Fire Tests a Fair Measure

.
.

I have been meaning to write this letter since late July when Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis ruled that the 1999 and 2002 written entry tests for FDNY employment discriminated against minorities (although truth be told, the number of Hispanic firefighters is increasing as they are gaining employment the old fashioned way— by earning it).

I was delayed, however, by a conundrum— how can I impart the points I want to make to all interested parties? After all, the Justice Department and the FDNY Vulcan Society have argued that written tests should not be used in hiring because reading comprehension ability is not important; how can I be sure they can understand information relayed in written form?

I decided to produce an Internet video utilizing sock puppets to make my case in a visual and verbal form, thus accounting for the late appearance of this missive. Those who value and possess reading comprehension ability can read on.

Both firefighters and the general public deserve to know what one of the core arguments presented by Justice and the Vulcans is — that because firefighters communicate verbally at the scene of a fire or emergency, it is not necessary to test a person’s reading comprehension ability. This position is so ridiculous I feel silly having to refute it, but since it was accepted by a Federal judge, I must.

While, yes, we do communicate verbally at the scene, our ability to do so safely and competently depends on having read voluminous manuals about firefighting procedures, electrical emergencies, terrorist attacks, medical emergencies and on and on. I invite the Vulcans, the judge and the Justice Department to answer this letter (or the video) and explain to me how it is possible to become proficient at firefighting in the 21st century without being able to read.

The point was made in the decision that these exams closed the doors of opportunity. No, Your Honor, they are the opportunity, but they are not a guarantee of employment. Blacks and Hispanics were placed lower on the list due to their scores as individuals, not their race. And guess what — whites who scored lower were also placed in a position on the list which meant they were not hired. To write as the judge did that the exams “unfairly excluded hundreds of qualified people of color” ignores the point that they were excluded not because they were qualified people of color but because others, including people of color, were more qualified and thus placed higher on the list.

The automatic response to the point I just made, at least by those who view people according to the group they belong to and not as individuals (no judging by the content of a person’s character for them), is that the tests are biased, and frankly, I agree. They are biased in favor of those who prepare. If I accept, however, the argument of my opponents that people should not be viewed as individuals but only as members of a group (as perverse as that is) the results of the two tests in question are validated as they conform to tests given across the country and throughout society.

The same “test-score gap” that appeared on these tests appears on the SATs, the LSATs, the MCATs and every other objective standardized test, and makes it virtually impossible to devise any test that measures mastery of a body of knowledge and cognitive expertise that will not have a disparate racial result. Why, then, must New York City firefighters and residents be forced to accept quota firefighters hired because of their race when the entrance tests given followed a pattern repeated all over the country?

The next few months should be very interesting while the city decides whether to appeal, Federal oversight of FDNY hiring is contemplated and a “remedy” which may be closer to a ruination is sought. As a Chief responsible for the safety of firefighters, I will be doing my best to influence events occurring (although I do not represent the FDNY in an official capacity in this endeavor) and urge all citizens to contact their local politician to demand equal treatment for all, special treatment for none, a vigorous appeal of this faulty decision and the maintenance of hiring standards in the FDNY.

PAUL D. MANNIX
Deputy Chief, FDNY

The Battle Over the Legitimacy and Necessity of High Standards is NOT an Ethnic One

Merit Matters is an organization based solely on the support for rigorous standards within the Fire Service and for all Civil Service positions. Merit Matters welcomes ALL who support the view, that high standards, in and of themselves, discriminate against no ethnic or racial group. Our membership is open to all regardless of color, creed, sexual orientation or gender.

The ethno-centric or racial arguments you will hear, will all be made from those on the other side.

We feel it’s absurd that TODAY, those who espouse equally high standards applied to all, with special privilege for none, are often called “racists” by the true racial bigots in this struggle.

We believe that high standards discriminate against no ethnic or racial group. To argue otherwise seems to be a “racist” argument.

Written and physical exams compare individuals not groups, thus disparate impact (looking at various ethnic group’s pass-rates compared to other groups) is meaningless, as tests don’t compare groups, they compare only individuals.

Moreover, group differences are not indicative of any overt or institutionalized discrimination, they are merely “snapshots in time.” Given consistently high standards, amidst changing ethnic dynamics, those snapshots are subject to change over time.

There are so many variables involved in the issue of disparate impact, choosing the one variable that is obviously not involved in its cause (ethnic discrimination) is absurd on its face.

JMK

Merit Matters Mission Statement

MERIT MATTERS

Merit Matters is an advocacy group dedicated to preserving merit in the FDNY testing, hiring and promotion process. To achieve this we will attempt to:

- Work within the FDNY on issues of mutual concern

- Counter false claims and information disseminated by others

- Seek relief from outside agencies when necessary

- Educate and engage the public through use of the media

- Demand equal treatment for all, which means special privilege for none.


We believe in equal opportunity, not guaranteed results. We want standards to be high, meaningful, equally applied and blind to race, gender or ethnicity. Written and physical exams should ensure that the MOST QUALIFIED applicants are chosen; they should NOT be designed to have as many applicants as possible pass

Standards Don't Discriminate

In addressing an issue of various ethnic under-representation within the FDNY and across other fields across the American economy, the push for "more minority participation" has often morphed into a one pushing for "lowered standards," ethnic and gender-based preferences and other such symptom-based pseudo remedies that ignore the real problem - why are some groups not competing effectively on open/non-discriminatory entry level exams?

A Brief History of the Civil Service Merit System

Ironically enough, the Civil Service Merit System has its roots in ending widespread and pernicious discrimination.

The merit system is the process of promoting and hiring government employees based on their ability to perform a job (based on their performance on various standardized exams), rather than on their political connections. The Merit System may be far from perfect, no manmade system ever is, but one thing it most certainly is, is the antithesis of the Spoils or Patronage system.

In the United States, the Federal Civil Service utilized the Spoils System from 1828, up until the assassination of United States President Garfield in 1881.

Two years after the Garfield assassination the system of appointments to the United States Federal Bureaucracy was revamped by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which made the merit system common practice.

Within the early political structure of the United States, the spoils system (also known as a Patronage System) was an informal practice where a Political Party, after winning an election, gave government jobs to its supporters as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the party, as opposed to a system of awarding offices on the basis of some measure of merit independent of political activity.

The term was derived from the phrase "to the victor belong the spoils..." attributed to New York Senator William L. Marcy, in reference to the victory of the Jackson Democrats in the election of 1828.

The separation between the political activity and the civil service was made stronger with the Hatch Act of 1939 which prohibited federal employees from engaging in political activities. The spoils system survived much longer in many states, counties and municipalities, such as the Tammany Hall ring, which survived well into the 1930s when New York City reformed its own civil service. Illinois modernized its bureaucracy in 1917 under Frank Lowden, but Chicago held on to patronage in city government until the city agreed to end the practice in the Shakman Decrees of 1972 and 1983.

The current day Civil Service Merit System was installed to counteract the widespread and pernicious discrimination, in the form of the nepotism and cronyism that plagued that system for decades prior to its implementation.


Why Merit Matters

Like any employer, the public deserves the best applicants, which translates into the most value for their dollar and not merely anyone who is minimally qualified.

If a job must be done, then it must also be done well and the employer has a right to expect that job be done by the best qualified candidates. The public does NOT have the right to demand that jobs be doled out along political, economic or ethnic lines...and of course, the public does NOT seek such arrangements, in fact, it generally loathes them.

It should stand to reason that ANY employer has a right to the best qualified workforce for its dollar. The inane question that some have asked, attempting to erode the efficacy of higher standards goes, “Is LESSER qualified the same thing as UNQUALIFIED?” That very question insinuates (correctly) that many people who COULD do various jobs are passed over, merely because some others do better on exams that test a specific range of a given array of skills. The question further implies that standardized skills (reading comprehension, basic math, logic questions, special/layout memorizations, etc) do not necessarily prove one candidate “better qualified” than another, especially given that anyone could have a “bad day.” It also cynically implies that anyone who meets the minimum qualifications should be deemed “QUALIFIED” and considered without regard to any abilities beyond that minimum standard. It is this viewpoint that reduces that initial question to; “Why does one have to be THAT smart, THAT strong and THAT determined to do job A?”

And that really is, when you think about it, an invalid question, for the obvious counter question is, “Why doesn’t an employer have the right to hire the BEST qualified applicants and not merely a collection of MINIMALLY qualified applicants, despite the fact that those MINIMALLY qualified applicants can also do the job?”

Ultimately, what the public wants out of any and all government services is that they be done well, be carried out efficiently and most of all cost-effectively and all those things are far easier attained by determining who gets those jobs based on high standards.


Other Reasons for Disparate Impact

The disproportionate results, among various groups is due to numerous factors.

Right now, some Civil Service jobs in New York City, primarily Emergency Service jobs have remained attractive to a large number of College educated whites. With the overwhelming bulk of College educated blacks being recruited by the private sector, that skews the candidate pool heavily in favor of whites, since they are generally not competing against a pool of equally well-educated black candidates.

Further exarcerbating this is that within large segments of the Hispanic and black communities, especially among Caribbean immigrants, there has long been a social stigma attached to such jobs, as those positions had little respect in their home countries. The same is true among many Eastern Europeans. But those attitudes have been changing over time and Hispanics have been entering the Emergency Services in New York City in greater numbers in recent years by competing well on the existing standardized exams.


The Failure of Disparate Impact Within the Legal Community

Within the legal community, the theory of disparate impact has increasingly been losing favor in recent years.

As Michael Selmi, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law said, “I think it is...clear that the disparate impact theory was based on two critical mistakes — that the theory would be easier to prove and that it was possible to redefine discrimination purely through legal doctrine. At bottom, that is what the theory sought to do—redefine our concept of discrimination to focus on unequal results."

Adding, “As we know from our lengthy battle over affirmative action, there is no widespread public support for defining equality or discrimination in terms of results or achievements.”

Disparate impact does not prove any intentional discrimination and certainly does not discriminate against individuals regardless of how well or how poorly the group they belong to does.


Why Standards, So Long as They're Applied to all, DON'T Discriminate Against Any Ethnic Group

In short, no standard, no exam is discriminatory, so long as everyone is subjected to the same test. Under such conditions, and even with the most arduous of tests, the rim is the same 10’ for everyone.

Exams don’t measure groups, they measure individuals and as such they are designed to discriminate against those who don’t prepare well enough, relative to the competition.

Each exam is merely a snapshot in time. For every individual, there is always another exam that can be prepared for and lessons taken away from a poor performance can help a candidate prepare more effectively for the next one.

The answer is NEVER cheating the public by lowering standards.


JMK