Letters to the Editor
FDNY Test Not Discriminatory

To the Editor:

Kevin James in his Aug. 11 op-ed article, "Myths About FDNY and Race," wrongly calls Chief Paul Mannix's "constructive suggestions" paternalistic. It's people like Mr. James who insist that minorities be treated like children.

Mr. James repeats the misguided myth that written exams are somehow racially discriminatory.

The fact is that such exams, like all such standards, are meant to discriminate in favor of those best prepared for the positions they lead to. That's why the likes of Ben Ward and Augustus Beekman were both able to score at the very top of such written entrance exams back in the 1950s. In recent years, the FDNY entrance exam, like most city entrance exams, has been watered down (the 1982 exam had a question with four gauges, one on a quarter, one on half, one on three-quarters and one on full, and asked, "Which one indicates half-full?").

But it has also been made more job-specific - one of the exam's centerpieces has been a 10-question visual memorization portion that is directly applicable to firefighting. After five minutes of viewing the layout, the test-taker returns the picture of the apartment and is asked questions like, "How many windows were there?" and "Where are the fire escapes located?" - all questions very appropriate to firefighting.

Moreover, and perhaps Mr. James isn't aware of this, "disparate impact" is not, in and of itself, proof of discrimination.

With that in mind, Mr. James points to the controversial and ebbing policy that colleges and universities have been allowed to use, one that considers racial and geographic "diversity" as "one among many factors for admissions."

But even this policy has been gradually replaced with what's been called a "needsbased" one where a high-achieving candidate from, say, Appalachia, might be given preference over a black applicant who is the son/daughter of a physician or attorney.

Yet even that more "inclusive" view of "diversity" is suspect, for whenever diversity concerns are put on par or ahead of competence concerns, the results can be disastrous. Nowhere is that more true than in the emergency service fields.

In deriding written exams, Mr. James fails to explain why he feels such exams create a disproportionate impact on minorities. Is it due to underperforming schools, as many others have claimed?

If it is, then the preferences he seems to support should be given to anyone from any underperforming school system, whether it's in the South Bronx or upstate New York, and regardless of race or gender.

Still, even students from underperforming schools differ widely in their abilities to perform well on such standardized exams. The eternal question remains, "Why should high achievers be punished/shackled in the name of 'leveling the playing field' for those both less motivated and less prepared to perform?" The reality is that the FDNY's standards have traditionally been high precisely because the stakes of that job are so high.

Preferences are not merely a crutch: they're a crippler.

Any written exam is like a 10-foot rim. So long as the same exam is given to every applicant, it's as though they're all shooting at the same 10-foot rim.

Is that to say, "Forget about those unable to currently compete?" No, not at all. It's merely saying that standards are important, they count for something and are necessary.

Giving those who need and want some remedial help is a very good thing, but lowering or circumventing standards is not only wrong but potentially disastrous as well.

JOSEPH M. KEARNEY, HazMat Co. 1, FDNY