In the aftermath of the death of Cecil Mills, the Washington Post has done an excellent job of uncovering truly scandalous details about the DCFEMS cadet program, and Dave Statter has done even a better job of putting it all into context. Both articles should be read before reading my perspective.
My take is going to be a little different… a little broader and perhaps even a little less well defined. To start: how do fire service leaders approach the challenge of recruiting and hiring new employees without discriminating, intentionally (disparate treatment) or unintentionally (disparate impact) – or stepping over the other line by committing reverse discrimination? To call this area a quagmire is a gross oversimplification. When I lecture on this topic I use the title “Walking the Tightrope” because of the seemingly impossible requirements that the EEOC and the courts have created.
How big is the problem?
My database of fire service litigation has 5614 cases in it as of tonight. Of those cases – which include criminal actions and a variety of administrative proceedings besides just civil suits – the most common type of civil action in the fire service is a lawsuit alleging discrimination. That means that more frequently than Mrs. Smith suing us because she is upset we burned her house down; more frequently than the family of a deceased firefighter suing the fire department or a property owner for wrongful death; more frequently than someone suing because their vehicle was damaged in a collision with a fire truck – a fire department is sued for discrimination.
New Haven didn’t do it right, according to the US Supreme Court in Ricci v. DeStefano. FDNY didn’t do it right according to Judge Nicholas Garaufis (whose name I can now spell without even looking it up, I have typed it so often) in US v. City of New York. Chicago didn’t do it right in Lewis v. Chicago… I could go on, and on, and on… over 774 times by my count… and I know I have but a fraction of the total number of fire service discrimination cases out there.
How are fire chiefs expected to walk the tightrope between discrimination and reverse discrimination?
Chief Ellerbe and DCFEMS were obviously committed to an alternative hiring system that would help DC avoid the seemingly impossible challenge of avoiding discrimination suits. But seriously, is a cadet program as flawed as DC’s appears to be – a wise solution to avoid the possibility of discrimination?
And perhaps an even more important question needs to be asked: how many of the YCMTSU problems that we are seeing in DC FEMS directly attributable to the well-intentioned but misguided efforts to “avoid” discrimination? When is it time to say – enough is enough? Or will a court have to say enough is enough?
No one advocates lowering entrance standards
for doctors, nurses, or social workers to support Affirmative Action or
give socially disadvantaged youth a free pass to a career in one of
those fields. When it is forced it upon a fire department, why are we so
surprised by the results?
michaelgrove
Theoretically it is not about lowering standards – although that does become the unfortunate reality. Theoretically – it is about removing barriers that do not truly evaluate whether a person will be a better firefighter but have a discriminatory impact.
I emphasize “theoretical” because the theory – the concept – is great. We can all agree “theoretically”. But how do you “prove” a particular test or evaluation criteria will help to select a “better” candidate. The devil is in the details and it just cannot be done… nor could it be done for doctors, lawyers, or any other profession including judges. There is no test that can accurately predict whether a given person who gets a certain score will be better at a certain job than another person who gets a lower score… Yet tests that have a disparate impact (virtually every written exam thus far developed) must somehow meet this unachievable requirement or be struck down as discriminatory. The result – if you use a written test it will show a racially biased disparate impact.
So what do you do? Some departments use quotas… some play games with their lists… and in DC they use their cadet program.
As written by Dave Statter, the District of Columbia Fire and EMS
cadet program has a wide policy program, often based upon what fire
chief is currently in office.
This probably is the most troubling
feature of that program. The cadet program has had its success stories,
often its failures. What has happen to the cadet can be considered one
of its failures. In this case it just not in the recruitment of the
cadet, but in the training of that cadet. Not knowing what to do when
approached in an emergency is a failure of training, and failure of
common sense of that cadet to “learn and understand” his job.
I was not a cadet of the DCFD, but was a line officer of that
department who retired after 25+ years. I have seen cadets who were
interested in a career in the DCFEMS, these often become a success
story, and also seen cadets who just wanted a paycheck doing the least
amount to get it, these often are dismissed within the first couple of
years.
Using a fire or police department to solve social problems has never been “good policy” and often results on a failed program.
The solution? A written policy of recruitment, training, standards
of performance, and what standards that cadet must meet that is followed
no matter what will go far to solve a cadet program. These items must
be written, and understood by everyone, and most importantly not changed
to meet the agenda of a new fire chief, or even a new politician.
It always seems changing these items to meets the new social agendas always seems to destroy what could be very good program.
Sorry for the delay… I said “lowering entrance standards”… you said “tests”, Read the Post articles. The Administration overlooks bad behavior before the candidates are sworn in. These candidates are not good enough to get through the Academies and we’re passing them anyway. This is about making excuses for men and women who lack the character for our proud profession.
I discussed both “lowering entrance standards” AND “tests” – two separate issues – but they are interconnected. The reason DC has the cadet program is because many minority candidates are not able to successfully pass traditional written tests (entrance exams) in sufficient numbers to allow tests to serve as part of a viable non-discriminatory hiring process. The problem is one that has plagued test-makers for decades – how to develop a written test that does not show a disparate impact on minority candidates. Tests that show a disparate impact are presumed to be biased and therefore illegal. The candidate program offers a way around that obstacle. In theory that does not equate to “lowering entrance standards”… it is removing an unlawful discriminatory barrier. But you end up with folks who don’t do well on written exams. That is perceived as lowering entrance standards. The same can also be said for many of the other efforts that cities have made to address entrance criteria that have a disparate impact on minority candidates… including criminal background issues. The argument is that strictly applying criminal background requirements has a disparate impact on minorities. The result of being “flexible” on criminal backgrounds to address disparate impact concerns is… well… as you point out – its what is driving today’s headlines. I agree with you 100% that folks who lack the ability and character to be firefighters should not be hired. However, until the law related to disparate impact discrimination is changed – we are destined to see more of this.
…bringing our society even closer to the lowest common denominator… Stooping down instead of rising up. A society of Square Rooters!
Let your Congressional representatives know you think its time disparate impact discrimination is eliminated. Get rid of the EEOC’s 80% rule and fire departments can again begin to hire the most qualified without regard to race. Until that happens any effort to hire the most qualified will likely be struck down as discriminatory.