Originally Posted by
CE750
Good points, but I recall in the military, where the physical tests are administered as part of the screening for certain positions, and the grading is on a scale on 0-100 points per event; a score of 100 points for a woman required X, while a score of 100 in the same event for a man required 3X.. in the end, both score 300 points on their PT test, and both are deemed equally "qualified" as the test is (what's known in the social engineering business) "Gender Normed" .. how does that fit into the above categories?
CE750:
I would say it depends on whether that test is an appropriate measure of the candidates performance in the particular job. Even then, it could be prejudiced against what would otherwise be a superior candidate. Should a woman be required to lift the same weight as a man for example? Well if it was for a position as a weightlifter, I guess so! Most jobs are too dynamic to be reduced to a single parameter. I went to a High School that required a special test to enter. I passed and as a result was accepted into the school. Entering as a freshman, I met a girl that had failed the test, but was allowed to take a special summer program and still enter. Well she graduated near the top of the class, much highter than me.
In a nutshell, these tests are usually
not an indicator of performance. Affirmative action requires first of all that the applicant is qualified. Granted, the devil is probably in the details of the meaing of "qualified".