Boston to hire 6 rejected white firefighters


Recommended Posts

The Boston Fire Department has agreed to hire six men who were passed over in favor of minority group members with lower test scores, marking the first time the city has voluntarily agreed to hire rejected white applicants since a federal appeals court declared its affirmative action plan unconstitutional last March.

 

The six white men will join four others, who challenged the department's 29-year-old affirmative action plan and won a ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. All of the men had been turned down in favor of minority applicants who scored lower on a statewide civil service exam.

"This was a recognition by the city that the time has come to do away with the minority hiring preferences and judge everyone on an equal footing regardless of their race," said Mark J. Ventola, the lawyer for the six men who had filed suit in August. "It's a trend I'm hoping will continue."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...e_firefighters/

thoughts?

This is good I think. Affirmative action has no place in society. The playing field is level, and why does anyone need to advance because of color? Anyone who thinks that AA is needed, needs to ask themselves do they really think minorities need special allowances because they are less than you are? They aren't less and everyone has the same chances to do anything they want to do in life, but you should have to work for it and get there on your merits, not your color.:)

There should be closed interviews and tests, much like symphony orchestra auditions. The applicant and judges never speak or even see each other, it's all behind a curtain.

I agree with you silly_walk, doing everything this way is the only way to prevent discrimination. i do however feel that statistics should be kept in the aggregate so we can see trends and begin to determine the reasons behind them.

Makes me wonder how many other qualified people have been denied because of their race. I wonder how the community would feel knowing that the most qualified police, fire fighters, etc., are not serving because a magic number had to be met. I wonder if mistakes were made that wouldn't have been had the most qualified person been doing the job the first time around. Makes me wonder....

Makes me wonder how many other qualified people have been denied because of their race. I wonder how the community would feel knowing that the most qualified police, fire fighters, etc., are not serving because a magic number had to be met. I wonder if mistakes were made that wouldn't have been had the most qualified person been doing the job the first time around. Makes me wonder....

Kinda scary, isn't it?

Personally, I want things like my local firefighters on the job because of their demonstrated merit to do the job without consideration for race or whatever that's probably irrelevant. Certainly don't want any firefighter altering how they do their *own* job based upon race considerations of those they protect.

Am just sad in this case that lower test scores were initially "promoted", assuming the test is indeed markedly relevant to the job to be done.

Also sad that affirmative action may be / have been affecting things that can be *so* crucially important to actual merit. Not good.

In case of fire/emergency, i want the person who is able to help me, don't care if they are black, white, green or purple. I remember reading in the paper ~year ago about a woman suing because she was cut from fire dept application process. Her story: it was b/c she was a woman. THeir story with records and video to back it up: could lift ladder and get it to proper window. again who can help me in my time of need. apparently not her.

This is good I think. Affirmative action has no place in society. The playing field is level, and why does anyone need to advance because of color? Anyone who thinks that AA is needed, needs to ask themselves do they really think minorities need special allowances because they are less than you are? They aren't less and everyone has the same chances to do anything they want to do in life, but you should have to work for it and get there on your merits, not your color.:)

The playing field isn't level although it is more level than it has been traditionally.

I personally don't like AA because of the tokenism. "He's the token whatever that was hired through AA". If I was a minority who had the legitimate credentials then I'd hate to have to wear that assumed albatros around my neck.

I think there are better ways to get certain jobs more reflective of society. Education/advertising is good. Training and internship programs aimed at a certain minority would also be good.

I don't have a problem with encourging HR to hire an EQUALLY qualified minority over an EQUALLY qualified non-minority but once it dips to hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person then I don't think you're doing anybody a service (minority or not).

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • This got me thinking, would you rather a self driving car prioritise protecting its passengers or everyone else? I'd choose the one that keeps me and my kids safest. At some point, these cars have to make those choices already, don't they? Wonder if we have a way to find out what way they lean.
    • The proportion (or number of iterations) has nothing to with this aspect of Copyright I am describing. In short, it doesn't matter how many times the manager tells you to change something or how. Your work product is always YOURS until and unless you then assign that to the person representing the client/company, usually for financial compensation -- either in salary or as a subcontract work for hire payment. if iterations determined copyright, then businesses would have learned to just keep making changes until they could claim they owned the copyright, without having to compensate the artist for their work. And that would be BAD. The only place where the amount of changes does have a role is in how much does a human modify a previous public domain work (from any source) before it is considered fair use or their own work, etc. For example, if a human makes substantial changes to a public domain (re: AI, by definition) work, then they can then claim that derivative work as their own...but NEVER the original version, of course. That's why anyone can make a movie about Dracula, for example, as long as it is based on the public domain novel, but not if they take new ideas from copyrighted movies made afterwards. As one of the people who personally advised the US Copyright Office on their recent ruling on these very issues, be assured that I specifically used the terminology precisely -- though I made it simple enough for laymen to understand it. If I made this confusing by doing so, I apologize. But, to be clear regarding your assumption that I would agree to your second statement that I quoted above -- the answer is NO. If AI does the work, no matter how much "direction" you give it, it cannot be copyrighted. All AI generated content is in the Public Domain and therefore the copyright cannot be assigned to ANYONE, even you -- until and unless substantial modifications are made to it BY A HUMAN BEING (yourself or a contracted artist/writer/etc.) and then that copyright on the derivative work is legally (in writing) transferred to you. This is a critical distinction. And it is important that people, especially AI sloppers, understand this. For example, YouTube is not paying AI slop generators for the copyright, etc. of their AI slop. What YouTube is doing is sharing AD REVENUE for permission to publish your AI slop. Copyright/ownership/rights never come into it. Importantly, that means that anyone can copy any AI slopware on YouTube, etc. and rehost it anywhere they want, even back on YouTube, and there is nothing legal that YouTube can do about it with regards to copyright protections, ownership, DMCA, etc. Anyone is legally free to use any AI slopware in any way they want. When this ruling was pending, I warned Disney legal of all of this before they did their OpenAI deal -- that it would literally dilute their entire IP portfolio forever. They ignored that warning for the PR and stock bump. But that is why, when the ruling came down last year, Disney quickly extricated themselves from that OpenAI deal, even eating the initial upfront fees -- followed closely by OpenAI ending their entire AI video generating business model. They adjusted their PR release dates to make this less obvious to shareholders, of course. Phew. I hope that this clears up the key distinctions for you and anyone reading. If you have any additional questions or even hypotheticals about AI and Copyright, please feel free to ask.
    • Each of the devices displayed on this page now has a little volume meter next to it to show if there is audio actively playing. About time.
    • Owing to the nature of Windows feature enablement updates, it was distributed over Windows Update services as a complete system upgrade rather than as an ordinary cumulative update
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Week One Done
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      Skeet Campbell earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      Sharbel earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      565
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      188
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      79
    4. 4
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    5. 5
      neufuse
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!