Since everybody else is weighing in on this, let me put in mine. Even with facts in dispute, such as when and how many times Crowley was asked his name and badge number, we can agree that this mess could have been avoided. And, without saying that Professor Gates is beyond reproach, it was up to the person who was most in control to do that. The person in control was Sergeant Crowley. Once Crowley was finished doing his job, he should have gotten the hell out of there.
But I don't want to make assumptions about the facts either. The arrest would have been proper if Gates had in any way interfered with Crowley's departure, such as blocking his way. If, for instance, he stood in front of the door until he got an apology. Or else, if he laid his hands on him, or threatened him physically. But the news reports don't even hint that this happened.
It would also have been improper for Gates to interfere with an ongoing police investigation. I give Crowley the benefit of the doubt on this. If he still had questions in his own mind about the alleged break-in, it would be proper for him to stay until they were answered. But again, the news reports seem to say that Crowley had concluded there was no break-in, and that Gates had every right to be there, in his own home.
Should Crowley have then apologized, and then left? The apology question is irrelevant to me, although Gates certainly has a case for one. No, Crowley was wrong because he had passed the point where he had a legitimate professional reason to remain. Whether Gates was overreacting by calling the officer a racist did not give Crowley any reason to engage in an angry debate. Gates was probably getting angrier, and louder, every time Crowley answered him. At that point, it didn't matter who had the best talking (or yelling) points, the situation could only get worse.
And it did. But the arrest -- while improper in itself -- only resulted from Crowley's first mistake of not leaving when he had finished doing his job.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Every Firefighter Is A Supervisor
I think that any firefighter with a record of competence should get to be a supervisor. Why not? They've already shown the qualities needed for the job.
But wait. You say that taxpayers won't pay for everyone to be promoted? That you only need a certain number to give the orders, but that too many bosses would actually decrease public safety?
That's so obvious that it hurts to even say it. And yet, after the Supreme Court decision which restored promotions earned by white firefighters (and one Hispanic) after New Haven junked the exam because no blacks made the cut, it seems that the decision's critics want just such a system.
They may deny it, but what it will come down to is a system where no verifiable standard of merit will ever be used again. In that case, why not make everyone a supervisor? What could be more diverse than that?
At least, that's what seems to be the position of Lani Guinier and Susan Sturm in their NYTimes Op-Ed piece (7/11/09). They mention the undeniable flaws in the exam, which placed too much importance on national firefighting textbooks and study guides, and not enough on the skills that are actually needed in saving lives and property.
Of course, not being experienced firefighters themselves, they don't specify what these skills are, much less how to test for them. But the thrust of their argument exposes their real intention. They simply do not trust any system where merit can be tested and quantified as a measure of future performance. Read the article, and see if you find a substitute for using written exams in getting the promotional list. I wish they had given a single example.
I'm not defending written and multiple choice exams. You'll find a few outright groaners in any exam you look at. But the implications of their argument is clear: that no test of merit - i.e., a test where performance can be quantified and given a score without consideration of the identity of the testee - can be considered reliable. No written, oral, multiple-choice, physical task or combination thereof. And what do they cite as proof? The simple fact that no member of a particular race reached the promotional level.
But think about it when critics complain that it is the job of the government to expose the hidden bias that prevents us from achieving diversity. Will they accept any objective standard at all? Politicians certainly won't, which was why the New Haven civil service would not certify the exam before they could see the results. Think about that. The public is supposed to trust that their government consists of professionals who have the competence to lead them. Part of that competence is to select those who can provide the best service, and to make sure that those people get to provide it. I don't know what other standard for public service to use.
But wait. You say that taxpayers won't pay for everyone to be promoted? That you only need a certain number to give the orders, but that too many bosses would actually decrease public safety?
That's so obvious that it hurts to even say it. And yet, after the Supreme Court decision which restored promotions earned by white firefighters (and one Hispanic) after New Haven junked the exam because no blacks made the cut, it seems that the decision's critics want just such a system.
They may deny it, but what it will come down to is a system where no verifiable standard of merit will ever be used again. In that case, why not make everyone a supervisor? What could be more diverse than that?
At least, that's what seems to be the position of Lani Guinier and Susan Sturm in their NYTimes Op-Ed piece (7/11/09). They mention the undeniable flaws in the exam, which placed too much importance on national firefighting textbooks and study guides, and not enough on the skills that are actually needed in saving lives and property.
Of course, not being experienced firefighters themselves, they don't specify what these skills are, much less how to test for them. But the thrust of their argument exposes their real intention. They simply do not trust any system where merit can be tested and quantified as a measure of future performance. Read the article, and see if you find a substitute for using written exams in getting the promotional list. I wish they had given a single example.
I'm not defending written and multiple choice exams. You'll find a few outright groaners in any exam you look at. But the implications of their argument is clear: that no test of merit - i.e., a test where performance can be quantified and given a score without consideration of the identity of the testee - can be considered reliable. No written, oral, multiple-choice, physical task or combination thereof. And what do they cite as proof? The simple fact that no member of a particular race reached the promotional level.
But think about it when critics complain that it is the job of the government to expose the hidden bias that prevents us from achieving diversity. Will they accept any objective standard at all? Politicians certainly won't, which was why the New Haven civil service would not certify the exam before they could see the results. Think about that. The public is supposed to trust that their government consists of professionals who have the competence to lead them. Part of that competence is to select those who can provide the best service, and to make sure that those people get to provide it. I don't know what other standard for public service to use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)