Discriminatory Physical Abilities Tests?

La Shawn Barber discusses sex and physical ability tests in certain professions. The conservative blogger writes: "The lead investigator on a show I watch is a woman. Although thin-boned and shorter than the men she supervises, she’s a tough gal. She chases down bad guys, who manage to trip at just the right moment, and she pounces on them, slapping on handcuffs. When she does encounter a man she can’t bring down, her male subordinates conveniently pop up just in time for some serious man-handling. Watch any program with a female cop/detective/investigator, and you’d think physical differences between men and women were trivial. But that’s TV. Real life works differently. The Center for Equal Opportunity’s Linda Chavez writes about what happens in real life. Last week, the Department of Justice sued the Department of Corrections for discriminating against women applying for jobs as prison guards. Chavez writes:

"So what exactly constitutes this discrimination? Apparently, female prison guard applicants have a more difficult time passing a required physical abilities test (PAT) than their male counterparts, which is unacceptable to the Obama Justice Department.’ ‘Bringing an end to practices that have a discriminatory impact on the basis of sex,’ says the press release touting the suit, ‘is a major priority of the Justice Department and Civil Rights Division’…It wasn’t all that long ago that the very idea of hiring women to guard violent men — even if they were behind bars — would have been thought unwise if not downright crazy. But we’ve learned that women can do non-traditional jobs, even excel at them. And we’ve been reassured by feminists that women would ultimately demonstrate they could perform these jobs just as well as men.”

Apparently, the issue isn’t whether women can pass the test; it’s whether the test itself is 'job related and consistent with business necessity.' Our bloated Byzantine system permits claims against government agencies that weed out candidates based on physical strength in a profession that requires physical strength."

She continues: "You don’t have to be particularly knowledgeable about the inner workings of a male prison to conclude that it’s safer for all involved to have big strong men guarding and handling other big strong and violent men. Common sense goes a long way. Alas, politically correct pabulum trumps common sense. You may recall that in 2005, violent criminal Brian Nichols overpowered his female handler, attacked her, took her gun, and killed a judge, a deputy sheriff, and a court reporter. The woman was escorting Nichols, who was facing rape charges. The powers that be thought it was a splendid idea to assign a shorter, weaker woman (five feet) to guard a taller, stronger man who’d been caught with concealed weapons days before. (Source) Yes, Nichols could have just as easily overpowered a man. Beside the point. Women are disparately impacted by the PAT, because they are, on average, smaller and weaker than the average man. To remove the discriminatory effect, the agency would have to lower strength standards for women, which would defeat the purpose of having standards in the first place."

Booker Rising response: I know folks who are or have been jail/prison guards. Based on their horror stories, physical ability is necessary for the job. I believe the standard should be the same across the board, regardless of gender. Let's be honest: most women (more so than men) will probably not meet the physical standards to be, say, a prison guard. However, some women will pass the test. If they do so like everyone else, they shouldn't be denied because they're female. I feel the same way about the military (a point which I've hotly debated with some male relatives of mine who are military vets, who don't believe that women should be in the military at all).