Image from edweek.org

I like the New York Times; I think they produce an overall strong product. But sometimes the PC-bend is simply overwhelming. This piece on the New York Firefighters test is a case in point.

They argue that the firefighter’s test is racist in hidden, sneaky ways–like in requiring people to be good at reading comprehension. And when I say “good”, I mean at the primary school level. Here’s a quote from the NYT article:

On the surface, the tests — versions of which remained in use until 2007, according to the court — do not appear racially biased. Each exam consists of 85 multiple-choice questions about firefighting practices: the order in which a firefighter should don gear in an alarm; what the rear of a building would look like, based on its facade; the right situations in which to say “mayday” rather than “urgent” over the walkie-talkie.

But a closer look shows that the exams also required applicants to read and understand long passages, often containing technical terms, and then answer questions about them.

Seriously? Did you just say that? In print? And put your name on it?

Here’s the “racist” question in its entirety:

Which one of the following portable power saw blades must be put out of service?
A) A carbide tip blade missing nine tips
B) a carbide tip blade with three broken tips;
C) an aluminum oxide blade measuring 12 inches;
D) a yellow silicon carbide blade measuring nine inches.

So, do you know the answer? Right, me neither. But right above the question they had a 250 word piece of text that talked about blade saw safety. You know, kind of helper-text you had when you were learning to read in the sixth grade. That text included the following:

A saw blade must be put out of service (OOS) and sent to the Technical Services Division when the blade becomes worn or damaged. Carbide tip blades must be put OOS when eight or more tips are missing or broken.

Well, holy crap. They encoded the answer in anglo-speak! Well, not really anglo-speak, since Asians and Indians would blow the test out of the water. No, they must have encoded it in anti-NAM-speak. A NAM is a Non-Asian-Minority, which is what PC-types really mean when they use the word minority.

Basically, any sort of text in which NAMs score lower than Whites, Asians, or Indians, is racist. That’s it. That’s the new definition. Or, to put it another way, if Blacks and Hispanics tend not to be able to read a 250 word passage and answer a simple question about it, then the test is biased against Blacks and Hispanics.

This is unspeakably lame.

This is not just an affront to education, it’s a blatant insult against any Black or Hispanic person with an education. In a staggering twist of PC-based irony, the statement that reading comprehension skill requirements constitute a white-leaning bias equates to nothing less than a declaration of intellectual inequality. This type of rhetoric says, in a deafening scream:

“Any test that evaluates someone’s ability to read and understand basic instructions, at the elementary school level, is biased toward Whites, Asians and Indians, because Blacks and Hispanics tend not to be good at that stuff.”

Deplorable.

Fix the fucking problem. Don’t jeopardize the safety of the public because certain groups have cultural values that discourage the pursuit of education. When you take that route all you’re doing is telling those same people you’re trying to help that they’re inferior, when instead you should be encouraging them to embrace the culture that pushed the successful to succeed.

1. Embrace standards.
2. Require that everyone reach them.
3. Find those who can’t, and help them until they can.

That’s the solution–for FDNY and for the country and the world. Lowering the standard helps no one in the long term–least of all those who need the help. ::

So evidently the gang problem in the U.S. military is continuing to worsen. It was an issue when I was in the Army a decade ago and I’m sure it’s only gotten worse given our ever lowering standards for entry. Here’s a picture for you: large numbers of non-native-born young men who are already in gangs joining the U.S. military because it’s a path to citizenship and a steady paycheck (think cars, rims, and stereos). It’s like working welfare for a lot of these people, and thanks to Bush and the aggressive recruiting there are even more of them entering service now.

The thing that really gets me is that the loyalty of these guys is to their neighborhood, to their barrio/hood, to their gang family — not to the United States. Once again we have the U.S. being humiliated in broad daylight — taken advantage of and mocked by those who should absolutely personify the love of this country.

And policy-makers just sit and watch because they’re too weak and frightened to take action. The vast majority of the gang activity is Hispanic, in case you’re wondering, so it causes people in charge to squirm just thinking about the repercussions of being called racist or prejudiced. And so it continues.

Hell, even 10 years ago it was bad enough that the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) had to closely monitor various Latino groups in the barracks because of issues with gang violence breaking out. Even back then they were already running around tagging U.S. government property with their various gang symbols. It’s sickening. Sorry-ass gang members wearing a United States military uniform and saluting officers.

This country doesn’t have long before we cross the threshold into inevitable chaos. All because we’re too naive to realize that our country’s identity and standards are being eroded from within. Soon we’ll be nothing but a collection of other things.:

I think s/he would be a pretty good way to say “he/she”. Unfortunately, I’m rather against the term, especially in technical writing. If 95% of programmers, IT workers, and geeks are male (yes, I made the number up), all you do is call attention to yourself when you contort yourself into saying “he/she”.

It’s actually insulting to women, in my view — like it’s giving them more representation than they actually have because they’re fragile and need the help. It’s demeaning in the same way that lowering the standard for a quota is — an admission of inferiority.

We all know that there are some women in these predominantly male fields, and we all know that many of them are quite good at what they do. Let’s leave it at that. They are still in the hyper-minority, so trying to pretend that they are in equal numbers when writing does nothing but expose one’s own PC insecurities.

It’s not really strange, if you think about it. I find it interesting because it shows how reality doesn’t care about PC. Some people have massive advantages, others don’t. Attractive, outgoing women will likely succeed…at life in general. They’ll get the most powerful men, they’ll be given more free stuff, they’ll get out of more tickets…the list goes on.

Getting upset about this is like being bothered that basketball teams always pick tall people. Waaah. Grow up. Oh, and don’t get me started about Hooters waitresses and flight attendants. I have much to say about this topic.

Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable. I think one such truth is that men and women being lumped together in a combat zone is a bad idea.

Denying biology isn’t going to make it go away. When you take young, fit, horny G.I’s and then put them under extreme pressure (e.g. watching your friends die while you’re separated from your family halfway across the world), you shouldn’t be suprised when they react unfavorably to women in the area.

Liberals just don’t get it. Ideal and real sound the same, but they are very different.

I’ve been thinking for a little while about a few instances of where political correctness seems to be doing direct battle with something…natural. I say natural, and not “right” because I’m not convinced that these things are necessarily morally correct, only that they are quite natural given human biology and culture. The question is whether or not this equates, in our culture’s view, to being acceptable.

Examples:

1. Hooters, as a general rule, doesn’t hire guys to be waiters.
This is pretty much universally accepted and few people freak out about it. It’s common sense based on the type of organization it is. Its main draw is attractive women. Fair enough, but what happens when a guy wants to work there and isn’t considered because of his gender? Do we have a legal issue or a stupidity issue (on his part)?.
2. High-class casinos in Vegas require women to wear high heels and heavy makeup.
There are many women complaining that the demand is too strict, isn’t applied to men, and is simply unfair. The first argument comes to mind is that, yes…it is unfair. But the more important point is that the argument seems to fly in the face of human nature and common culture. I don’t know of a culture where the women weren’t paraded around in entertainment venues, and to think that this would somehow different today, in Vegas no less, is naiive at best.

So if we agree that it’s natural, common, and accepted for these things to be expected by male patrons (and therefore hiring managers), where do we draw the line? Do we permit them to refuse to hire unattractive women? What if their breasts are too small? What if men prefer one type of woman more than another. Blondes vs. Brunettes, Latina vs. Black girls, etc. Can a manager really use the “popular demand” defense to justify an entire staff of big-breasted blonde women?

I think it’s an interesting question. I think it’s a binary decision for us as a society, and we should face the underlying truths revealed by our choice. If we deem it acceptable to judge based on the desire of patrons who gets hired, and the rules of “equal chance” are set aside using this power, then I think it being taken to the extreme should be not only permitted but expected. Yes or no, but not “a little bit”.

Anything in between is a failure to fully acknowledge the implications of allowing this sort of “acceptable discrimination”, and it keeps society in an unhealthy state. As usual, we as a society choose to skirt avoid uncomfortable topics. We prefer to pretend there is no issue until someone gets a lawyer involved. It’s quite sad, and proof that we’re not very far along as a civilization.