing it across your shoulder, walk down three flights of stairs and across a 100 ft parking lot. The New Test: Part of it contained the requirement to *drag* a *120* pound dummy down *one* flight of stairs and across a *25* ft parking lot. Makes me feel great that now we have less capable firefighters on the force, but that some of them are female. Makes me feel great to weigh in at about 170 and live on the third floor of a three story walk-up. At what price equality?? Additionally, for you AA buffs out there, the test in NYC for police was changed a few years ago also. It was judged to discriminate against minorities. The old standard was that as there were openings in the ranks selections for these openings were made from the highest grade to the lowest grade. And, for some reason, minority candidates were getting lower grades. I believe that you needed a 75% to pass in any case. The new selection process is just wonderful: You need only a 65% to pass. And as there are openings in the police force, a *random drawing* of those who passed is used to determine NY's Finest. So now we have a police force that, without regard to minority status, didn't do as well on their qualifying tests as they had to in the past. To me that adds up to a less qualified man holding a gun. Again, at what price equality? This is not intended as a flame, and please note that I have stayed out of the AA battle. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.