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.

1. I believe everyone should be treated equally.

2. I believe manipulating standards to benefit any one group by definition puts other groups at a disadvantage. 3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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."

7. 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."

8. 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