# Judges orders millions paid in NYC firefighter bias case



## alphatrauma (Mar 8, 2012)

CNN said:
			
		

> A U.S. district judge ordered New York City to pay $128 million in to firefighters who allege the city used an entrance exam that deliberately sought to keep African-Americans and Latino Americans off the force. The judge also ordered the FDNY to hire 293 black and Latino applicants.



Full Story Here

Let the games begin <_<


----------



## adamjh3 (Mar 9, 2012)

I don't want someone coming to help me who got a job because they're a certain ethnicity, I want someone coming to help me who got a job because they're better than everyone else.

Same goes for the who-you-know departments out here. I don't give a :censored: that your uncle is the chief, are you better than everyone else who interviewed?


----------



## bstone (Mar 9, 2012)

> The lawsuit alleged that the exams had little to do with firefighting and instead focused on cognitive and reading skills.


I don't see a problem with this. 



> Because of the hereditary nature of the fire department, white candidates were recruited and supported throughout the application process by family or neighborhood contacts and whites consistently passed while minority candidates failed.


I see a big problem with this.


----------



## adamjh3 (Mar 9, 2012)

bstone said:


> I see a big problem with this.



Can it be proven that candidates were taken on because they were white or others were not selected because they were not white? For example, if a not white applicant had higher scores than a white applicant, but the white applicant was hired anyway.

However, I have seen arguments as asinine as "this test is made intentionally difficult so a low number of [insert race/gender here] will not pass, such as the first quote in bstone's post above me


----------



## bstone (Mar 9, 2012)

adamjh3 said:


> Can it be proven that candidates were taken on because they were white or others were not selected because they were not white. For example, if a not white applicant had hire scores than a white applicant, but the white applicant was hired anyway.
> 
> However, I have seen arguments as asinine as "this test is made intentionally difficult so a low number of [insert race/gender here] will not pass.



I'm assuming that the judge took testimony, interviewed experts, and reviewed evidence and concluded that this does happen.


----------



## adamjh3 (Mar 9, 2012)

bstone said:


> I'm assuming that the judge took testimony, interviewed experts, and reviewed evidence and concluded that this does happen.





> using an entrance exam intentionally designed to discriminate based on race.





> "According to the most recent census data, black residents make up 25.6% of New York City's population; when this case was filed in 2007, black firefighters accounted for only 3.4% of the Department's force.



It's these statements that have me wondering. How can an entrance exam, be designed to discriminate based on race? Are there questions about fighting fires that only white people can answer?

And of the 25.6% of New York's population that is black, how many have tried to get on with FDNY? Is THAT number proportional to the number of black firefighters on the force?

My paramedic class is 24 people, 20 are white, three are Hispanic, one is black. None are female

Breaking that down, roughly 83% of my class is white, 13% are Hispanic, and 4% are black. 

According to the 2010 census, 64% of San Diego residents are white, 32% are Hispanic, and 6% are black. 

Clearly my school prefers white males over anything else. 

So any female, and anyone of Hispanic/Latino descent who has applied to this school and didn't get in should be given free tuition, because the percentage of these folks in San Diego county relative to the class is unequal.


----------



## firecoins (Mar 9, 2012)

50% of nyers are women yet there is not a 50% female ff on the FDNY 
I doubt FDNY is racist. If you really want to join FDNY, you can.


----------



## alphatrauma (Mar 9, 2012)

adamjh3 said:


> It's these statements that have me wondering. *How can an entrance exam, be designed to discriminate based on race?* Are there questions about fighting fires that only white people can answer?



This is a very legitimate question!

... it has a very simple, if somewhat obfuscate answer.

Standardized tests (in general), do not ultimately quantify the intelligence or prognosticate success of a potential applicant. Is it a reasonably good indicator? Yes! An absolute forecasting tool... hardly.

Now what must be considered is that success on standardized tests is largely dependent on *mastery of the covered material*. One does not present from the womb with the knowledge and skills necessary to score highly in Algebra. Let's assume (for the sake of argument), that the majority of individuals in the US, or elsewhere for that matter, are of average intelligence. Yes, there are those at the extreme ends of the spectrum... but for the most part, they are the exceptions, NOT THE RULE. What allows some to excel, while others languish? Many factors, but...

You generally cannot expect an individual to perform as academically well as his counterpart, when the initial playing field is not level. 

Historically, educational opportunities/resources have never been distributed equally across all socio-economic planes. (Whites vs. non-Whites)

Unfortunately, as children, we cannot choose our parents or the circumstances in which we grow up. Those who grow up in the better neighborhoods, generally attend the better schools, which have better budgets/resources, and attract better teachers, and so on. Scoring high/poorly on an entrance test should not summarily dismiss or validate anyone. 

As far as the court case goes, I look at it this way. If you don't want to be on the wrong end of a decision... don't let it go to the judges. Most cases wind up in court because the two contending parties won't sit down and talk to each other. The only true winners here are the lawyers :sad:


----------



## triemal04 (Mar 9, 2012)

adamjh3 said:


> I don't want someone coming to help me who got a job because they're a certain ethnicity, I want someone coming to help me who got a job because they're better than everyone else.


Why you racist bigot!  How dare you say something so cruel and biased as that!


bstone said:


> I don't see a problem with this.
> 
> 
> I see a big problem with this.


There's not neccasarily a problem with that either.  The point of the written test is to test your knowledge and ability to think/apply what you know; it's for an entry-level job so there is need to test specific areas of knowledge.

The part about getting help...sure, only white people do that.  It's not like every other ethnicity is using a hands-off policy when someone that they know from their ethnic group tests.  Jesus...look at what the Vulcan Society was just doing...

While that can go overboard (look to Florida for a recent case about that) to say that it is both an institutionalized and supported problem AND that it is only practised by a specific ethnicity...stupid.


adamjh3 said:


> Can it be proven that candidates were taken on because they were white or others were not selected because they were not white? For example, if a not white applicant had higher scores than a white applicant, but the white applicant was hired anyway.
> 
> However, I have seen arguments as asinine as "this test is made intentionally difficult so a low number of [insert race/gender here] will not pass, such as the first quote in bstone's post above me


No it can't be proven.  All that's being alleged is that the test is "to hard" and favorable to white people because...well...the only explanation that has been given is because black people don't have the same skills.  Seriously, that's it.  And given that the test is looking at cognitive and reasoning ability...that's a rather harsh thing to say. 

In essence the charge is that white people are smarter than black people with a higher knowledge base, so the test should be made less difficult.  

Kind of an interesting stance when you think about it...


----------



## triemal04 (Mar 9, 2012)

bstone said:


> I'm assuming that the judge took testimony, interviewed experts, and reviewed evidence and concluded that this does happen.


Nope.  The whole thing has been about whether or not the test is fair for everyone who takes it.

Alphatrauma-
I agree with everything you said.  However you want to explain the cause and reasons behind it, you can't say that everyone in this country (of all colors and ethnicities) has the same options and get the same treatement.

But, with that being said, even if the playing field isn't level, do you think that standards should be lowered so that everyone can understand and pass, or should standards be maintained so that the most qualified will pass?

The second part to that is, if you change the test so that a lesser educated person will be able to score high, don't you think that the people with a higher ability will do even better than before?  What would change?

Maybe you could reword the test so that it was easier understood by certain groups of people...but then the question would be if it was actually testing at the same level, and if by doing so you hadn't inadvertently made it more difficult for another group.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 9, 2012)

Stupid judge, stupid policy, stupid outcome.


Can't wait till SCOTUS goes back on their judgement of AA this year and hopefully tosses it out at the collegiate level, and as such, opening the door for more lawsuits to rid society of affirmative action.  


Hence why SCOTUS sided with the firefighters in the Ricci case in 2009.


----------



## alphatrauma (Mar 9, 2012)

triemal04 said:


> alphatrauma-
> I agree with everything you said.  However you want to explain the cause and reasons behind it, you can't say that everyone in this country (of all colors and ethnicities) has the same options and get the same treatement.
> 
> But, with that being said, even if the playing field isn't level, do you think that standards should be lowered so that everyone can understand and pass, or should standards be maintained so that the most qualified will pass?
> ...



When we say "lowering standards", let's define standards. Should criminals, delinquents, slackers or the like be able to slip through the cracks? Absolutely not! Can we look objectively at each applicant outside of their respective test scores? I think so.

 Situations like this tend to perpetuate the notion that meeting hiring quotas, for underrepresented populations, will open the floodgates to literally anyone with a pulse, who are for the most part ignorant. This is folly, and couldn't be further from the reality of the situation. That argument assumes that minority applicants that do poorly on entrance exams are uneducated and not fit for the job. 

It has been stated that the non-minority applicants were receiving "assistance" prior to taking the examination. I'm curious as to what that entailed. Maybe study/review materials... or potentially the entire exam? I'd be interested in seeing how applicants (both white and non-white) fared on the exam, if given the exact same pre-exam support. 

There is no easy solution to suspect/established discriminatory hiring practices, as they often disenfranchise some particular group, no matter which way the pendulum swings. I would beg the question, how is the greater good better served? I would err on the side of more diverse ethnic workplace, even at the expense of offending the sensibilities (and sense of entitlement) of those intent on maintaining the status-quo.





Linuss said:


> Can't wait till SCOTUS goes back on their judgement of AA this year and hopefully tosses it out at the collegiate level, and as such, opening the door for more lawsuits to rid society of affirmative action.



Affirmative Action was not created in a vacuum. 

Funny thing - I was at work one night, chatting with 20-somethings nurses when I made a reference to Apartheid... silence and blank stares ensued. Mind you, these RNs are college educated and had no idea what I was talking about, and quite frankly, couldn't care less.

Point being this: The general American populace, at times, has the memory of a common housefly. Especially when it comes to unsavory eras of history that would rather be forgotten. Police and Fire departments have been historically notorious for overtly and deliberately denying minorities from entering their ranks... let's not even start in on institutions of higher learning.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 9, 2012)

alphatrauma said:


> When we say "lowering standards", let's define standards. Should criminals, delinquents, slackers or the like be able to slip through the cracks? Absolutely not! Can we look objectively at each applicant outside of their respective test scores? I think so.



The whole package should be evaluated with minimum standards in place. Standardized exam scores make up a part of the whole package. 




> It has been stated that the non-minority applicants were receiving "assistance" prior to taking the examination. I'm curious as to what that entailed. Maybe study/review materials... or potentially the entire exam? I'd be interested in seeing how applicants (both white and non-white) fared on the exam, if given the exact same pre-exam support.



That would be interesting, provided it is the same support officially offered through the department. However, if I want to spend my own money to get additional support or training through an outside group (like the people who offer mock interviews, or a prep course), then I should have the ability to do so. The fact that my willingness to prepare puts someone else at a disadvantage shouldn't be a concern. 





> Affirmative Action was not created in a vacuum.
> 
> ...
> 
> Point being this: The general American populace, at times, has the memory of a common housefly. Especially when it comes to unsavory eras of history that would rather be forgotten. Police and Fire departments have been historically notorious for overtly and deliberately denying minorities from entering their ranks... let's not even start in on institutions of higher learning.



So the solution to racism is racism?


----------



## alphatrauma (Mar 9, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> The whole package should be evaluated with minimum standards in place. Standardized exam scores make up a part of the whole package.



You cannot have a truly standardized exam when primary/secondary educational institutions across the nation are not even such. Are the kids in South Central LA getting the same academic foundation that the kids in Beverly Hills are receiving. What about the students in the South Bronx compared to those in Long Island. Extreme examples, but poignant nonetheless.                 




> That would be interesting, provided it is the same support officially offered through the department. However, if I want to spend my own money to get additional support or training through an outside group (like the people who offer mock interviews, or a prep course), then I should have the ability to do so. The fact that my willingness to prepare puts someone else at a disadvantage shouldn't be a concern.



Agreed... but I think we both know this particular situation transcends more than mere willingness to prepare.






> So the solution to racism is racism?



Where did you come up with that idea? Affirmative Action is far from flawless, but to label it as racism just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what racism is and the ideology behind it.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 9, 2012)

alphatrauma said:


> You cannot have a truly standardized exam when primary/secondary educational institutions across the nation are not even such. Are the kids in South Central LA getting the same academic foundation that the kids in Beverly Hills are receiving. What about the students in the South Bronx compared to those in Long Island. Extreme examples, but poignant nonetheless.



No.

Are the parent's of the kids in South Central putting the same attention to their kids as the ones in Beverly Hills? No. You can't simply ignore the cultural (both in terms of socioeconomic status and racial culture) differences between the demographics that makes up those populations. Oh, and the public high school I went to was one of the best in California. It also has a reputation of not turning down intra- and inter-district transfer requests. 

Disparities are multifactoral, and claiming that affirmative action is going to solve it, or that any disparity is racism 




> Agreed... but I think we both know this particular situation transcends more than mere willingness to prepare.


It also transcends mere racism as well. 





> Where did you come up with that idea? Affirmative Action is far from flawless, but to label it as racism just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what racism is and the ideology behind it.




Let's try this again.

Affirmative action in its most basic form, involves giving preference based off of the color of someone's skin, correct?

As such is giving preference based off the color of one's skin now not racism, or is it not racism only when the group receiving the preference is not the majority group?


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 9, 2012)

alphatrauma said:


> Affirmative Action is far from flawless, but to label it as racism just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what racism is and the ideology behind it.



Is racism not discriminating someone based on their race?  How is affirmative action in its current form NOT doing that?  

It IS racism.




The only way to quit judging someone based on their race, is to quit judging someone based on their race.  AA, and its advocates, are hypocritical.


----------



## triemal04 (Mar 9, 2012)

alphatrauma said:


> When we say "lowering standards", let's define standards. Should criminals, delinquents, slackers or the like be able to slip through the cracks? Absolutely not! Can we look objectively at each applicant outside of their respective test scores? I think so.


Unfortunately, test scores are part of what is looked at when evaluating a potential employee.  Whether or not people had the same opportunities in regards to education is not the issue; how educated that person is, and, in the current FDNY case, how well they can think and read is what's being looked at.  Are some people at disadvantages in this?  Absolutely.  But if an agency of any kind has certain standards that must be met, then those standards must be met.  It really is the end of the story, or should be.  And it should not matter if the failed applicant is from po-dunk Appalachia or the middle of Harlem.



alphatrauma said:


> Situations like this tend to perpetuate the notion that meeting hiring quotas, for underrepresented populations, will open the floodgates to literally anyone with a pulse, who are for the most part ignorant. This is folly, and couldn't be further from the reality of the situation. That argument assumes that minority applicants that do poorly on entrance exams are uneducated and not fit for the job.


There is more truth to that than you want to admit.  And the assumption that minority applicants do poorly on entrance exams is being reinforced by this, and every lawsuit like it.  It can be phrased in whatever PC way you (collective, not you personally) want, but it doesn't change the message that is being given:  People of color are stupid, can't think or read, so they need extra advantages.  People of all different types will fail an exam that looks at specific abilities, for a lot of different reasons.  While some of those reasons are very unfortunate, it doesn't change the fact that they failed. 



alphatrauma said:


> It has been stated that the non-minority applicants were receiving "assistance" prior to taking the examination. I'm curious as to what that entailed. Maybe study/review materials... or potentially the entire exam? I'd be interested in seeing how applicants (both white and non-white) fared on the exam, if given the exact same pre-exam support.


Again...check out what the Vulcan Society of FDNY has done.  But yeah, I'd like to see what would happen if both had the same opportunities as well. 



alphatrauma said:


> There is no easy solution to suspect/established discriminatory hiring practices, as they often disenfranchise some particular group, no matter which way the pendulum swings. I would beg the question, how is the greater good better served? I would err on the side of more diverse ethnic workplace, even at the expense of offending the sensibilities (and sense of entitlement) of those intent on maintaining the status-quo.


I would err on the side of creating a standard and enforcing it.  While some of it may be arbitrary, and in this case not neccasarily an overall good indicator of if someone is suited to be a firefighter, it is a neccasary evil.  As I said, the test could be made easier, which wouldn't change anything, or it could be redone so it was more easily understood by some from a disadvantaged background...but then who is it now creating problems for?  Standardized tests are far from perfect, but they do evaluate someone based on what they -should- know.


alphatrauma said:


> You cannot have a truly standardized exam when primary/secondary educational institutions across the nation are not even such. Are the kids in South Central LA getting the same academic foundation that the kids in Beverly Hills are receiving. What about the students in the South Bronx compared to those in Long Island. Extreme examples, but poignant nonetheless.


Again, while it may not be accurate or neccasarily fair across the board, a standardized test looks at what people should know.  People of all types will not meet that standard.

There is no solution to this that will make everyone happy.  Ever.  You can make a test easier, which will potentially have effects on the quality of who you hire; going to piss off a lot of people.  You can make a test harder, which will potentially have effects on the quality of who you hire and keep lots of people OF ALL COLORS from having a chance; going to piss off a lot of people.  You can write a test that is tailored to a specific group so it is easily understood, which will probably make it unfairly difficult for another group; going to piss off a lot of people.

There is no solution that is feasible that will make everyone happy.


----------



## Farmer2DO (Mar 11, 2012)

alphatrauma said:


> You generally cannot expect an individual to perform as academically well as his counterpart, when the initial playing field is not level.
> 
> Historically, educational opportunities/resources have never been distributed equally across all socio-economic planes. (Whites vs. non-Whites)
> 
> Unfortunately, as children, we cannot choose our parents or the circumstances in which we grow up. Those who grow up in the better neighborhoods, generally attend the better schools, which have better budgets/resources, and attract better teachers, and so on. Scoring high/poorly on an entrance test should not summarily dismiss or validate anyone.



So now we're practicing social engineering through pre-hire testing?  If I'm taking this test, and have worked hard, and have prepared, and someone else gets the job because we think the color of their skin puts them at a disadvantage, despite my better ability to perform the job, how is that fair?  We're screwing the people that deserve the job.  We're putting people on the job that probably are not the best choice for the job.  We're setting them up for failure.  We're setting up the people they serve to get sub-par service.  And the taxpayers are getting ripped off, because they're not getting the best bang for their buck.  

There are likely factors that put people at a disadvantage, which were not of their own doing.  As was said before, how much can be laid at the feet of the parents?  (A lot, most likely.)  But hiring someone based on the color of their skin is not the answer.



alphatrauma said:


> You cannot have a truly standardized exam when primary/secondary educational institutions across the nation are not even such. Are the kids in South Central LA getting the same academic foundation that the kids in Beverly Hills are receiving. What about the students in the South Bronx compared to those in Long Island. Extreme examples, but poignant nonetheless.



Again, I think it's less about the academic foundation than the parental involvement.




> Where did you come up with that idea? Affirmative Action is far from flawless, but to label it as racism just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what racism is and the ideology behind it.



Nope, I think it shows a pretty solid understanding.


----------



## Sasha (Mar 11, 2012)

Affirmative Action isn't racism?

Affirmative Action is based on skin color, how does that not scream racism? You're not going to see AA spring into action to make sure white people are being treated fairly. 

I don't see how you can sit there and basically say entrance scores shouldn't matter. Personally if my house was on fire I would want firefighters who received the higher scores on their entrance exams, don't care what color they are. 

Crying racism because a minority didn't do well is sad and playing into the stereotype of big dumb black person who can't do as well as white folks so the test should be easier. 

Standards are standards. If you fall below them, work harder to meet them not whine that they should be lowered. 

I honestly feel that more discrimination happens when people are preoccupied with being politically correct.


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 11, 2012)

While this seems to be a rather heated debate on qualifications, fire departments have discriminated against everyone except the vocational aptitude white male for decades, maybe longer. 

(Been there, seen that, even benefitted from it.)

They will continue to favor such as a matter of culture for the forseeable future. 

Whether or not a court orders a FD to give somebody a job or not is really moot. 

When you dish out bonus points for legacy, military background, etc, you are culturaly selecting.

When you create physical exams that are not realistic to firefighting, that even most of the older members could not pass, only those of exceptional physical training (which means they spent time on nothing else) are going to pass. 

I have even seen "combat challenges" that incorperated a dead hang in full gear and SCBA to simulate the outrageous "what if" of falling through a floor and having to hold yourself up in the hole. 

I saw no women pass that test in a decade. It is clearly geared towards gross upper body strength. 

If you search, I am sure you can find even more examples of discrimination in the fire service than I have outlined here.

It is culturally ingrained, and nothing short of replacing every person from probie to chief who espouses that culture is going to change things.

As for lowering test scores or standards. I understand that education and opportunity is not equal. It is not based on skin color alone. 

It means the individuals who aspire to more need to take it upon themsleves to make up the difference.

It is no less challenging for a black person (african american is just a stupid title) from the hood than it is an eastern european immigrant.  There are even no less cultural issues. 

As for the most qualified applicant, forget it. Yuo are not getting the most qualified applicant. You are getting the applicant who best fits in to the established culture.

Anyone can be a firefighter, If you doubt look at all the volunteers, being a good one is another matter, and it certainly isn't selected for by the current entrance process. 

That process is established to select the people who are wanted from a pool of thousands of applicants. 

I am not knocking the fire service, just my observations and ability to call a spade a spade.


----------



## 46Young (Mar 11, 2012)

From the list #6019 candidates, the ones who had their list thrown out:

http://meritmattersusa.blogspot.com/

The main problem with this case is that Judge Garaufis rules that the #6019 test resulted in a "disparate impact." What that means is that no matter how fair, well intentioned, and unbiased a hiring process/test may be, is is presumably discriminatory if the results are unfavorable for the protected class in question.

This judge said that he would allow hiring off of the #6019 list so long as the city used one of several options he presented for future hiring processes. The problem was, each one implemented a form or quota hiring, which is by definition discriminatory.

Basically, either we're all equal or we're not. Especially in a field such as firefighting, it's dangerous to lower hiring standards to include the lowest common denominator, be it by physical standards or intellectual. Firefighting isn't for everyone. Any time a quota is implemented, someone always experiences discrimination.

It's just that some people feel that they're more equal than others.

Also, whenever someone says "x % of employees are one class, but y % are employed, that's dicriminatory," I stop reading or paying attention. Again, in a fair hiring process, it ought to be the best person for the job, not to mirror the population, or to rebalance past ethnic divisions. That's inherently unfair and discriminatory to any future applicants, who had nothing to do with past hiring processes.

Here's DC Paul Mannix's take on racial makeups of various NYC agencies:

http://meritmattersusa.blogspot.com/2010/08/still-another-racial-double.html

http://meritmattersusa.blogspot.com/2012/01/making-new-yorks-agencies-look-like-new.html

Never mind that list #6019 was the most fair and unbiased test in FDNY history, and had much more favorable results regarding racial makeup.


----------



## 46Young (Mar 11, 2012)

alphatrauma said:


> When we say "lowering standards", let's define standards. Should criminals, delinquents, slackers or the like be able to slip through the cracks? Absolutely not! Can we look objectively at each applicant outside of their respective test scores? I think so.
> 
> Situations like this tend to perpetuate the notion that meeting hiring quotas, for underrepresented populations, will open the floodgates to literally anyone with a pulse, who are for the most part ignorant. This is folly, and couldn't be further from the reality of the situation. That argument assumes that minority applicants that do poorly on entrance exams are uneducated and not fit for the job.
> 
> ...



Recent evidence of the Vulcans discriminating against white applicants during a test prep session:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03...fter-being-denied-entry-to-preparation-class/

For list # 6019, the catering was not for the whites. Recruiting was heavy in minority neighborhoods, minority applicants were picked up in vans and such to be brought to testing. Also, the test was couldn't have been any easier. If you google the test, you can see for yourself. It's not like they were featuring questions in calculus and such.


----------



## 46Young (Mar 11, 2012)

alphatrauma said:


> Where did you come up with that idea? Affirmative Action is far from flawless, but to label it as racism just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what racism is and the ideology behind it.



AA had it's place at one time, but now there are laws and legal precedent that ensure fair hiring practices. Any time a quota is instituted, someone else is discrminated against through no fault of their own. Fair and unbiased hiring, where the most qualified candidate wins the position, is the only true way to run a selection process.


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 11, 2012)

46Young said:


> Basically, either we're all equal or we're not. Especially in a field such as firefighting, it's dangerous to lower hiring standards to include the lowest common denominator, be it by physical standards or intellectual. Firefighting isn't for everyone. Any time a quota is implemented, someone always experiences discrimination..



It is not that I disagree with this statement, it is that the actual process for hiring firefighters all around the country gives unfair advantage to a certain group. 

The whole written, agility, and bonus points for various issues is not fair. 

What is fair is a standard test with an unmodified score, certification by a physician a person is fit for duty, and a no bonus points for anything from any group.

Only then is it fair.

But it is going to make weeding out a few thousand applicants rather time consuming. So unfairnessis accepted in the interest of time and money.

Choosing people you want is not unique to the fire service. Doctors do it. Lawyers do it. Tradesmen do it. 

EMS does it. 

(how often have you heard the phrase "I won't pass anyone who isn't fit to work on my family.")

I get called unfit by a subculture of EMS providers on a regular basis. 

Some of my favorites are:

Not follow protocol like a check list
Not driving fast enough in adverse conditions
Not sounding panicky enough when calling med control
On this very forum I have been called a menace to patients and providers
Falsely "accused" of being gay.

There is always going to be some level of discrimination in any workforce. But I submit it is based on cultural identification, not by skin color alone.


----------



## johnrsemt (Mar 11, 2012)

There was an issue for awhile with a dispatcher:  she was hired because she was black and female.   She obviously had major coaching ahead of time because she passed the tests;  didn't score as high as others but she was hired because of the extra 20 points given due to being black and female.

  She was dislexic;  she would see the address that the call taker would put on the system and then mis dispatch it.    She was suspended and fired multiple times due to it;  threatened to get a lawyer; and even got a lawyer; they were forced to rehire her each time and give her back pay.     
  Now basically she sits around and does nothing and gets paid for it.  For the last 3 or 4 years.

   But the area had to hire her; because they didn't have enough minorities in dispatch;   she was the only one that applied at that time;  so she got the job.  


  So yes;  at one point AA and the judges were good for some things;  but in some ways the system (and the people the system serves) gets screwed because of it.


----------



## 46Young (Mar 11, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> It is not that I disagree with this statement, it is that the actual process for hiring firefighters all around the country gives unfair advantage to a certain group.
> 
> The whole written, agility, and bonus points for various issues is not fair.
> 
> ...



I have seen hiring being tailored towards the white male in some places. In others, it's obvious that protected classes are getting assistance. For example, some departments had components of their agility test that including placing and picking up objects from a high ledge. That was removed so that more "vertically challenged" applicants could pass the test. I can agree with that. What I don't agree with is adopting the CPAT, which in my opinion is an inappropriately easy course. Not everyone has the physical ability or potential to be a FF. 

FDNY used to require two years of college to apply. Then it was one. Now, I think it's one semester or six month's work Hx. The "backdoor" EMS to FF promotion was instituted. These measures were implemented to increase qualified minority candidates - less minorities were likely to have college, and FDNY EMS is much more minority heavy than FDNY suppression. What's more, the Vulcans are pushing for those with NYC H.S. diplomas to get extra points, since most of the whites were applying from outside the city.


----------

