THE CHIEF-LEADER welcomes letters from its readers for publication.
Correspondents must include their names, addresses and
phone numbers. Letters should be submitted with the understanding
that all correspondence is subject to the editorial judgment of this
newspaper. Letters can be e-mailed to: RSTEIER@RCN.COM or
mailed to: Richard Steier, Editor, 277 Broadway, Suite 1506, NY, NY
10007.

Vitriol Over Logic

To the Editor:

I just wonder why Chief Delbert Coward (Feb. 8 letter), pretty much wasted over 400 words in not responding to Chief Paul Mannix's well-thought-out objections to the most recent Firefighter entrance exam?

Chief Mannix noted, as have many others (including LaShawn Barber, a black commenter/observer), that the FDNY's new nebulous standards amount to a lowering of its standards.

The fact of the matter is that there really are no "arbitrary standards." Written exams are generally geared to test an applicant's aptitude for absorbing and integrating information, which is a vital requirement for everyone in the FDNY. Reading comprehension questions, inductive and deductive logic questions all serve that general purpose. Likewise, an arduous physical exam, with an emphasis on stamina and endurance for a physically-demanding job like firefighter, is not outside the scope of what an applicant can be expected to need to do that job well.

So long as the same exam, the same standards are applied to all, then there really is no rational objection to any given set of standards. They certainly can't be seen as "discriminatory," so long as they're applied to all the applicants!

Traditionally, New York's Police and Firefighter exams were split between an arduous physical exam and, at least initially, a written exam that tested an applicant's basic knowledge of current events, logical skills and the ability to make logical deductions and both comprehend and integrate, or put to use, given information or data.

No one has ever offered a rationale as to how or why such exams were "discriminatory," other than to charge that, "Because these exams have resulted in disproportionate impact to specific groups (i.e. blacks and females) that they 'must be' somehow discriminatory."

But in reality, disparate impact does not prove discrimination, neither overt nor de facto.

But today, the city finds itself defending lawsuits against the physical standards by females and against the written standards by blacks on those dubious grounds.

Chief Mannix has correctly observed that many black candidates, including the late Chief of Department and Fire Commissioner Augustus Beekman, have passed the initial entrance exams and subsequent promotion exams to move up the ranks within the FDNY.

That would seem to indicate that these exams are not, in and of themselves, undue barriers to black achievement and advancement in the FDNY.

If Chief Coward truly believes that there is some legitimate historical context which justifies a lowered set of standards for black candidates, he certainly failed, in this case, to make an argument for that viewpoint.

In fact, Chief Coward spent almost all of his words disparaging Chief Mannix, in what amounted to an ad hominem personal attack.

You know what that's called? It's called an "Appeal to the Man," and it's one of the seven major logical fallacies. It's also called "losing the argument."

Chief Mannix did not disparage anyone in his observations about the "new test." So why weren't Chief Mannix's points challenged by Chief Coward, who apparently disagrees?

Chief Coward's resorting to personally assailing Chief Mannix did little to advance his viewpoint.

FF JOSEPH M. KEARNEY, HazMat-1