« Are You a Reasonable Person? | Home | So NOW what? Nothing. »
What Price Are You Willing to Pay For Diversity?
By Matt Margolis | August 26, 2003
Ahhhhh… how refreshing it was today to be sitting in Starbucks with an iced latte and to see this Boston Globe story.
Oh how sweet it is to finally see something good in the Boston Globe!
A federal judge has ordered the Boston Fire Department to hire four white men who successfully challenged the department’s affirmative action policy and award them back pay and the seniority they would have earned had they not been passed over for lower-scoring minorities three years ago.
This is a good day for people who believe in fairness and equality. Can you believe it? An important job such as firefighting had its hiring policy perverted by affirmative action.
For the first time since the affirmative action plan was put in place 30 years ago, the city will be forced to compensate white applicants who say the hiring policy violated their civil rights.
Isn’t that a noble concept… white people deserve civil rights too…
“I think hopefully we’re just going back to normal, the way it was meant to be, so that now they are just hiring the best person, regardless of race or color,” said attorney Harold Lichten, who represents the four men who challenged the hiring plan in court..
That’s right, the way it was meant to be: pick the best applicants. Does anyone want to put their lives in the hands of the most “diverse” fire department, or the smartest and strongest?
In his four-page decision released yesterday, US District Judge Richard G. Stearns stressed that his order was limited to the four men who sued and wasn’t intended to establish a precedent with respect to other white applicants who were also passed over in October 2000. A Globe analysis showed that 70 white men and women were bypassed in favor of minorities who scored lower.
Seventy white applicants were passed over for lower scoring minority applicants… How sad. If I was in a burning building, I wouldn’t care what color the firefighter was, I just want them to best there was to offer because being a firefighter is surely no easy job, and if I have to discriminate against the less qualified – then tough… it’s my life we’re talking about here. I want someone who met the qualifications, not someone who’s skin color allowed them to get the job over someone who was better.
Stearns ordered that the four men be hired “at the next immediate opportunity to fill vacancies.”
Here’s an idea, lets send the unqualified firefighters back to the books so they can reapply and give the qualified white applicants those jobs they had been previously denied.
Attorney Toni Wolfman, who represents the NAACP, which brought the 1972 suit that triggered the affirmative action policy, disagreed with Lichten’s statement that the court rulings will lead to a more “normal” hiring practice.
I hear an idiot bell ringing soon.
“If a return to normal means a return to the way in which the Boston Fire Department conducted its hiring prior to the mid 1970s, it will be a disaster for any applicants of color in the city,” said Wolfman, adding that there’s not an effective check on the discretion used by those doing the hiring.
I’m terribly sorry is Attorney Wolfman doesn’t believe minority applicants are qualified to be firefighters on their own merit. If hiring based on qualifications puts minorities at a disadvantage, then perhaps the problem isn’t with the hiring process…
Each of the plaintiffs had been bypassed several times for firefighter jobs, despite scoring 98 or better on the civil service exam. All five had scored 99 when they were passed over for appointment three years ago.
…All in the name of “diversity.” What a crock.
By 2000, according to data collected in the case, 40 percent of Boston firefighters were black or Hispanic, slightly more than their 38 percent representation in the overall population.
Oh no! Where’s the disaster for minorities! Geez, next thing you know this will be too good for them, and then they’ll complain that too many minorities are in “high risk” jobs like firefighting.
If not for the ruling, some of the men would never get another chance to be firefighters because they’re more than 32 years old, the maximum age for applicants, Lichten said.
I wonder what it must feel like to have your goal in life stolen from you in the name of “diversity.” I wonder what it must feel like to be caught in a burning building and wondering the firefighters coming to get you are there because they were the best of the best, or because they had the right skin tone.
I want the best people fighting fires. I want the best people caring for patients. I want the best people teaching children. I want the best people researching for cures to diseases. I want the best people getting the jobs… When it’s your life on the line, wouldn’t you want the same thing? What price are you willing to pay for diversity?
Topics: Thoughts |
Related Posts:
August 27th, 2003 at 12:08 am
page 1a of the Globe too….what a suprise that was
August 27th, 2003 at 4:00 am
We’re in 100% agreement on this one.
I don’t give a rats ass what “color” a firefighter/police officer/EMT is.. They passed the test for the job, and AA had zilch to do with their being in a position where their actions could determine whether I live or die that’s all I care about.
August 27th, 2003 at 10:23 am
You know how the old saying goes: “Two steps backwards, one step forward.”
August 27th, 2003 at 10:38 am
BAAA!!! Bush lied. BAAA!!! People died.
‘Ewe’ erased the sheep!?
August 27th, 2003 at 10:44 am
Rejoicing watching my CNN! They are finally cleaning up that huge piece of garbage in Alabama - removing that monument of intolerance and hate from blocking a government building. My joy is somewhat tempered that they are only moving it - I’d love to see it smashed into 10 million pieces.
Anyway, a great day for the defeat of intolerance - at least the best until we elect Hillary and throw Bush and his family into jail!
Big party at indymedia. People are dancing on their keyboards!
August 27th, 2003 at 10:58 am
Yeah, that “Thou shalt not kill” is pretty damn intolerant. BTW clueless one, the Ten Commandment post is a few posts down.
Hmmm btw you are pretty open-minded when it comes to respecting another’s religion. Calling one person belief trash. Yep mighty tolerant of you.
People are dancing on their keyboard over at indymedia, no wonder their posts never make any sense. You are supposed to type on the keyboard, silly liberal.
August 27th, 2003 at 11:06 am
Amazing how the foundation for modern law and order is considered garbage.
August 27th, 2003 at 11:43 am
This gives me a brilliant idea how to raise even more money for Dean, Hillary, etc.. We can bring that hateful rock to Phish and Radiohead concerts, and other progressive events and have a “hate smash” fundraiser. People can pay per sledgehammer whack just like those car smashes at those redneck “state fairs”.
We’ll bring replicas of the rock (as well as Limbaugh, Coulter, Zionist occupyer, etc.) to progressive gatherings everywhere. We will trounce all fundseizing of the Nazi Repukes! Despite the right-wing media, we will own the airwaves and sweep intolerance out of office!
August 27th, 2003 at 12:10 pm
So young, so full of hate. what did your parents do to you??
August 27th, 2003 at 12:27 pm
This comment thread is going off topic. Please discuss the issue of the Ten Commandments monument in the comment thread of Thou Shalt Not Remove.
August 28th, 2003 at 9:52 am
How can a Federal judge command a Boston Fire Department to do anything, persuant with the tennants of federalism that many of you have expressed before?
September 1st, 2003 at 2:13 am
TruthInMedia–Good question.
I’m gonna throw out a possibility (that I actually just thought of). Perhaps the city’s Affirm-Action program was performed to be inline with some sort of federal mandate?
[I’m sure that if someone really wanted to they could LexisNexis the story)
September 2nd, 2003 at 1:29 pm
Let’s see - you seem to agree that it’s against the basic tenants of Federalism for a Federal judge to order a State entity to do something. However, you seem to believe that if it’s making up for past injustices, it’s ok.
In addition to sounding surpisingly like one justification for Affirmative Action, let me ask you:
Would it not be more in line with the tennants of Federalism for the new Federal judge to merely recind the previous order, allowing the state to make it’s own decision as to if it should keep the AA program?
AdvaThanksnce
September 2nd, 2003 at 3:32 pm
Truth–
I was just throwing an idea out.
There has to be a reason why this case was in Federal court (otherwise it wouldn’t make sense). I’m just not sure of the whole story or the history of it either.
September 2nd, 2003 at 4:06 pm
The case is in court because of the Fourteenth Amendment, the one that Federalism wishes would just go away.
I’m trying to figure out exactly why people who profess to believe in Federalism are applauding so loudly as a Federal entity steps all over their precious Tenth Amendment.
Perhaps Federalists are not as honest as they might like to believe in their Strict-Constructionist views.
IE - Federalism is what Federalists want it to be. No more, no less.
December 25th, 2003 at 10:35 am
“This book [speaking of the bible] is the secret of
England’s greatness.” Queen, Victoria Windsor
“My daily advisor and comfort is the impregnable rock
of the Holy Scriptures.” Gladstone, architech of
American law
“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of
life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.
These will make you a greater and happier people than
you are. Congress will do every thing they can to
assist you in this intention.” a message to the
Native American Indians, May, 12th, 1779 by, George
Washington, 1st US President
“Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not
only of republicanism and of all free government, but
of social felicity under all governments and in all
the combinations of human society.” John Adams, 2nd
US President
“I have always said, and will always say, that the
studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us
better citizens, better husbands, and better fathers.”
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US President, 1st Washington
D.C. school board president
“Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil
Society, he must be considered as a subject of the
Governor of the Universe… Religion… is the basis
and foundation of government.” James Madison, 4th US
President, chief architect of the Constitution
“The Declaration of Independence first organized the
social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s
mission upon earth and laid the corner stone of human
government upon the first precepts of Christianity.”
John Quincy Adams, 6th US President
“The bible is the rock on which our Republic rest.”
Andrew Jackson, 7th US President
“I am profitably engaged in reading the Bible. Take
all of this upon reason that you can, and balance on
faith, and you will live and die a better man.”
Abraham Lincoln, 16th US President
“I am sorry for the men who do not read the Bible
daily. I wonder why they deprive themselves of the
strength and the pleasure. I should be afraid to go
forward if I did not believe that there lay at the
foundation of all schooling and all our thought this
imcomparable and unimpeachable Word of God.” Woodrow
Wilson, 28th US President
“Almost every man who has by his life work added to
the sum of human achievements of which the race is
proud - has based his life work largely upon the
teachings of the Bible.” Theodore Roosevelt, 32nd US
President
“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals;
therefore, education should teach the precepts of
religion, and the duties of man towards God.”
Gouveneur Morris, scribe / handwriter of the
Constitution
“Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scuple not to
call him an enemy to this country.” John
Whitherspoon, Continental Congress, Declaration of
Independence
“Providence has given to our people the choice of
their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the
privelege and interest of our Christian Nation to
select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” John
Jay, 1st Supreme Court Justice
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often
that this great nation was founded, not by
religionist, but by Christians, not on religions but
on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this reason
peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum,
prosperity and freedom of worship here.” Patrick
Henry, Continental Congress
“…convincing proofs I see… that God governs in the
affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the
ground without His notice, is it probable that an
empire can rise without His aid?” Benjamin Franklin,
Constitutional Convention,
“Of all the dipositions and habits which lead to
political prosperity, religion and morality are
indispensable supports… . Reason and experience
both forbid us to expect that national morality can
prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”
Alexander Hamiltion, 1st Secretary of Treasurer
“The moral principles and precepts contained in the
Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil
constitutions and laws… . All the miseries and
evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition,
injustice, opppression, slavery, and war, proceed from
their despising or neglecting the precepts contained
in the Bible.” Noah Webster, American Revolutionist,
Constitutional Convention, Dictionary
“There is not a community which cannot be purified,
redeemed and improved by a better knowledge and larger
application of the Bible to daily life.” W.J. Bryan,
Democratic Orator and statesman, ran three times for
presidency and failed, nicknamed the Commoner
“I suspect that the future progress of the human race
will be determined by the circulation of the Bible.”
Dr. R.A. Millikan, 1923 Nobel prize winner in physics
“Our ways; through a Christian President, finally
outlawed slavery in America with the world soon
following its lead. The great freedoms we enjoy are
the direct result of the Christian faith of our
predecessors. No great civilization or religion from
the world did it; it was our Christian Forefathers and
Foremothers and their open faith in God through the
Jesus Christ that did.”
William M. Cooper
Kingsville, TX
coopr2000@yahoo.com
http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/8857