Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Firefighter's Tests
Message-ID: <11337@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 17:27:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11337
Posted: Mon Jun 24 17:27:20 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Jun-85 05:42:35 EDT
References: <2555@randvax.UUCP> <4160017@csd2.UUCP>
Reply-To: wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP
Distribution: net
Organization: USAMC ALMSA
Lines: 40

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