←back to thread

The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

(www.tracingwoodgrains.com)
739 points firebaze | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.252s | source
Show context
legitster ◴[] 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 #
hitekker ◴[] No.42950481[source]
That's a misreading of the article. This scandal was not just "cheating and recruitment" but forcing "Diversity" with a side of "Equity". To quote the facts:

> The NBCFAE continued to pressure the FAA to diversify, with its members meeting with the DOT, FAA, Congressional Black Caucus, and others to push for increased diversity among ATCs. After years of fiddling with the research and years of pressure from the NBCFAE, the FAA landed on a strategy: by using a multistage process starting with non-cognitive factors, they could strike “an acceptable balance between minority hiring and expected performance”—a process they said would carry a “relatively small” performance loss. They openly discussed this tension in meetings, pointing to “a trade-off between diversity (adverse impact) and predicted job performance/outcomes,” asking, “How much of a change in job performance is acceptable to achieve what diversity goals?”

This was DEI before it was called DEI. The label changed, the spirit did not.

That spirit, of sublimated racial grievance, metastasized everywhere in our society. It went from quiet, to blatant, and now to a memory hole.

replies(4): >>42950578 #>>42951085 #>>42951627 #>>42958053 #
ryandrake ◴[] No.42950578[source]
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 everything, the term has become politically charged, and everyone now wants to overload it to mean all sorts of things they simply don't like.

replies(5): >>42950674 #>>42950899 #>>42950903 #>>42951047 #>>42951414 #
1. Workaccount2 ◴[] No.42950903[source]
>including instead of excluding people who have traditionally been shut out

I think that is the crux of the issue right there. It's taken as a "sky-is-blue" level fact that everyone is equal in all regards, and therefore any inequality in outcome is a function of bigoted policy at some level. This is despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, which kind of elevates DEI to an ideological position rather than a logical one, and arguably undermines the confidence of people who would ostensibly be considered "DEI Hires".

Companies have largely side-stepped this however, because underneath it all, they still want the most productive workers, regardless of their labels. So they implement a farcical DEI to keep up appearances, while still allowing hiring of whoever is deemed the most productive for a team.