Originally Posted by Guest

I do not wish to get into an argument about race, but I will point out one fact that I personally know of. A while back when Affirmative Action was initiated, many professional exams had to be dumbed down in order to get some minority qualifications to choose from. I know really good people that were not chosen, even though their testing was exemplary and many minorities that were able to retake tests until they could meet the minimum qualifying score. This is fact. This is why I am against Affirmative Action. Not because of the ethnicity, but because some folks were not required to compete fairly for positions. If you tell a firefighter that they have to be able to carry a 250lb man out of a building and then tell women that are competing that they only have to carry, say a 100lbs, then you are doing a disservice to the community. If you are hiring, you should choose the best qualified to get the job done. Charity belongs in the churches.

Originally Posted by Guest

This is one of the best, most cogent posts I have yet seen on the issue of Affirmative Action. And, as stated, it is about much more than just race.

It opens some interesting possible paths of discussion. One, of course, is Affirmative Action for the purpose of bringing more representatives of a particular race into a particular field of employment. Another is Affirmative Action for the purpose of bringing more representatives of a particular sex into a particular field.

To be very frank, Affirmative Action efforts with regard to race are usually directed toward intellectual testing, while Affirmative Action efforts with regard to sex are usually directed towards changing physical ability testing. Is either fair, and is either necessary? Perhaps we can have some civil exchanges on this subject.

LET ME COMMENCE. When I was a young deputy sheriff in Tampa there were no female police officers in the department. None. If we had some kind of work that could only be accomplished by a female, including the thorough body search of a female prisoner, we impressed the Jail Nurse into service.

Then there were times when our Vice Detectives needed a female to work in a capacity regarding vice offenses. Again, the Jail Nurse was called upon. Finally it was realized that there was a need for female deputies.

Initially, came the two-tier physical requirements which MDLNB objects to. Men had to be be 5'10" or taller, and able to do 50 push ups, etc., while women could be 5'2" or taller and need do only 10 push ups, for example.

Later, there was only one standard for both sexes, resulting in what can only be characterized as a significant lowering of the standards. Was this fair to the public which our deputies were sworn to protect? It can be debated.

But, the fact is that the community needed female deputy sheriffs for a variety of duties and several decades of experience has shown that they have been quite successful in handling the situations in which they have been thrust. In fact, if you did a survey you would find that there are some female deputies who are preferred as back up support over many male deputies. They do well.

Have we lost more than we gained by lowering the physical standards? Were the old physical standards unnecessarily high? It can be debated.

Carl in Tampa

.