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

321–330 of 724 posts

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#321

Post by scott_w »

lordloki wrote: post #305
scott_w wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are explicitly the inverse of DEI approaches. This is essentially a No True Scotsman fallacy. If it's DEI, it's bad so any good approach is, by definition, not part of DEI. > DEI is predicated on outcome diversity, rather than treating applicants equally irrespective of background. The first part of this is incorrect. Good DEI is about creating a level playing field (as you correctly point out for blind people…

Your entire argument is the No True Scotsman fallacy, so it's rather ironic for you to accuse others of it.

At no point do I say these bad initiatives are not “DEI,” since they clearly fit under the umbrella of DEI. I simply say they’re bad initiatives.

You might be confused by me saying “DEI isn’t the core of the problem,” but that’s not the same thing as saying “these bad things are not DEI.” I hope this clarifies things for you.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#322

Post by ryandrake »

aydyn wrote: post #315
ryandrake wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He told you something he personally did/witnessed, and you replied with "not true." I'm not sure how else he should have interpreted that.

I think he truly believes it, but given the totality of his post it's very likely wrong. I'm not saying he is lying or a liar. Again: > blind reviews where you can’t see the name or details of the applicant (to minimise subconscious bias). Its been shown that doing so _increases_ the amount of non-minority candidates selected, not the other way around.

I've done hundreds of interviews and have also never been asked to raise or lower any bar based on the gender or race of the candidate. Would you say my statement is "not true"?

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#323

Post by scott_w »

adolph wrote: post #268
scott_w wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I’ve said twice now: it was the actual thing that was done (in this case, lowering standards and throwing qualified people to the wolves) that was lazy and stupid, not the umbrella “DEI” itself. That’s because the actual work to get more candidates from diverse backgrounds is difficult and takes time. It’s things like outreach, financial support, changing societal attitudes. Instead of that, they took the lazy opt…

> As I’ve said twice now: it was the actual thing that was done (in this case, lowering standards and throwing qualified people to the wolves) that was lazy and stupid, not the umbrella “DEI” itself. No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one modifies a prior claim in response to a counterexample by asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition. Rather than admitting error or pr…

Copied from another comment:

At no point do I say these bad initiatives are not “DEI,” since they clearly fit under the umbrella of DEI. I simply say they’re bad initiatives. You might be confused by me saying “DEI isn’t the core of the problem,” but that’s not the same thing as saying “these bad things are not DEI.” I hope this clarifies things for you.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#324

Post by scott_w »

lordloki wrote: post #310
scott_w wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In our case, the recruitment team started by only headhunting target candidates. Once we exhausted that pool, they would headhunt any candidate. Just for clarity, this was for a publicly posted job position, so non-target candidates were able to, and did, put in applications. They were assessed the same way target candidates were.

So you started out your hiring practices focused solely on one race...and you don't think it's racist?

Weird how I knew performative outrage would be the response, just as night follows day.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#325

Post by RIMR »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #251
wand3r wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is kind of like the argument that communism is great but no one has been able to implement it correctly yet. "Setting targets" having highly paid DEI consultants, and identity based hiring is what DEI is. Lowercase diversity and inclusion are good ideals, which I think is what you are saying. Uppercase DEI are the exact policies we are talking about here.

Where do you think communism has been implemented correctly?

China is an economic giant that strongly competes with the the supremacy of the United States.

"Correctly" is a hard test to pass, because everyone is going to have a different opinion of what is "correct", but it's impossible to honestly say that China's government hasn't been effective and successful, policy disagreements notwithstanding.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#326

Post by riskable »

ImJamal wrote: post #297
legitster wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That depends: Are you underpaying them? The question, "why" matters here a lot.

"I tend to prefer minorities because I can underpay and get away with more" is a thing that exists in the real world. See: Immigrant farm workers and H1B visa holders.

Is that discrimination against white/majorities or is it a kind of discrimination against minorities? It's injustice, for sure but I point it out because DEI policies, discrimination, racism, and sexism come in many, many forms. There's a ton of nuance and grey areas.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#327

Post by [deleted] »

kenjackson wrote: post #295
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…

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 happen…

[deleted]

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#328

Post by hitekker »

Manuel_D wrote: post #141
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…

> Taking old, resolved scandals The lawsuit is still ongoing. The scandal has not yet resolved.

Yes, the scandal is not over because the FAA continued to conflate diversity with performance.

In 2023, the FAA set several, major goals for DEIA initiatives and only one target for hiring more Air Traffic controllers. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/FY23%20OSI-M%20and%2...

Or from 2021, where they wrote "Diversity + Inclusion = Better Performance" https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/office_org/hea...

Too many examples. Compared to 2016, the FAA of the 2020s was better at hiding their written bias. Nonetheless, they failed to attract the talent they needed.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#329

Post by ryandrake »

fallingknife wrote: post #287
jquery wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, the best DEI successes are the ones that reduce bias without relying on clumsy quotas. Blind auditions in orchestras led to a big jump in women getting hired. Intel’s push to fund scholarships and partner with HBCUs broadened their pipeline in a real way. And groups like Code2040 connect Black and Latino engineers with mentors and jobs, targeting root causes instead of surface-level fixes.

Hilarious that you mentioned the blind auditions in orchestras because now the DEI goons want to get rid of them! They say it hasn't got enough minorities in. Absolute proof that these people care only about race and don't give a damn about fairness. Source https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=8997844...

The article you linked discusses how problematic the other non-blind parts of the audition are: leaving people out ahead of the blind audition, pre-advancing people, and so on. One of the conclusions was that if the whole process was actually blind, the outcome would be better.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#330

Post by gr3ml1n »

jquery wrote: post #223
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…

I think it’s helpful to distinguish between botched DEI efforts and the broader intent behind DEI. Just because certain organizations implement it clumsily or rely on simplistic quota-filling doesn’t mean the entire idea is inherently flawed—any more than a poorly executed “merit-based” system would mean all attempts at measuring merit are invalid. If anything’s really losing credibility right now, it’s the myth of a…

> If anything’s really losing credibility right now, it’s the myth of a pure American meritocracy.

It only became a myth when we were forced to consider factors beyond merit in hiring.

Post reply on HN