Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

tracingwoodgrains.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 724 posts

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#291

Post by fallingknife »

eastbound wrote: post #232
legitster wrote: post #83

This is a fascinating read, but the thing that bugs me about this whole affair is that when this came to light many years ago it was treated as a cheating and recruitment scandal. But only recently has it been reframed as a DEI issue. Taking old, resolved scandals - slapping a coat of culture war paint on it - and then selling it as a new scandal is already a popular MO for state-sponsored propoganda, so we should be…

In 2021, the Al Jezeera documentary on Boeing’s airframes was commented in Yt as a DEI scandal. Post-reframing consists in telling people it wasn’t introduced as this, which may be true for journalists but clearly understood by the audience as a DEI issue, then claiming the DEI issue is slapped upon an existing problem. Agressive DEI has been uniformly contested since it was introduced, by (practically) everyone who…

Not yet. The SC has ruled it illegal for university admissions but it somehow still remains allowed for corporate hiring. Even then, just because the court has ruled on it doesn't mean it will actually stop. The DEI people are snakes and will continue to find more sneaky ways to implement their illegal racist quotas and more newspeak to describe it in a "legal" way.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#292

Post by rdtsc »

adamrezich wrote: post #234
gr3ml1n wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll try to assume good faith, but this is the sort of framing often used in the waning days of unpopular ideas. That's not what DEI ever was. It fundamentally came down to evaluating disparate impact and then setting targets based on it. The underlying idea is that if a given pool (in the US, generally national- or state-level statistics) has a racial breakdown like so: 10% X 30% Y 60% Z But your company or organiza…

The part that always made this obviously insane for any systems-thinking person is as follows: For the sake of the argument, assume that X, Y, and Z all have ~100% equal preference for positions A, B, and C at a given company or organization, and assume that it is merely “historical/institutional discrimination” that has led to X, Y, and Z percentages of A, B, and C failing to match X, Y, and Z population percentages…

> The part that always made this obviously insane for any systems-thinking person is as follows [...] if the problems are indeed as dire as claimed, then instead, proper steps must be taken to solve the root causes of the perceived disparities—and also, proper steps must be taken to ensure that the base assumptions you started with

That's why a smart systems-thinking person kept it to themselves.

It's a funny thing. It's one of those issues where everyone in the room will publicly always nod and agree with at the time, yet everyone thinks "this is not going to lead to a good outcome".

So basically everyone could see the train crashing at some point but nobody would say anything.

An evidence of this is as soon as the "floodgates" opened, all these companies started dropping DEI initiatives and closing departments like that. If their bottom lines clearly showed they had improved their financials due to it, they would adamantly defend it or double down. But they are not:

Boeing:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/boeing-quietly-dis...

Meta:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/10/tech/meta-ends-dei-progra...

Not sure how you'd call this phenomenon? Ideological prisoner's dilemma? It should have a name, I feel.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#293

Post by dj_gitmo »

One of the reasons that these attempts to increase diversity are such a mess is because it is illegal to have a straightforward quota.

If these agencies could just have a policy like "Group X is %Y of the population. This agency must hire at least %Y/2 from group X", there would be no need to have these sneaky roundabout methods of increasing equity.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#294

Post by saynay »

gadders wrote: post #179

This is so depressing. This is the sort of DEI effort that gives the rest a bad name. It should never, ever be about hard quotas. It absolutely should be about using some contextual information (factoring the person's school environment in) and challenging assumptions about stereotypes so that you are not deciding who is best on assumptions but on evidence.

Honestly, quotas would probably have been better than what was done here. Inventing a test (or 'questionnaire' as it was called here) where the goal was to filter out almost everyone who did not have the answer key, then only giving that answer key to the preferred race is just such a terrible way to do it.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#295

Post by kenjackson »

gr3ml1n wrote: post #192
ryandrake wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I even know what "DEI" is anymore. Political pundits have turned it into a generic slur, a boogeyman that vaguely means "I have to work with minorities now??" I've always thought it simply meant "drawing from the widest possible candidate funnel, including instead of excluding people who have traditionally been shut out." At least that's how all of my training sessions at work frame it. But, like everyt…

I'll try to assume good faith, but this is the sort of framing often used in the waning days of unpopular ideas. That's not what DEI ever was. It fundamentally came down to evaluating disparate impact and then setting targets based on it. The underlying idea is that if a given pool (in the US, generally national- or state-level statistics) has a racial breakdown like so: 10% X 30% Y 60% Z But your company or organiza…

DEI started as exactly what the original poster stated. It then has transformed many times, including through quotas (ruled unconstitutional in the 70s), and something similar to what you're talking about, to the more modern notion which is more about getting the best candidates from all populations.

Is there an example where colorblind hiring had a nil or opposite effect? In places I've seen, the opposite has happened. For example, https://www.ashkingroup.com/insights-media/the-power-of-blin...

The only place I can think of where the opposite is with college admissions, but college admissions is a weird thing in general in that I've never understood why admissions is tied to a stronger academic record (ties into, what's the goal of a given college). In areas such as sports, the impact has been even greater -- and there it's not even colorblind, but simply opened up the pool, and is more metrics driven than just about any profession.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#296

Post by aesh2Xa1 »

alcima wrote: post #276
Jimmc414 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when this came to light many years ago it was treated as a cheating and recruitment scandal. But only recently has it been reframed as a DEI issue. Respectfully, thats not accurate. The article actually shows that dei considerations were central to the original changes, not just recent framing. The FOIA requests show explicit discussions about "diversity vs performance tradeoffs" from the beginning. The NBCFAE role…

Was deeply aware of it at the time - was not really a DEI issue even then - it was pure cronyism.

The source article includes primary material that strongly contradicts your anecdote. The policy change arrived in 2013, and there are materials from that same year indicating DEI.

For example, here's an FAA slide from 2013 which explicitly publishes the ambition to place DEI as the core issue ("- How much of a change in jo performance is acceptable to achieve what diversity goals?"):

https://archive.ph/Qgjy5

The evidence in this source does not discuss cronyism, although I believe you that it could have been relevant to your personal experience; it's just false to claim the issue as a whole was unrelated to DEI.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#297

Post by ImJamal »

legitster wrote: post #225
bz_bz_bz wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Brigida lawsuit, from which we get a lot of the documents in the article, was filed in 2016 and has framed this as a DEI discrimination issue from the get-go.

With a grain of salt - any hiring lawsuit by its nature is going to be a discrimination case. The fact that everyone is really quick to just throw around DEI = discrimination is kind of my point. Even the text of the Brigida lawsuit clearly points out that nobody would have a problem with the FAA increasing minority representation in other ways.

If I deliberately hire whites more than other races nobody would deny that is discrimination. If I deliberately hire more minorities than whites, that is not discrimination?

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#298

Post by rdtsc »

> The FAA investigated, clearing the NBCFAE and Snow of doing anything wrong in an internal investigation

Ah yes, we carefully investigated ourselves and we have not found anything wrong. Thank you for your concern.

> Our organization, he said, “wasn’t for Caucasians, it wasn’t for, you know, the white male, it wasn’t for an alien on Mars,” and he confirmed that he provided information “to minimize the competition.”

It's like we're talking about a talent show not air traffic controllers.

I mean, shit, this just fuels Trump and his supporters' rhetoric and validates all the rambling and craziness involved around this topic.

Who needs enemies when you got friends doing this kind of stuff and shooting everyone in the foot. It's like Biden pardoning his son after talking about corruption and nepotism.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#299

Post by Manuel_D »

legitster wrote: post #277
oremolten wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please elaborate how DEI is not discrimination? Is hiring based on someone's RACE ever not discrimination?

DEI is just a loose label for having less discrimination in the workforce. There's nothing that implies exclusion unless you are intentionally bad faithing the meaning. Imagine the FAA was only attending job fairs in white parts of the country. Then they decide to attend job fairs in more diverse parts of the country. No one would suddenly decide they were prejudiced against white people! There's a difference between…

The DEI label has indeed been placed on overtly discriminatory practices. At 3 out of the 4 companies I've worked at carried out explicit discirmination under the banner of DEI. One such DEI policy was reserving a segment engineering headcount for "diverse" candidates. Quite literally forcing white and Asian men to give up their seat.

You're not in the position to unilaterally declare what DEI is and is not. I don't deny that there are plenty of non-discriminatory DEI programs that genuinely do aim to reduce discrimination. I don't think it's a good move to try and deny that DEI encompasses exclusionary and discriminatory practices, when so many people have witnessed exclusionary and discriminatory DEI programs firsthand.

Post reply on HN