Posted on Jan 14, 2016
Would men separated for failing a military fitness test have a case for discrimination since women did not have to meet the same standard?
13.5K
66
62
5
5
0
I think those who were separated have grounds for a class action discrimination lawsuit under the equal protection clause. I've often wondered why I have never heard of one before, but now that women have been granted the added benefit of the "opportunity" in combat arms ground units without the requisite of meeting higher standards in other support branches (which nevertheless are still "the" standard), I think it only bolsters their case.
One of four things will most likely happen. 1. Women meet the male standards across the board. 2. Standards are lowered to the female standards. 3. A new universal standard somewhere between the male and female standards are established. 4. Job-specific standards are established based on branch/MOS which would require a large number of standards across the four/five military services.
One of four things will most likely happen. 1. Women meet the male standards across the board. 2. Standards are lowered to the female standards. 3. A new universal standard somewhere between the male and female standards are established. 4. Job-specific standards are established based on branch/MOS which would require a large number of standards across the four/five military services.
Standards
Equality
Women in the Military
Law
Fitness
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 21
9
9
0
1) There are no "Male" or "Female" standards. There are Physiological (Physical Fitness) Tests. Let's stop using "Standards" incorrectly.
2) The Physical Fitness Test is a "bad metric" for ALL Fields & MOSs, because it relies on using body weight of the individual. A 135lb person regardless of gender is going to have a hard time humping a 50lb ruck, because they have less muscle MASS than a 200lb person. The score is not directly indicative of Combat Prowess. It may assist, but trying to directly equate is a fool's gambit.
3) Again, "standards" is the wrong word, however there cannot be a universal "standard" because Males & Females are "built" differently. To draw a parallel, you cannot expect a rifle to perform the same as a pistol or vice versa, nor can you score them the same.
4) This is where the use of "Standard" is correct. Job Specific Standard can be applied, however they must be OBJECTIVE, vice SUBJECTIVE in nature. The PFT is a SUBJECTIVE measure of HEALTH (Physiology), as opposed to an Objective Measure of CAPABILITY like the ability to Move under load in X time (Timed Ruck March) or Score Marksman/Sharpshooter/Expert at the Range.
So, if a Soldier fails to meet the MINIMUM HEALTH REQUIREMENTS (Normalized Score on PFT), tehy would not be discriminated against, because the "Standard" is the SCORE. The SCORE requirements are the SAME based on CLASS (Age), and gender is irrelevant. The specific portion of the test is normalized to account of Physiological Differences between gender, because scientifically males and females are different as classes. You cannot measure females on the same HEALTH scale as males. This isn't a "standards" issue. It is a health (science) issue, which most people just don't understand.
2) The Physical Fitness Test is a "bad metric" for ALL Fields & MOSs, because it relies on using body weight of the individual. A 135lb person regardless of gender is going to have a hard time humping a 50lb ruck, because they have less muscle MASS than a 200lb person. The score is not directly indicative of Combat Prowess. It may assist, but trying to directly equate is a fool's gambit.
3) Again, "standards" is the wrong word, however there cannot be a universal "standard" because Males & Females are "built" differently. To draw a parallel, you cannot expect a rifle to perform the same as a pistol or vice versa, nor can you score them the same.
4) This is where the use of "Standard" is correct. Job Specific Standard can be applied, however they must be OBJECTIVE, vice SUBJECTIVE in nature. The PFT is a SUBJECTIVE measure of HEALTH (Physiology), as opposed to an Objective Measure of CAPABILITY like the ability to Move under load in X time (Timed Ruck March) or Score Marksman/Sharpshooter/Expert at the Range.
So, if a Soldier fails to meet the MINIMUM HEALTH REQUIREMENTS (Normalized Score on PFT), tehy would not be discriminated against, because the "Standard" is the SCORE. The SCORE requirements are the SAME based on CLASS (Age), and gender is irrelevant. The specific portion of the test is normalized to account of Physiological Differences between gender, because scientifically males and females are different as classes. You cannot measure females on the same HEALTH scale as males. This isn't a "standards" issue. It is a health (science) issue, which most people just don't understand.
(9)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
1. I agree, it is. But that is precisely *why* it's an issue. Using your analogy, civilian (and some military members) policy makers and legislators are saying "Hey, we need to take more pistols on patrols" when you and I know that the rifle is the preferred weapon. Not that pistols are worthless or lack quality, but simply aren't the right tool for the task. Think of a guy who fails a fitness test as a rifle with bad sights and some magazine wobble. You don't consider it a quality firearm at the range, but even with its deficiencies, it's going to be more accurate than even the best pistol.
2. Where you lose me on the percentage point--if I'm reading you right--is two-fold. A. A soldier doesn't choose what percentage of his weight he gets to carry. A 50 lbs ruck is a 50 lbs ruck and if you can't change it in combat then why change the metric in a fitness test so that it's scaled to make it easier for some just because it's inherently harder? B. Some 200 pounders suffer much more with a 50# ruck than a 150 pounder. There's not a direct relationship since it's not based on just muscle mass but also cardio ability, leg strength, etc. I hear what you are saying about being objective but the fitness test is essentially a screening test to (hopefully) get the least able out and (hopefully) retain the most physically capable. No test will be perfect but in a military of 2.5 million, personnel policy people have to draw the line somewhere. If I misinterpreted your point, I apologize in advance.
3. I don't see how normalizing outcomes can be legally defended in a society which asserts equality before the law. I mean, I realize that we do so with affirmative action, but at least that is based on historical context, something which the military and the survival of the nation should not devote energy to. Your EIB comparison is flawed because it has tests like the grenade throw which will have a disparate impact on women in general.
2. Where you lose me on the percentage point--if I'm reading you right--is two-fold. A. A soldier doesn't choose what percentage of his weight he gets to carry. A 50 lbs ruck is a 50 lbs ruck and if you can't change it in combat then why change the metric in a fitness test so that it's scaled to make it easier for some just because it's inherently harder? B. Some 200 pounders suffer much more with a 50# ruck than a 150 pounder. There's not a direct relationship since it's not based on just muscle mass but also cardio ability, leg strength, etc. I hear what you are saying about being objective but the fitness test is essentially a screening test to (hopefully) get the least able out and (hopefully) retain the most physically capable. No test will be perfect but in a military of 2.5 million, personnel policy people have to draw the line somewhere. If I misinterpreted your point, I apologize in advance.
3. I don't see how normalizing outcomes can be legally defended in a society which asserts equality before the law. I mean, I realize that we do so with affirmative action, but at least that is based on historical context, something which the military and the survival of the nation should not devote energy to. Your EIB comparison is flawed because it has tests like the grenade throw which will have a disparate impact on women in general.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MAJ Bill Darling
1) Absolutely, you choose the best tool for the task. However that is gender-irrelevant. Define the Objective task, then apply the CORRECT standard. The PFT test is NOT the correct standard. That's the major issue. The PFT is a horrible test to determine "Combat Prowess." We need a better test.
2) My point is that we have become so focused on a HEALTH test that that we have forgotten that it doesn't DIRECTLY correlate to Combat Prowess/Capability. Somewhere along the line we even started (incorrectly) correlating it with Leadership Capability in some cases.
3) I use the EIB because it is made up of a series of Objective tasks which must be completed. Each one has pre-defined requirements which are by their nature "genderless" (as opposed to gender-neutral). Those tasks "may" be harder for a female (as a class), but they will also be harder for someone with less upper body strength as a class, or a Lefty. But the tasks were not designed either inclusively nor exclusionary in purpose. They were designed with a specific goal in mind. When we speak of "raising/lowering the standard" we are modifying the task for a specific outcome, as opposed to setting the goal. In essence, we are looking at the problem backwards.
There is nothing wrong with having a test that "(dis)proportionately fails/passes" a segment of society IF it wasn't specifically designed to do that. It's when you design the test to make the numbers match, you have committed an ethics violation with the statistics.
1) Absolutely, you choose the best tool for the task. However that is gender-irrelevant. Define the Objective task, then apply the CORRECT standard. The PFT test is NOT the correct standard. That's the major issue. The PFT is a horrible test to determine "Combat Prowess." We need a better test.
2) My point is that we have become so focused on a HEALTH test that that we have forgotten that it doesn't DIRECTLY correlate to Combat Prowess/Capability. Somewhere along the line we even started (incorrectly) correlating it with Leadership Capability in some cases.
3) I use the EIB because it is made up of a series of Objective tasks which must be completed. Each one has pre-defined requirements which are by their nature "genderless" (as opposed to gender-neutral). Those tasks "may" be harder for a female (as a class), but they will also be harder for someone with less upper body strength as a class, or a Lefty. But the tasks were not designed either inclusively nor exclusionary in purpose. They were designed with a specific goal in mind. When we speak of "raising/lowering the standard" we are modifying the task for a specific outcome, as opposed to setting the goal. In essence, we are looking at the problem backwards.
There is nothing wrong with having a test that "(dis)proportionately fails/passes" a segment of society IF it wasn't specifically designed to do that. It's when you design the test to make the numbers match, you have committed an ethics violation with the statistics.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
1. I see the APFT (the Army's PT test, I've forgotten what you guys do these days), however imperfect, as a decent measure of screening a soldier's ability to perform basic combat tasks, that is, lifting one's own weight up repeatedly and some sort of cardiovascular measure. Plus it can be conducted anywhere with no equipment. It remains the only test that every soldier in the Army must undertake regardless of age, rank, job, or deployability.
2. I agree. This test should not be used to measure health.
3. I'm not sure what gender neutral means anymore because Army leadership has so bastardized the word.
I fully concur with you that we should not be in the business of making "numbers match". I have no issue with using a test as a screening criteria which makes sure that a high proportion of the force can complete infantry-like tasks. If that retains 99% of women or screens out 99% matters little to me as long as the test is universal, appropriate to the goal, and not designed to consider disparate impact based on age or sex.
2. I agree. This test should not be used to measure health.
3. I'm not sure what gender neutral means anymore because Army leadership has so bastardized the word.
I fully concur with you that we should not be in the business of making "numbers match". I have no issue with using a test as a screening criteria which makes sure that a high proportion of the force can complete infantry-like tasks. If that retains 99% of women or screens out 99% matters little to me as long as the test is universal, appropriate to the goal, and not designed to consider disparate impact based on age or sex.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MAJ Bill Darling -
1) It's a horrible test for Combat Fitness. The USMC developed the Combat Fitness Test (CFT) realizing that the (Marine) Physical Fitness Test didn't actually actually measure Combat Prowess at all. They have been tweaking it over the last couple years.
2) It's a Physiology Test. The only thing it does is measure Health. Cardiovascular (running endurance), Core Strength (sit-ups), and Upper Body Strength (endurance repetitions). It's useless for anything else.
3) In theory "Gender-Neutral" is removing Gender from the equation. If a test was designed for a Male/Man to pass it, we must make it Gender-Neutral so that any Healthy Human can pass it. If it is Genderless, then it was designed with an Objective Standard in place. We wanted a person to be able to accomplish X task in Y time. Their gender was never a consideration. PFTs are Genderbased, ASVABs are Genderless.
1) It's a horrible test for Combat Fitness. The USMC developed the Combat Fitness Test (CFT) realizing that the (Marine) Physical Fitness Test didn't actually actually measure Combat Prowess at all. They have been tweaking it over the last couple years.
2) It's a Physiology Test. The only thing it does is measure Health. Cardiovascular (running endurance), Core Strength (sit-ups), and Upper Body Strength (endurance repetitions). It's useless for anything else.
3) In theory "Gender-Neutral" is removing Gender from the equation. If a test was designed for a Male/Man to pass it, we must make it Gender-Neutral so that any Healthy Human can pass it. If it is Genderless, then it was designed with an Objective Standard in place. We wanted a person to be able to accomplish X task in Y time. Their gender was never a consideration. PFTs are Genderbased, ASVABs are Genderless.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I think job specific standards would be ridiculous. Lowering the standards to the female standards is ridiculous. Having women meet the male standards is ridiculous. The Army needs to 100% hit the reset button on standards and physical fitness test. It's time for change. They have changed almost everything else, so why not? I don't think they will change anything anytime soon, I'll probably be retired by the time they do.
(5)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SGM (Join to see) - I had no idea. We don't hear much about this stuff in the reserves.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
SGM (Join to see) - Were you in during the late 90s or early 00s when a new APFT got leaked? The PPT had pictures and written descriptions and was fairly viral. They had some pull-up/leg hook thing going on and pull-ups I think. I thought "Oh this will never see the light of day". Sure enough, after a few months I never heard anything about it.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SGM (Join to see) - This is very interesting! I'm looking forward to seeing the change. Please keep us updated on here if possible.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
MAJ Bill Darling - The movement you're describing is commonly called the "Heel-clapper" or "Kip-up". It's used in the Upper Body Round Robin, which is a fitness assessment used in USASOC and also taught as part of PRT. I wasn't quite in the Army then, I joined in mid-2005, but I think the current APFT serves it's purpose; the APFT is a fitness assessment. Would I like a strong assessment? Absolutely. But the Army is a reflection of society in that it's overall lazy.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I would love to have to do 10 push ups, 10 situps and 22 minutes for my 2 mile run.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google