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