Letters to the Editor
Sound the Alarm on Fire Test
To the Editor:
Much exuberance accompanied recent announcements regarding the results of
the FDNY recruitment program, and many facts were presented to support
claims that it, and the written test it led up to, were very good things.
I would like to present some facts which were not trumpeted but which the
people who may have to work with the firefighters produced by this test,
as well as those who will be (ostensibly) protected by them, deserve to
know.
I will also include some of my opinions (which are not necessarily those
of the FDNY) since opinions, as opposed to objective and cognitive
knowledge, were so highly prized on said test.
There were 195 questions; 105 of them were subjective (therefore
illegitimate) and 87 of those 105 accepted more than one answer. This was
an opinion poll, or a guessing game; not a test. In addition, DCAS did not
explain beforehand how it would score this test, leading to suspicion that
it wanted to be able to “cook” or manipulate the answers to achieve a
desired result.
Why else would 45 percent of all questions have more than one answer? I’ll
tell you why - FDNY sources stated after the test “that the test was a way
to have as many applicants as possible pass” and that “the idea is to get
as many candidates to pass as possible and then let the extended training
period weed them out.” I’m sure that candidates who spent a great deal of
time, money and effort preparing will be very happy to hear that; maybe
they should sue for fraud.
Answers to the 105 subjective questions covered a range stretching from
“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” with five possibilities for each
choice. This format had never been used before, but that’s not a problem;
many different formats have been used over the years for both entry and
promotion tests.
A problem does arise, however, when it is revealed that the city’s
tutorial program (which was established at taxpayer expense to prepare
candidates) contained none of these types of questions nor even any
suggestion that they might appear. Curiously, one group’s tutorial course
did have these types of questions.
Now, which group could that have been? Oh, of course - it was the Vulcan
Society. The very same group whose complaint led to the current Justice
Department lawsuit against the FDNY. The group which represents black
firefighters, whose ranks the city is desperately trying to expand
(mystery novel buffs will recognize that I am establishing motive here).
How could it have happened that this was the only group to review these
types of questions when even the city’s own tutorial did not? Are they
extraordinarily prescient?
Now, far be it from me to cast any aspersions - especially when an
“exhaustive” investigation occurred, concluding five weeks after the test,
utilizing a civilian member of the FDNY (who was involved in the
recruitment campaign and is sympathetic to the Vulcan Society) as a
liaison to DCAS. Based on this (very cursory) examination, it was
determined all was above board and all rumors of malfeasance should be
debunked.
Hmmm … I’m skeptical. And although I believe many people who have been
placed in awkward circumstances by events beyond their control have only
the best intentions as to the future of the FDNY, there might be some
willful ignorance being practiced. A Daily News article published the day
before the test stated that “sources confirmed that the written exam …
has been altered from previous editions.” Who else knew about this
alteration? When did they know it? Did they have specifics, such as how
ridiculous the questions were and that a never-before-seen format (which
again, was not part of the city’s tutorial) was being used? Who was the
source? Was this leak part of the investigation? I can’t answer any of
these questions, but to ensure the integrity of this and future tests,
someone should be asking them.
Apart from the dubious content there were several procedural departures
from the norm which are disturbing. Widespread reports allege that
candidates were driven to the test in FDNY vehicles and that people
without admission cards were allowed in, as were people who showed up an
hour late, forcing those who followed directions to wait out in the cold.
Cell phones were supposed to be banned but were used during the test with
impunity, and many proctors behaved in a less-than professional manner and
could offer no useful answers to reasonable questions. Candidates were
also not allowed to leave the test with a copy of their answers, which
only serves to fuel suspicion that this test was manipulated (as if any
doubt remains). All I’ve recounted so far is pretty depressing if you care
about safety, current firefighters and the long-term future of the FDNY.
Some comic relief is called for, and it is provided when we examine some
of the stated purposes of the recruitment campaign and then some of the
actions taken by the recruiters.
During a meeting before the campaign began, those assembled were assured
that the FDNY would not be seeking “knuckleheads” but rather
self-motivated individuals. I will ignore for now the unintended hilarious
irony of conducting a recruitment campaign that seeks self-motivated
individuals and instead examine the Recruitment Unit’s supposed disdain
for “knuckleheads.”
The wealthy recruiters of the FDNY, some if not most of who were paid
hundreds of hours of overtime, did more than simply hand out applications.
It was proudly reported after the campaign ended that they also filled out
applications, placed them into envelopes, sealed such envelopes and even
put stamps on those envelopes if the targeted applicants were not capable
of performing these acts. And that’s not all - the Recruitment Unit had
such high regard for those they had signed up that they contacted
applicants in the data base 12 times - yes, a full dozen - to remind them
to show up for the test (if someone contacted me 12 times about any one
topic I would seek an Order of Protection). I looked up “knucklehead” in
the dictionary and here is how it was defined: “someone who can’t stuff an
envelope and needs twelve reminders to do something.”
Readers of this letter may be starting to think that I’ll run out of
things to complain about soon. On the contrary, there are many things left
that anger me, and I’ve got loads of sarcasm left with which to comment.
The next target of my ire is the physical test, which is scheduled to be
given soon. While the components of the Candidate Physical Ability Test
(CPAT) may be valid, it has been rendered a joke by the decision to score
it on a pass/fail basis. This means that if one candidate completes the
test two or three minutes faster than another but the second candidate
completes it within the established time-frame, both are considered to
have performed equally. Put yourself in the place of a person trapped in a
fire - would you be willing to wait an additional two minutes for rescue
in order to satisfy a politically correct agenda? I didn’t think so.
How about allowing a female firefighter three chances to raise a ladder
while you are waiting to be removed from a window? Or giving her three
attempts at forcing open a door to get to your unconscious child? Doesn’t
sound like a good idea, does it? Well, if you believe it doesn’t, then you
risk running afoul of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC). This agency, whose employees I’m sure consider themselves above
such grubby considerations as common sense and safety, pressured the
International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) into making changes to
the CPAT “that are designed to increase the rate at which female
firefighter candidates pass the test” according to a May 2006 letter from
the IAFF President. Acting in response to a lawsuit filed by a female
denied employment in Texas, fire departments utilizing CPAT must give
candidates three shots at passing the physical in order to mollify the
EEOC, which should probably change its name to the “GOSC” Guaranteed
Outcome Scam Commission), since it is veering away from requiring equal
opportunity and now demands changes designed to increase passing rates for
certain protected groups.
I count myself among the seemingly shrinking number in our society who
still believe in equal opportunity for all - but only that. Concessions
should not be made to appease dangerous whiners or to support the
ever-increasing victim industry (which received a $3.2 million boost
during this campaign alone).
Why do females constitute such a minute percentage of the FDNY? Because
only 2 percent of them can achieve the male average physically, according
to Dr. William Gregor, a Social Science Professor and retired U.S. Army
Lieutenant Colonel who is an expert on women in the military. Since the
FDNY does not hire males of average strength but rather above-average, we
can use the objective science of mathematics to conclude that a minute
percentage of females is all the FDNY should ever hire unless artificial
factors such as quotas are added to the mix. If gender activists are
searching for a truly lopsided male/female employee ratio, I refer them to
the city Department of Education, where 85 percent of teachers are female.
This situation even has the added attraction of being able to do something
for children as there are studies that suggest boys learn better from men.
If someone does embark on this campaign, be sure to tell the Department of
Education that if it needs someone to run a recruitment campaign for males
while making an obscene amount of overtime, I’m their man … oops, I mean
person.
For those who are blinded by ideology, or live their lives in quaking fear
of being called a bigot because they disagree with a member of a protected
group, or who are simply obtuse, I will end this letter with a few of the
reasons why I spend so much time trying to protect standards.
-
I believe everyone should be treated equally.
-
I believe manipulating standards to benefit any one group by definition
puts other groups at a disadvantage.
-
I believe that programs, preferences and set-asides that target women and minorities cause these groups to be viewed, in the words of author Shelby Steele, “as almost interminably weak” and place a “pitying stigma” on even the most hard-earned achievement.
-
I believe, as written in the Letters of Junius, “that one precedent
creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law. What yesterday
was fact, today is doctrine.” If we allow such a God-awful sham as this
recruitment program and test to pass without ridicule and critical
comment, the dangerous whiners who have spawned them will be emboldened
and feel free to move forward with such nonsense on promotion tests.
-
I believe that “psychometrician” (the term used to describe those who
designed this written test) and the theory that a test can predict who
will be a good team player prove George Orwell’s observation that there
are some things that only an intellectual can be stupid enough to believe.
-
I believe what British Field Marshal Montgomery said about truthfulness
with subordinates: “A leader must speak the truth to those under him; if
he does not, they will soon find it out and then their confidence in him
will decline.”
-
I believe that I will make new enemies with this letter (in addition to
those I already have) but also believe the FDNY should be defended, and
take solace in this quote of Winston Churchill’s: “You have enemies? Good.
That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”
-
I believe that reducing education requirements and scoring the CPAT on
a pass/fail basis for the express intention of increasing the number of
black and female firefighters respectively is in direct violation of laws
prohibiting discrimination in hiring, testing and other terms and
conditions of employment. So are recruitment activities that do not target
every group equally. I do not believe, however, that anyone will take
action on these points, as that would be impolitic.
PAUL D. MANNIX, Deputy Chief, FDNY