Many reasonable people will agree that if Group A only has to score one-quarter as well on an ability test as Group B to be considered equally capable to Group B, then you've got preferences occurring. If you mixed gender or race into this--if you had a school that admitted black students with 1/4 the GPA that it required white students to have--you'd note accurately that you were observing a case of discrimination, or affirmative action--however you want to term it.
The question is what circumstances warrant having differing standards for different groups based on arbitrary judgments about the value of those groups.
Ideally, those circumstances are not outcome or performance based. We don't want to introduce those arbitrary judgments into situations where there is a real, objective, measurable outcome based on the ability of the groups. Handicapping or helping certain groups would distort the outcome of the sorting mechanism--the ability test would no longer be a valid indicator of ability. The overall outcome would be a reduced overall capability for the aggregate group.
This is exactly what is happening in the Army with its sex-divided Physical Training (PT) standards. The Army Physical Fitness Test consists of 3 events: Pushups, situps, and a 2-mile run. Each of these events is graded by number of repetitions, and is scaled for age and sex. The minimum passing score for each event is 60 points, and the maximum is 100 points.
For instance: A 19-year-old female soldier who completes 19 pushups scores 60 points. If she completes 42 pushups, she scores 100 points. A 19-year-old male soldier has to do 42 pushups for his 60 points, and maxes out at 71 repetitions. For situps, the male/female scales are equal. For the run, the scale is again unequal. The male passes his run at a time of 15:54, and the female passes at 18:54. The max score times are 13:00 and 15:36, respectively.
That makes sense, right? Males are typically larger, stronger, and faster than females. The score distributions and scales were based on testing many, many people to develop reasonable expectations of fitness. Therefore, the scales should account for physiological differences between males and females.
There's only one problem with this. Men and women are both in the Army. The Army occasionally requires its members to do things like be in combat, or perform various physically difficult tasks. Men and women are both permitted in many of the same jobs, and are likely to end up doing very similar things throughout their careers. The 115-lb woman who can do 42 pushups may be in the same position as a 200-lb man who can do 71. A PT test scaled for sex nicely captures the difference between male and female capabilities, but does nothing to answer the important question: What is the minimum standard of physical fitness for a soldier?
This is particularly pertinent because physical fitness scores are noted on performance evaluations, and can be cause to get someone kicked out of the Army. A male who can bench 300 lbs may be at risk for being chaptered out for being a slow runner, but the 95-lb female who can run but can't lift a 40-lb box will stay in. Or vice versa. You get the picture.
By allowing women to have lower physical standards, the Army is doing a couple things wrong. It is acknowledging either that A) it is putting physically unqualified women into positions where they are likely to fail, or B) the requirements that it imposes on men are far too high for what the job requirements actually are. This approach also engenders resentment on the part of men, and a feeling of inferiority on the part of women. It is similar to affirmative action in this regard.
I suggest this fix: Align physical fitness standards to Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). If Infantrymen need to meet higher physical standards--and they do--than, say, intel weenies, then it's unfair to the infantrymen and the intel weenies. The Intel weenies don't need to have a high PT standard. The Infantrymen do. The force would benefit by having higher official PT standards for its infantrymen, and lower standards for its intel analysts, who probably don't need to be training on push-ups anyway. It would get and retain more analysts, both male and female. Having an aggregate PT standard for each sex imposes unnecessary requirements and restrictions on each of the MOS's, which do radically different jobs.
Additionally, this division by MOS would solve the very important problem of differing standards of physical fitness for men and women. A MOS-specific PT test, with the same standards for men and women, would clearly show what the minimum standard is. It would not grant a free pass to anyone. It would not penalize anyone. It would simply say that to be a generator repair mechanic, you have to be able to do X pushups and X situps and haul your butt around a 2-mile course in X time.
This would be a very good solution to matching qualified personnel to job positions, and it would eliminate the male-female PT standard divide. It would end the perception that women can't hack the Army that men have to. It would better separate who is suited for what job. For an organization as proud of proclaiming its reliance and adherence on standards, the Army has hopelessly bolo'ed this matter for decades, and this is an easy fix.
No comments:
Post a Comment