Women, Police, Discrimination, Dep't of Justice, and a Very Confused Poster.

Women, LEOs, anyone with a brain, HELP.

When I saw this article I remembered the recent thread discussing the superiority of black athletes. I can understand that a team wants the best athletes they can find, regardless of race or anything else. I have no problem with it.

What I don't understand is why that thinking doesn't apply everywhere else. Don't we want the "best possible" in every position, not just sports? We're upset that we don't have the best possible candidates, aren't we? Well I need an explanation for this.

The Justice Department has identified discrimination in the police. They're not just investigating it, they've found it and they're suing. Please, someone tell me, does this make sense in the real world? What am I missing? How did my mind become so confused that I think the DOJ is wrong?

The Corpus Christi, Tex. Police Department has found itself on the business end of a civil rights lawsuit after the Justice Department concluded that a physical ability test used when considering job applications discriminates against women.

As a condition for employment, new applicants must pass a physical ability test (PAT) involving: pullups, a 300-meter run, a 1.5 mile run, and sit-ups. Only 19 percent of female applicants passed this test between 2005 and 2009, compared to 63 percent of men, the DOJ complaint records. In 2011, the city police modified the benchmarks for the PAT. Thirty-three percent of women passed the test under the new standards, along with 82 percent of men. DOJ says that these results also indicate discrimination.

The Justice Department says that the test discriminates against women because “use of the PAT in the screening and selection of applicants for entry-level police officer jobs is not job-related, for the entry-level police officer position,” according to the complaint.

“The Justice Department is looking forward to working with the city to resolve this matter in a way that eliminates the use of the unlawful physical ability test and gives women who were screened out of the process an opportunity to become Corpus Christi police officers,” Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement on the lawsuit.

washingtonexaminer.com...

With respect,
Charles1952

Thing is that there's women who can hack those tests. If the job is too physically demanding, we shouldn't lessen the tests just to get people in, so that they can fail on the job. Part of a cop's job is manhandling madmen. If you're not up to taking down someone with 2x your strength, on a sane day, you don't have any business out in the field.

Now, what could be done is offer courses that prep women for the academy before they go in--offer it to anyone, have them pay for all I care.

i think this has to do with what an entry level position is
do entry level cops even apprehend criminals?
we first need to know what entry level police positions are to know if a fitness test is warranted

reply to post by sirhumperdink

Dear sirhumperdink,

Ok, I can agree that's a good move, but let me ask you a question. Will a policeman (NON-entry level) need to aprehend criminals? If so, can we give that physical test to all the entry level officers who want a promotion? What happens when only a minority of women can pass [u[that test? Will DOJ call "Discrimination?" I'm afraid you're just shoving the problem down the road a year.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


no you would give the test prior to promotion to a new job title (again assuming that entry level jobs dont require apprehending or restraining criminals) same as there being different criteria for different police units
you wouldnt say that all cops should be held to the same standards as SWAT just because some of them will eventually join.... would you?

reply to post by sirhumperdink

Dear sirhumperdink,

Sorry, my fault for not being clear. At some point down the road, the police department will say "OK, time for tests for promotion to big bad arresting-type cop. Anybody who wants that job, sign up here for the test." A whole flood of people will sign up, and I would expect the female cops looking for promotion would not pass in the same per centage as the males. Upon noticing this discrepency, would DOJ sue for gender discrimination? I'm afraid they would.

With respect,
Charles1952

Would it be possible for a woman to skip the "beat cop" phase and head directly to administration or detective work with a degree in criminal justice or something of the sort? I find that a more diverse point of view in such positions would lead to different angles in problem solving that could be beneficial to the law-enforcement community.

reply to post by Anonymous404

Dear Anonymous404,

Would it be possible for a woman to skip the "beat cop" phase and head directly to administration or detective work with a degree in criminal justice or something of the sort?

Very good thought. The detective idea might be tricky since they are still expected to go out on hostile interviews and arrest people. Some physical ability really is necessary. Besides, if you appear weak or small to a bad guy, you've increased the odds that he'll decide to fight it out.

The administrative side may be more promising, but if you mean by that office jobs pushing paper, I'm not sure the women would go for it.

Ooops, just had a thought.

I find that a more diverse point of view in such positions would lead to different angles in problem solving that could be beneficial to the law-enforcement community.

The article doesn't say that no women passed, just that a smaller per centage did. There are, therefore, women on the force. How many does there have to be to get the different angles you're talking about? I wouldn't think it would require parity between men and women.

Anyway, very nice (talking?) with you. I hope you stay on ATS. I really like your style.

With respect,
Charles1952

My opinion and my opinion only...
If this were the 1800's when all we had to deal with people was brute force, then yes, women who weren't able to handle the physical exertion should not be put in that position. However, we're not in the 1800's. We're in 2012. Technology is a huge part of the police force, there are various weapons, tools, methods, and processes that are used by all officers that enable them to do their job more effectively.

Physical stamina is no longer the way we measure someone's ability to do the job. It's much more mental and psychological than physical in today's age. Women are just as capable as men, some more so, at handling what is asked of the police force now. I consider myself average build, maybe a little more since I've done a lot of farming and outdoor work as well as more intellectual endeavors. I've seen women that could kick my "scrawny chiten butt" if they wanted to and I've seen men that I could easily wipe the floor with, but brute force isn't a deciding factor in law enforcement anymore. This isn't the old west where things were settled with fist fights, it's a new age and a new society where the physical isn't used as it once was and there are quick and easy ways to take the physical aspect ouf of a confrontation with the tools the law enforcement has.

Gender should not be an issue, in fact, other than being healthy and able to endure the physical exertion of running, staying on your feet all day, dealing with lack of sleep and staying healthy, the physical aspects aren't what they used to be for any gender. It doesn't matter if you bench press 75 pounds or 320 pounds as long as you can use the tools and do the work, your muscle strength isn't as important as it once was.

Perhaps a better test for them to offer would be a test of Character, a test of judgement, a test of intelligence or problem solving. Those are the skills needed in today's world.

Just my opinion of course.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

Dear PurpleChiten,

Your position makes sense, so does mine. The question seems to be "Is a physical fitness test relevant any longer to the job of police officer?" I don't know, I can see your point and I think I could argue for your side.

What I can't see is Main Justice's position. They have no objection to physical fitness tests, thereby saying that they must have at least some relevance to the position. Then they say that the test has to provide the same results for men and women, so no difference can be found. What good is the test if it's not allowed to show what it shows? why artificially juggle the scores until a clerk in Washington is happy?

I know that PurpleChitens have cultural norms prohibiting the scratching of heads, but I'm sure scratching mine.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

Dear PurpleChiten,

Your position makes sense, so does mine. The question seems to be "Is a physical fitness test relevant any longer to the job of police officer?" I don't know, I can see your point and I think I could argue for your side.

What I can't see is Main Justice's position. They have no objection to physical fitness tests, thereby saying that they must have at least some relevance to the position. Then they say that the test has to provide the same results for men and women, so no difference can be found. What good is the test if it's not allowed to show what it shows? why artificially juggle the scores until a clerk in Washington is happy?

I know that PurpleChitens have cultural norms prohibiting the scratching of heads, but I'm sure scratching mine.

With respect,
Charles1952

Yes, it would be nice if they were at least consistent. Both sides have their merits, but one needs to be picked and they need to stick with it.