BY BOBBY HALTON
After every significant fire—especially those that result in a tragedy—we always hear folks say that we must learn from this event so that it never happens again. Unfortunately, those of us who’ve been around for a while know that tragedy does happen again—maybe not quite exactly the same way but, sure enough, it does happen. Unfortunately, learning from the experiences of others is not quite as straightforward or as simplistic as it sounds. To begin with, every fire, literally every fire, has unique characteristics and unique circumstances. Both may compel it to behave in radically different ways than fires that we had encountered previously that appear on the surface to be similar.
It is the same with community issues affecting the fire service: We hear a lot of language today about social issues like collectivism and the common good. It’s the same language that folks speaking about public programs and the fire department have been using for the past 50 years. We see a lot of well-intentioned people trying to create environments that they feel are more appropriate or more correct in their own world view. Many of them, albeit well-intentioned people, have no way to truly know what effect their actions to correct what they see as “wrongs” will have on the fire service.
There are very good people who believe that we should not exclude anyone from the fire service based on their inability to meet our minimum standards or for any particular flaws in their character prior to joining the fire service, such as having been convicted of a felony. Whether those standards are as simple as passing a Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT) exam or a basic functional math and English skills exam or meeting a more demanding requirement such as having entry-level candidates possess Firefighter 1 and 2 certification and/or an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) certificate, they feel these requirements are prejudicial. Their logic even extends to our promotional exams; they feel that “special preference” and advantages should be given to persons based on a variety of issues. They believe that by providing these advantages, they are leveling the playing field, righting past wrongs, and furthering the common good.
We should not find this surprising, for this very attitude was prevalent among some of the very first settlers in our great nation. Before leaving on their voyage to the Americas, the pilgrims entered into a covenant that said
| Solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body-politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforementioned. The persons transported and the Adventurers shall continue their joint stock and partnership together, the space of seven years…during which time all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons, remain in the common stock until division. |
With this covenant, the pilgrims gave away all of their rights to private property in order to, in their minds, ensure the success of the colony. In effect, they created a commune by putting all of their property into a common pool to be divided equally for daily survival—hence, the term Commonwealth: All the wealth and everything they worked for would be held in common.
Unfortunately, people were not much different back then than they are today. Some worked hard, some barely worked at all, but all freely shared equally in the fruits of their labor. Because they were all sharing equally, they almost starved to death for their first three years. Additionally, those who worked hard became extremely resentful of those who barely worked at all, so tensions flared and tempers grew short.
After three years, the colony leaders gathered together and decided that they had had enough of their experiment with collectivism and decided to fundamentally change their organization and replace it with a system of private property and merit. In 1623, pilgrim Bradford wrote a lengthy passage in his diary describing their momentous decision to allow, as he put it, every man to work “for his own particular,” to work his own crops on his own.
Today, many wonderful people honestly believe and will argue that the good of the collective outweighs the rights of the individual, that hard work and earning something are not requirements, and that we are nevertheless entitled to that which we have done nothing to deserve. Thoughts like these will lead to starvation, whether or not this starvation exhibits itself as physical, emotional, or organizational.
The history of the fire service tells a different story. Every man and woman who wants to become a member of the fire service earns it by competing fairly and openly against their peers for the opportunity. Once we become members, our career paths are up to us. If you apply yourself and study, if you put out the extra effort, if you extend yourself beyond the average, you promote. Every promotion is earned, it is fought for, it is something that requires extra effort, and that effort is rewarded with extra responsibility.
Yes, every fire is different, but the fundamental nature of man is as it was when our nation was founded, and the principles of firefighting remain the same as they were for those who began our profession in 8 A.D. And the moral principles of our society remain the same. The pilgrims learned the hard lessons of unearned privilege and access. The moral sense of the fire service—empathy, fairness, duty, and self-discipline—recognizes the value of the individuals and celebrates the accomplishments and contributions they earn and make.
