The federal lawsuit says that the disparate results,
constitute a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment by women of their rights to equal employment opportunities regardless of their sex.
The federal government wants the women who didn't pass the test to be compensated:
It also wants the city to hire some of the women turned away in the past and to offer them retroactive seniority and back pay.
There is no indication though that some of the men who failed the test will be similarly hired and awarded back pay and promotions.
What all this goes to show is that the real driver of liberalism is not equal opportunity but the aim of making our sex not matter. If there are more male police than female police, then sex is still shown to matter, which liberals cannot tolerate.
Which is one reason why the drive to have women in combat roles in the army is so problematic. It seems almost inevitable that standards will be lowered in order to get an equal entrance and promotion rate of women in such roles.
Do police officers need to be physically fit, strong and aggressive? Well, sometimes they do. A reminder of this occurred in France last month. Two female officers intervened in an argument, a man knocked over one of the officers, took her gun and shot her dead and then chased after the other officer, caught up to her and shot her dead as well. Would the criminal have been less likely to take on two large, physically fit and aggressive male officers? I suspect the answer is yes.
|One of the slain policewomen|