Fire Chief

In April, the newly merged International Association of Women in Fire & Emergency Services held its first meeting. Several industry leaders offered remarks during the opening session. It was a modest affair of maybe 50 audience members. U.S. Fire Administrator Gregory Cade was among the speakers.

Cade told the women to “continue to make sure your voice is heard.” He said diversity was the strength of the fire service. He said, “We need you to bring that voice to the table, to bring that different perspective.”

He was right. Diversity almost always improves a situation over the long haul. For example, pure-blooded dogs fall victim to the same maladies as their predecessors because of their narrow genetic makeup. Mixed breeds, with their diverse genes, will have fewer incidents of things like epilepsy. Cade understood that a broader “genetic” makeup of the fire service culture will help it ward off illness.

Cade concluded his remarks by opening the floor for questions. At one point, a woman stood, gave the name of her Texas department, years of service and asked why PSOBs could not go to her same-sex partner. It wasn’t fair, she said, that line-of-duty-death benefits could not go to someone she considered a wife, and whose children she considered her own. It wasn’t fair that she was treated differently from a firefighter in a heterosexual marriage when she took the same risks.

She was right; it isn’t fair. But, she was wrong, too. It was explained to her that she could list any beneficiary she liked on her life insurance policy and that any PSOBs would go to that beneficiary. If she listed no beneficiary on her life insurance, the PSOB would go to her next of kin (by blood).

That she felt the need to proclaim her homosexuality in a public setting made for a few awkward moments at the meeting, but is of no consequence. That she must go through one more step than her heterosexual counterparts to ensure the benefits go to intended beneficiaries is unfair, but not a major problem. However, that she did not know to take that extra step is disconcerting.

Yes, it is possible that she knew the benefit requirements. Maybe she had been told and forgot. Maybe she had remembered but used the chance to speak to Cade in public as a way to advance a personal agenda or embarrass her chief. Judging by how she carried herself, I’d say the odds weigh strongly that her question was legitimate.

In a study conducted in 2006, the U.S. Census showed that there were 1.6 million people who claimed firefighter as their profession. A 2005 study by the National Fire Protection Association puts that figure at 1.1 million. The same 2006 Census data also shows that 0.7% of all U.S. households listed themselves as same-sex households. Many in the homosexual community believe this under-represents the number of gays and lesbians. The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research group that takes money from the government and private sector, also looked at gay and lesbian demographics. One of that study’s findings is that 2.8% of military personnel, active and reserve, are homosexual.

It is probably near impossible to determine how many homosexuals serve on volunteer and career fire departments. That number may be as high as 4,000 or as low as 1,000. Either way, it is a relatively small number.

That small number does not diminish the importance of making sure all firefighters are informed about their benefit options. It doesn’t matter on the fireground if the lead RIT member or ambulance driver is heterosexual, homosexual or asexual, nor should it matter in the fire station. There is no need to belabor how important each team member is in that situation.

There are deeply rooted prejudices in our society toward homosexuals. This was evident in the 2004 presidential elections when a proposed Constitutional ban on gay marriage became a major campaign issue. It also was evident when the Clinton administration tried to solve the issue of homosexuals in the military. In the end, it came up with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; in other words, the best it could do was punt.

Because fire chiefs cannot afford to have one of their team enter a burning structure with doubts about if his or her loved ones will be provided for, they cannot punt. As leaders, fire chiefs must rise above society’s prejudices, and perhaps their own, to protect the individual and those on the department who depend on that individual.

A frank, nonjudgmental discussion about all the benefit options is one step fire chiefs can take toward creating a better, more diverse genetic pool in the fire service culture. It also is a step to avoid being called out in front of the U.S. Fire Administrator.

For more on the I-Women and state of women in the fire service, read my interview with the group’s co-president Cheryl Horvath in the Size Up section of June’s FIRE CHIEF.