tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1559661241465229945.post1136566794135523879..comments2023-10-20T10:22:39.636-04:00Comments on Workingclass Conservative: It Isn’t the Merit System That’s “Racist”JMKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14281344324964417974noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1559661241465229945.post-15531025731185816402008-03-02T12:56:00.000-05:002008-03-02T12:56:00.000-05:00Sadly, we've come to eviscerating standards to "ac...Sadly, we've come to eviscerating standards to "achieve diversity."<BR/><BR/>Here's the thing, it was unquestionably WRONG when the City barred women from even taking the tests for police officer and firefighter, just as the nepotism and cronyism that kept those who either weren't politically connected, or couldn't or wouldn't "pay graft" for their jobs, off those was WRONG.<BR/><BR/>In fact, the Civil Service Merit System was set up to eradicate the graft, nepotism and cronyism that had dominated Municipal hiring until that time.<BR/><BR/>But so too is lowering standards to achieve some "ideal gender and ethnic balance" WRONG.<BR/><BR/>Standards are there for a reason.<BR/><BR/>It seems just basic common sense that any employer has the RIGHT to hire the best qualified and most productive workforce it can, NOT merely a minimally qualified one and THAT is what much of the three decades long assault on standards and standardized testing is really all about.<BR/><BR/>Opponenets of tandards and standardized testing often ask, <I>"Is a LESSER qualified candidate really UNQUALIFIED?"</I><BR/><BR/>That's, in effect, a nonsensical question.<BR/><BR/>Standards exist to distinguish between LESSER qualified candidates and better qualified candidates...and employers, whether in the private sector or government, have a right to the best qualified workforce they can get for their hiring dollar.<BR/><BR/>I believe in outreach and remedial training for those who are motivated to get these jobs, to bring such people "up to snuff," but lowering standards is not only a dangerous game, it's a blatantly unfair one, as well.JMKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281344324964417974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1559661241465229945.post-29645481181325393862008-03-01T23:45:00.000-05:002008-03-01T23:45:00.000-05:00Another great post. My Dad was a firefighter for 3...Another great post. My Dad was a firefighter for 30 years. He used to talk about the mandate they had in the early 1980's to hire women. He said not a single woman they hired was able to complete the physical fitness requirements of the job. There was a test where the minimum requirement for applicants was to be able to carry 100 pounds for several yards in a certain amount of time. They had to wave that requirement to be able to hire from their pool of women applicants. I doubt that an unconscious 200 pound man in a burning building would be so enlightened, un-chauvinistic, and equal rights minded when the only person around to haul him out is one of those "qualified" firefighters who couldn't carry 100pounds on a sunny day not to mention out of a burning building. That was the only problem my Dad had with the whole thing. He didn't mind hiring women, he just knew that the ones he had to hire couldn't actually do the job.Uncle Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09293279488416490215noreply@blogger.com