←back to thread

The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

(www.tracingwoodgrains.com)
739 points firebaze | 5 comments | 05 Feb 25 05:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.777s | source
Show context
wand3r ◴[05 Feb 25 06:24 UTC] No.42944621[source]▶
> I know, I know. The evidence is unambiguous that the bar was lowered, deliberately, over many years and with direct knowledge. The evidence is unambiguous that a cheating scandal occurred. The whole thing is as explosive as any I’ve seen, and it touches on a lot of long-running frustrations.

This is likely the most common complaint about DEI, it provides grounds for race based discrimination and lowers the bar. I am sure this was not the only government agency that did something like this and it will really hurt the Democrats chances of success for the future. Their core messaging has really boiled down to "black and brown people, women and LGBTQ are our constituency" and predictably this has turned a lot of people off the party. Especially since they haven't really delivered much even for these groups.

replies(5): >>42944818 #>>42944883 #>>42949009 #>>42949397 #>>42952825 #
spectraldrift ◴[05 Feb 25 06:58 UTC] No.42944883[source]▶
The bar wasn’t lowered at all. What happened was that the FAA stopped giving preferential treatment to a separate group—namely, CTI graduates—by replacing their streamlined path with a flawed biographical screening. Every candidate still has to pass the same rigorous training and certification.
replies(5): >>42944905 #>>42945031 #>>42945150 #>>42949971 #>>42950309 #
NitpickLawyer ◴[05 Feb 25 07:31 UTC] No.42945150[source]▶
You created this account 1hr ago, and are already 3 comments in on this topic. In all your comments you're doing mental gymnastics on a pretty clear-cut case. they have tapes.

Imagine, for a second, having tapes on someone saying "Our organization, he said, “wasn’t for ~~Caucasians~~ <insert minority here>, it wasn’t for, you know, the ~~white~~ <insert minority here> male, it wasn’t for an alien on Mars,” and he confirmed that he provided information “to minimize the competition.”

Would you still argue this the way you are doing? Would this still have been buried? Are you actually trying to argue this isn't a blatant case of racism?!

replies(1): >>42945404 #
spectraldrift ◴[05 Feb 25 07:58 UTC] No.42945404[source]▶
Let's focus on the article and evidence rather than personal details or dismissive labels. Personal attacks don't add to the discussion and go against HN guidelines for civil and substantive debate.
replies(2): >>42945450 #>>42945477 #
1. NitpickLawyer ◴[05 Feb 25 08:03 UTC] No.42945450[source]▶
You are right. My bad. Please disregard the first line.

The tapes thing still holds, tho. They have tapes. Care to comment on those?

replies(1): >>42945623 #
2. spectraldrift ◴[05 Feb 25 08:24 UTC] No.42945623[source]▶
I disagree with the actions of the rogue employee who leaked those instructions, that's clearly wrong and illegal, and it's right to call that out. However, I believe there is some misunderstanding because sharing those answers doesn’t mean the FAA lowered the bar. What happened was akin to someone unethically telling people how to cheat to get an interview referral at google- yet the actual subsequent qualification process, the rigorous training and certification, including the AT-SAT remained unchanged. The FAA still demands the same high standards from all candidates once they enter the pool.
replies(2): >>42949374 #>>42956951 #
3. jimmydddd ◴[05 Feb 25 15:01 UTC] No.42949374[source]▶
What if corporation A wanted to fill their CFO position. They put out an ad, but decided to interview folks only from ethnicity W. They then hired a qualified person from ethnicity W. When challenged about excluding from the process non-ethnicity W folks, they respond "but they still had to be qualified." Are you fine with that?
replies(1): >>42956876 #
4. spectraldrift ◴[05 Feb 25 23:29 UTC] No.42956876{3}[source]▶
Respectfully, that's a strawman and not what happened. Realistically the inverse happens more, and we often only interview people from certain backgrounds even though qualified people exist in other walks of life. Just look at the racial and wealth backgrounds of people who eventually become CEOs.
5. adamsb6 ◴[05 Feb 25 23:37 UTC] No.42956951[source]▶
In what context would it ever make sense to preferentially hire a population whose worst high school subject was science and lowest college grades were in history?

Sharing the answers wasn't someone going rogue, it was the whole point.