641–650 of 724 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
more isnt the problem. or its not the first problem. >predictions suggested only 3% of black applicants would pass. Thats not '3% of the applicants are black'. It's '3% of black applicants pass the test' Starting there alone would yield meaningful results - at the end of the day, you gotta pass the test. Changing the test so more people pass is illogical and dangerous.
Okay, but... HOW do you enable more black people to pass the test?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you started out your hiring practices focused solely on one race...and you don't think it's racist?
What do you expect the approach to be when your goal is to go out into the world and find qualified people in demographics you aren't getting naturally in your applicant pool? If you want to hire women software engineers you solicit applicants from "women in tech" events and groups. The belief, whether you agree with it or not, is that diverse teams produce better results. If your natural applicant pool is all dudes…
> In a moment of dark irony, the sort of diversity-focused work she’s passionate about—not lowering the bar, but inspiring more people and providing them with mentorship and opportunity to reach it Discrimination by race, gender and sexual orientation (aka DEI, jokingly disabbreviated as "didn't earn it") always results in lowering the bar. No exceptions. Either the candidate earns a position fair and square, in whic…
> Either the candidate earns a position fair and square, in which case you don't need "DEI", or you are discriminating against someone else more deserving, and therefore lowering the bar overall. False dichotomy. It's possible that in some situations DEI could replace cronyism and produce better hires. I have no idea how often that actually happens, but I know that cronyism happens a lot.
DEI is simply a framework. Like Agile, it can be well implemented if the person implementing it understands the problems it is trying to address, along with its limitations. And just like Agile, it can be poorly implemented when the person implementing it does not understand its purpose, or hates the framework and cynically implements it under protest. In both cases, the poor implementations should not justify throwi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, disc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "... slapping a coat of culture war paint on it - and then selling it as a new scandal..." Astounding level of misdirection/cope here, bordering on non-factual. Did we just read the same article? This is the textbook example of a DEI scandal and was so from the very beginning. I mean the "textbook" part literally, employment discrimination law textbooks will dedicate whole chapters to this scandal for decades at a…
"Students understood that the FAA hired virtually everyone who completed the program and passed the assessment." It sounds like they couldn't hire enough people to fill vacancies. The diversity push could have been an attempt to encourage a wider range of people to consider the occupation.
Except it was demonstrably of the opposite of this. The bigraphical questionnaire rejected 90% of applicants for no justifiable reason.
In practice, diversity is much easier to achieve by reducing the opportunities of the undesirable demographics. This is one such example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not both? Near as I can tell, Cronyism goes hand in hand. Someone has to gatekeep who counts in what bracket, someone has to represent the bracket, etc. And the beauty is, the more brackets, the more true this is, and the more can be extracted from the system.
You're asking the wrong person there. "Both" concedes that it was "DEI" But to actually answer the question: while it can absolutely be both, you need to provide proof of the additional claim. "People cheated for DEI reasons" and "People cheated for cronyism reasons" are two separate claims. The article provides plenty of evidence for the former and not much for the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which means, if every kid has an equal opportunity (in an absolute sense or on average) to develop the requisite skills to be an air traffic controller and if every kid was equally inclined to apply, and the application process were fair, then eventually around 1/8 of air traffic controllers would be black. It doesn't mean that at all. Well, depending on what you mean. It could just be that your premise is known to…
Of course my premise doesn’t hold, and the glaringly obvious cause is historical inequality. This doesn’t mean that the FAA should mess with its hiring process in an ill-conceived and very likely illegal attempt to make it look like the problem doesn’t exist. But, to me, it would be absurd to suggest that the air traffic controllers should be “diverse” in the sense that a “minority” group should be represented in exc…
No, this is false. You don't appear to know what you're trying to postulate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you stop trying to force blacks into the job and hire whoever applies and is the most qualified. This way people don't die just so leftists can feel satisfied.
The problem, of course, is that due to "disparate impact" doctrine, this (and colourblind hiring in general) is de facto illegal, and DEI scale-tipping is de facto mandatory (even though it's almost always de jure illegal). Large American employers basically all face the same double bind: if they do not disriminate in hiring, they almost certainly will not get the demographic ratios the EEOC wants, and will get sued…
What I think is weird is how many firms have this reason, but do it for other stated reasons and don't simply state this compliance nuance. I figure more people would accept your "paragraph three strategy" as an acceptable means to a required end. Maybe this threat is more of a "what if" that has lower probability of enforcement so in practice, getting hunted for this is not that likely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here ya go: Academy attrition on page 38. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/controller_staf...
This is really helpful. I take something different from it than you do (it looks like attrition starkly increases after 2014, in ways I'd strongly argue it's reasonable to attribute to the new hiring methods), but I'm grateful you posted it. Do you know if more complete/precise numbers are available anywhere (hiring counts, hiring+attrition, etc? I'm aware of this but it leaves attrition to be inferred. https://www.n…
You have a wave of much higher attrition after 2013 because....You have a lot more trainees on fewer trainers.
That means more load is placed on fewer trainers resulting on page 45 where you spike from 20% to 25% ratio.
Combine that with the very valid point that this is not CIT folks but qualifying citizens being admitted, you can see the impact of having a 56% higher attrition rate!
Here's a bunch of plans to comb through for the full numbers. I don't have a spreadsheet off hand.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/controller_staf...
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2021-11/FAA-Controll...
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/controller_staf...
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/controller_staf...
Alas - my key point is this: the statement
> Has this had a long-term impact on aviation safety and air traffic controller shortages? Likely yes."
may have been highly attributable in 2018 timeframe but the real culprit is just as likely the 2013 sequester - I'd caution to say any one cause is the reason but rather there is a combination between a shift in applicant pool, having to deal with a slight burst in retirements, recovering from sequester and revamped training processes. Heck - maybe even not having an administrator from 2017-2018 might have caused issues.
In the cold light of 2025 with impacts from COVID still reverberating, I'd doubt hiring practices as much as any other arbitrary reason.