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.

A Fair Test Isn't Racist

To the Editor:

In his letter of July 17, Mike Gimbel of Local 375 AFSCME excoriates The Chief for supporting the very logical, appropriate and welcome Supreme Court ruling in the case of the New Haven firefighters, calling it a "racist, right-wing attack on affirmative action."

He accuses this paper of betraying the working class by siding with socalled right-wing reactionaries instead of siding with those who want hiring and promotion based solely on racial and ethnic considerations.

Actually, in supporting a fair and equitable merit and fitness-based testing system, The Chief is acting in the best interests of the working class.

It would be wrong and abhorrent if members of ethnic and racial groups were barred or otherwise prevented from competing in civil service exams to try and better themselves. That would be unfair on its face—to deny somebody an opportunity to improve their station in life based on circumstances over which they had no control.

But that's not the case here. No one is saying that minorities cannot take these exams. No one is preventing them from sitting for these tests. There is no Gov. George Wallace standing defiantly in the schoolhouse door. There are only two criteria that the government has to abide by: that the testing process be fair, equitable and job-related, and that everyone who qualifies to take the test be allowed to take it. And that's all. Whatever happens after that is up for grabs.

Equal opportunity does not mean guaranteed results or guaranteed outcomes. It just means everyone will have an equal opportunity to compete. Those who do well will get hired or promoted and those who don't, won't. It's as simple as that.

The whole point of civil service testing is to discriminate. Not on the basis of race or ethnic background, but on the basis of merit and fitness for the position. The whole idea is to weed out those individuals who, for whatever reason, lack the basic qualifications to handle the responsibilities of the job.

Mr. Gimbel claims that labor unions and "people of color are all negatively affected by this reactionary attack on affirmative action." Does that include the tens of thousands of minority employees on the city and state payrolls who got hired or promoted by taking and passing civil service exams? He appears to be suggesting that civil service testing be abolished in favor of affirmative action, which is simply PC-speak for quota hiring by skin color. I'd like him to explain how something like that is supposed to foster and create unity and solidarity among the working class.

Is that something white males should feel good about? Should they feel a sense of solidarity with those minorities who didn't score as well as they did on the test or outright failed and nonetheless, wound up getting hired over them because of Federal consent decrees and fear of litigation? Should the white New Haven firemen feel that sense of unity and labor solidarity with their black cohorts in the department when the exam they worked and studied so hard to pass was summarily thrown out by the City of New Haven because no blacks were going to be promoted and the city was afraid of a lawsuit if it didn't? Or would Mr. Gimbel admit that far from leading to unity, it actually produces disunity, anger and resentment?

Mr. Gimbel says that because the New Haven exam had a "disparate impact" on the black candidates, meaning in this instance that none of them passed with a high-enough score to be promoted, that ergo, it's proof positive that the test was biased and unfair. End of story. Case closed.

Not so fast, my friend. It doesn't automatically follow. The city gave the exact same test to all the candidates. As long as the questions are objective and job-related, how could it be unfair? Mr. Gimbel's contention that fairness equates with results, not by how someone did on a test, is a mantra of the quota crowd. By results, he means the number of minority candidates hired or promoted. That, to him, is the test of fairness. And he's wrong. Because how is it fair to the white candidates when they lose out on being promoted because the city fathers didn't like the results?

You can't seek to correct a perceived imbalance by discriminating against members of another group who happened to do well and were subsequently denied their right to be promoted. That's not fairness. That's discrimination based on race—and therefore illegal and unconstitutional. The affirmative-action crowd is not opposed to discrimination, as long as it's white males being discriminated against.

In closing, I want to posit two questions for Mr. Gimbel to ponder. If the results of the New Haven test had been skewed the other way—if all of the black candidates had passed it and all the while candidates failed it, does he think the City of New Haven would have thrown out the results? And second—if the above scenario transpired and the city threw the list out, wouldn't Mr. Gimbel expect the black firemen to be similarly outraged at being denied a promotion and seek the relief of the court?

STEVEN I. DANKO