Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

    (www.tracingwoodgrains.com)
    739 points firebaze | 17 comments | 05 Feb 25 05:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.862s | source | bottom
    Show context
    legitster ◴[05 Feb 25 15:05 UTC] No.42949439[source]▶
    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 extra wary of stories like this being massaged.

    replies(25): >>42949571 #>>42949589 #>>42949780 #>>42949935 #>>42950437 #>>42950475 #>>42950481 #>>42950518 #>>42950650 #>>42950743 #>>42950785 #>>42951339 #>>42951761 #>>42951858 #>>42951980 #>>42952004 #>>42952071 #>>42952270 #>>42956413 #>>42956974 #>>42959822 #>>42960107 #>>42963187 #>>42979388 #>>42997828 #
    1. BoingBoomTschak ◴[05 Feb 25 15:14 UTC] No.42949589[source]▶
    From an external (not US) PoV, it might also be that DEI was too much of a sacred cow before to call a spade a spade.
    replies(5): >>42950025 #>>42950873 #>>42951430 #>>42953280 #>>42957250 #
    2. legitster ◴[05 Feb 25 15:38 UTC] No.42950025[source]▶
    Maybe! But in this case, the bulk of the mistakes by the FAA happened in the 2012-2014. In the middle of the Obama administration, but well before the bulk of the really controversial post-BLM DEI stuff that the current administration is largely attacking.
    replies(2): >>42950372 #>>42950681 #
    3. Covzire ◴[05 Feb 25 15:58 UTC] No.42950372[source]▶
    It's all connected, DEI(B) is just the latest revision of the beast.
    4. aikinai ◴[05 Feb 25 16:16 UTC] No.42950681[source]▶
    DEI quotas have been around for decades. We just used to call it affirmative action and it was far less aggressive and blatant.
    replies(3): >>42950742 #>>42950756 #>>42956716 #
    5. SR2Z ◴[05 Feb 25 16:20 UTC] No.42950742{3}[source]▶
    It was MORE blatant and transparent, which IMO is the bare minimum for government-sanctioned racism. If we are going to do AA, we owe it to EVERYONE to make it clear exactly how and when we will do it. Sneaking it in disingenuously will rightfully piss people off.
    6. ◴[05 Feb 25 16:21 UTC] No.42950756{3}[source]▶
    7. dowager_dan99 ◴[05 Feb 25 16:28 UTC] No.42950873[source]▶
    > to call a spade a spade

    intentional? one of the dumber virtue-signaling "no-nos" from the worst of DEI.

    8. BenFranklin100 ◴[05 Feb 25 16:57 UTC] No.42951430[source]▶
    Yes. It was also often career suicide to criticize DEI indicatives.
    replies(1): >>42952664 #
    9. adolph ◴[05 Feb 25 18:09 UTC] No.42952664[source]▶
    Even if the criticism was intended to be constructive.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google's_Ideological_Echo_Cham...

    replies(1): >>42957291 #
    10. fallingknife ◴[05 Feb 25 18:50 UTC] No.42953280[source]▶
    From an internal US pov, yes you are correct that's exactly what the culture is here. Call out the obviously lowered standards for women and minority candidates and expect severe consequences to your career.
    11. cyberax ◴[05 Feb 25 23:13 UTC] No.42956716{3}[source]▶
    Affirmative action is strictly _better_ than some of the DEI nonsense. With affirmative action, you just reserve a bunch of positions for minorities, and then give them out based on merit.

    With most of DEI, you either tweak the criteria to make job positions easier to get for minorities, or you lower your standards.

    replies(2): >>42967744 #>>43065111 #
    12. greenchair ◴[06 Feb 25 00:09 UTC] No.42957250[source]▶
    like the n word?
    13. immibis ◴[06 Feb 25 00:13 UTC] No.42957291{3}[source]▶
    There's zero difference between this memo and what is frequently said by people who just don't like black people (because it's too bad optics to say "I just don't like black people").
    replies(3): >>42957538 #>>42957816 #>>42962140 #
    14. lmm ◴[06 Feb 25 01:27 UTC] No.42957816{4}[source]▶
    People who just don't like pakistani people spend a lot of time talking about pakistani child rape gangs. Does that mean we should ignore the pakistani child rape gangs?
    replies(1): >>42958653 #
    15. davorak ◴[06 Feb 25 03:25 UTC] No.42958653{5}[source]▶
    What part of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google's_Ideological_Echo_Cham...

    serves the role of "pakistani child rape gangs"? Right now the analogy does not makes sense to me. "pakistani child rape gangs" are reprehensible, nothing that extreme comes to mind when I think of James Damore's memo or similar.

    16. adolph ◴[06 Feb 25 13:36 UTC] No.42962140{4}[source]▶
    Why would a person misrepresent the memo when the file is there for anyone to read?
    17. threeseed ◴[16 Feb 25 03:44 UTC] No.43065111{4}[source]▶
    > With most of DEI, you either tweak the criteria to make job positions easier to get for minorities, or you lower your standards

    Do you have a source for this.

    I have worked for dozens of enterprise companies with DEI policies and not a single one dropped standards to attract "minorities".