LAPD SWAT to lower standards because it is not diverse enough

[syciprider]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,3411363.story

Long article, but here are some of the highlights.

Bratton (LAPD chief) made it clear that increasing SWAT's diversity was particularly important to him. In November 2005, he privately addressed the board about his goals for their inquiry. The final report quotes him: "I'm looking to create change within SWAT. The qualifications to get in are stringent. But are they too stringent? There are no women and few African Americans.... Are there artificial barriers for getting into SWAT that the 'good old boys' network has maintained?

Nevertheless, in keeping with Bratton's wishes, the final report devotes substantial space to how to bring in female and black officers. "The absence of women ... and the low number of African Americans in SWAT should be addressed and dealt with, and the membership of SWAT should be reflective of the community," the report says, although it offers no qualitative or quantitative evidence that this change would save a single life or lead to a single suspect's apprehension. The unit, the report says, has become "insular, self-referential and resistant to change."

The report goes on to say that "there is no task in SWAT that a woman could not perform" and that the selection criteria has "underemphasized negotiating skills, patience, empathy and flexibility while overemphasizing physical prowess and tactical acumen."

Based on the findings of the report, the LAPD has just instituted a new selection process for SWAT, according to a SWAT veteran who helped in the redesign. Instead of picking cops on the basis of their ability to handle weapons and stress, the new standards specifically exclude video-based shooting simulator evaluations and "Hogan's Alley," a daunting series of pop-up targets representing armed crooks and hostages. A simulated raid with flash-bang devices that previously disqualified many candidates who accidentally shot the "hostage" is also gone.

The new test's only physical challenges are a modest physical fitness qualification and a modified obstacle course. "My preteen daughter could pass that," one officer said. Applicants' scores will now largely come from an oral interview conducted by non-SWAT and non-LAPD supervisors. In essence, the test is largely subjective.

But it is the change in the selection process and the opening up of SWAT to applicants from outside Metro that have motivated SWAT officers' wives to launch an unusual e-mail campaign directed at Bratton and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, stating in part: "We are concerned with the safety of our husbands ... if they are expected to go into these highly dangerous situations with someone who got in under a compromised standard."

[mjolnir]

Wonderful.

Wanna put more women and black people in SWAT? Cool. No argument here. But it seems to me like they're pussifying SWAT to do it. Not cool, man.

[Happynoj]

I know that a lot of people will be against this, and while I think that there are obviously some down points to this, there are good points too. Perhaps it will mean that by basing selection less on macho-ness and deadliness, there will be more peaceful resolutions to situations? If people are less disinclined to barge in straight away with the MP5, then more arrests will be made, and less deaths will be caused?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by mjolnir

Wonderful.

Wanna put more women and black people in SWAT? Cool. No argument here. But it seems to me like they're pussifying SWAT to do it. Not cool, man.

+1 I have to agree, fair enough, let anyone try to get in. But they shouldnt drop the physical etc standards.

Things like that peeve me, over here just a few years ago Strathclyde police started "Positive Discrimination", they were trying to hire more people from ethnic minorities. The problem, there were a number of white people who were better qualified who were not being given the job because of the colour of thier skin

Originally Posted by Happynoj

I know that a lot of people will be against this, and while I think that there are obviously some down points to this, there are good points too. Perhaps it will mean that by basing selection less on macho-ness and deadliness, there will be more peaceful resolutions to situations? If people are less disinclined to barge in straight away with the MP5, then more arrests will be made, and less deaths will be caused?

When it comes to agencies like SWAT etc, is it not usually beyond the point of safety in attempting to defuse a situation? There is a reason there are small groups of heavies like that, they are needed at times

[Diggler]

They should choose the best of the best, period. As a matter of fact, every job should be like that. Screw diversity. The best person for the job gets it.

Do you want some unqualified person watching your six in a life and death situation, just because some arbitrary quota had to be reached? Let Bratton put his life on the line if he feels so strongly about it. Bratton's a racist, no doubt about it.

Accept excellence and skill, nothing less.

[TrooperFarva]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

When it comes to agencies like SWAT etc, is it not usually beyond the point of safety in attempting to defuse a situation? There is a reason there are small groups of heavies like that, they are needed at times

+1

SWAT isn't called in to make small-time, peaceful arrests

This whole thing reminds me of the FDNY a few years ago. They changed the admission tests, because some people felt the FDNY wasn't diverse enough. I have no problem with diversity, but I think lowering standards to get there is ridiculous. I don't think a warehouse fire is suddenly going to become less intense, to accomodate those who couldn't pass the old test.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by Diggler

They should choose the best of the best, period. As a matter of fact, every job should be like that. Screw diversity. The best person for the job gets it.

Do you want some unqualified person watching your six in a life and death situation, just because some arbitrary quota had to be reached? Let Bratton put his life on the line if he feels so strongly about it. Bratton's a racist, no doubt about it.

Accept excellence and skill, nothing less.

+1 Thats the truely fair way, it would be sexist, racist etc otherwise!

[Diggler]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

+1 Thats the truely fair way, it would be sexist, racist etc otherwise!

Lowering qualifications to achieve diversity... what does that REALLY say about the target demographic?

Yeah, they get more jobs... but through insinuation that we have to lower the standards or they can't do it.

The bigotry of lowered expectations.

[casualmadness]

Welcome to the USA. We are so overly concerned about offending and being seen as racist or exclusive that we are destroying thigns that we need in order to cater to anyone and everyone in a sense of fairness. I have no problems with women, black people, immigrants, etc. trying out for SWAT. I say, if a woman can hold her own, let her do it. But to lower the standards so that she can keep up? That's complete and total BS. But that's whats happening more and more in this country. It's a lot of why I left the military.
The military lowered the standards because it needed more bodies to fight the wars. So a lot of the discipline one finds in basic training has dissapeared. Standards were lowered to accomodate those who could not keep up. IN addition, stress cards were introduced into the training environment. I can't even imagine this. When I went through in the early part of this century I couldn't even imagine a stress card (though I had heard the the Army had tested them previous to my joining). But we didn't have them. And I was glad. But apparently they're back. Not just in the Army, but in the Marine Corps as well. A co-worker of mine served 8 years in the USMC and said that they had stress cards, and used them, in boot camp. Is nothing sacred anymore? Is there nothing that is safe from the PC police? Apparently not.
This country is being destroyed by crap like this. It really makes me sad.

[Mark Latimour]

Whilst I can empathise with their goals, I can't see why it makes sense to do it with a small specialist group like SWAT. It would be the same if they did it for Delta Force or the SAS, it doesn't make sense in relation to the mission requirements of a group. I see a group like this no different from the role of an actor in a film. You need the right person - period. You don't hire a 300lb mexican woman to play the role of Woody Allen, even if you have too many skinny white guys in your play.

However, I find it more difficult to understand why they have made the test subjective when the problem is that "the unit, the report says, has become "insular, self-referential and resistant to change", if the unit is opreating as a boys club, how is making the unit assess people on a subjective basis going to let more miorities in? It would make it easier for them to actively, rather than indirectly, discriminate. Bad logic all around.

[Happynoj]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

When it comes to agencies like SWAT etc, is it not usually beyond the point of safety in attempting to defuse a situation? There is a reason there are small groups of heavies like that, they are needed at times

Touche. Good point. *Shakes hand*

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by Diggler

As a matter of fact, every job should be like that. Screw diversity. The best person for the job gets it.

See, the problem with that is when you get an employer who has like, 20 positions and 800 applicants. Of those 800 applicants you have say a diverse group of 50 who are basically equal. None are substantially better or worse than each other. Yet, somehow, those 50 positions happen to get filled with the 20 white males rather than the females, minorities etc who made up those 50 equal applicants. This is a fairly common problem faced by employers in the graduate recruitment market, although often those numbers of "equal applicants" are a lot higher.

[Mon Rominee]

Originally Posted by mjolnir

Wonderful.

Wanna put more women in SWAT? Cool. But it seems to me like they're pussifying SWAT to do it.

Gee, why don't we call it T.W.A.T. while we're at it?

(I'm so totally kidding ladies...chill . If I totally crossed the line, I apologize)

[casualmadness]

Originally Posted by Mon Rominee

Gee, why don't we call it T.W.A.T. while we're at it?

(I'm so totally kidding ladies...chill)

[Happynoj]

Originally Posted by Mon Rominee

Gee, why don't we call it T.W.A.T. while we're at it?

(I'm so totally kidding ladies...chill If I totally crossed the line, I apologize)

I don't get it. What does the T stand for?

[Chriss62]

Did anyone here experience the '92 riots firsthand?

[casualmadness]

Originally Posted by Chriss62

Did anyone here experience the '92 riots firsthand?

I did. I was living in Hollywood at the time. Though I didn't personally see any of neighborhood burning down, I knew it was close. I moved soon after that ended.

[FL Knifemaker]

Welcome to Kalifohnia Great! Cure descrimination with reverse descrimination, that always works!! Save the quotas for pencil pushing jobs, not ones were peoples lives are on the line. When Police and SWAT personnel are tested you don't end up with many having the same test results, thats 100% BS. The testing isn't that simple. It should be interesting to see 8 women trying to knock down a door that it would have taken one QUALIFIED male to do

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by Happynoj

I don't get it. What does the T stand for?

T**s, Weapons And Tactics?

[Diggler]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

However, I find it more difficult to understand why they have made the test subjective when the problem is that "the unit, the report says, has become "insular, self-referential and resistant to change", if the unit is opreating as a boys club, how is making the unit assess people on a subjective basis going to let more miorities in? It would make it easier for them to actively, rather than indirectly, discriminate. Bad logic all around.

I think the quote you referenced may actually be a strength of the unit. A tight-knit group with intense camaraderie, as you could expect from a bunch of guys whose job is to go into life and death situations while wholly relying on each other, could be described in those terms.

They're an elite group, who rely on each other, and they've seen the elephant. Probably aren't going to be too open to whimsical changes by pencil pushers.

ETA: they'll probably get officers like this: