Most active commenters
  • ImJamal(3)

←back to thread

The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

(www.tracingwoodgrains.com)
739 points firebaze | 14 comments | 05 Feb 25 05:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.63s | 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 #
bz_bz_bz ◴[05 Feb 25 16:04 UTC] No.42950475[source]▶
The Brigida lawsuit, from which we get a lot of the documents in the article, was filed in 2016 and has framed this as a DEI discrimination issue from the get-go.
replies(1): >>42951864 #
legitster ◴[05 Feb 25 17:20 UTC] No.42951864[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>42952588 #>>42953481 #
1. ImJamal ◴[05 Feb 25 19:06 UTC] No.42953481[source]▶
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?
replies(2): >>42954325 #>>42955004 #
2. riskable ◴[05 Feb 25 20:04 UTC] No.42954325[source]▶
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.

replies(4): >>42956434 #>>42957675 #>>42966327 #>>42985695 #
3. tremon ◴[05 Feb 25 20:57 UTC] No.42955004[source]▶
If your candidate pool is 80% white and you hire 25% minorities, is that discrimination? I have seen people argue (rabidly!) both ways on that question.
replies(2): >>42955820 #>>42956406 #
4. Aurornis ◴[05 Feb 25 21:56 UTC] No.42955820[source]▶
Discrimination involves deliberately factoring the applicant's class into hiring decisions.

Discrimination isn't determined by looking at single digit percentage differences in aggregate statistics.

5. ImJamal ◴[05 Feb 25 22:42 UTC] No.42956406[source]▶
That is not deliberately hiring whites? That is just hiring whites by happenstance. I am talking about choosing the white candidate because he is white.
6. ImJamal ◴[05 Feb 25 22:45 UTC] No.42956434[source]▶
I think specifically hiring somebody because of their race is not just problematic but outright racist. I don't care if you are doing it because you want to underpay them or because you just dislike their race.

If somebody decided he wanted more white people because he prefers whites, that would be discrimination. Nobody denies that, but when the races are swapped, suddenly it is nuanced? Give me a break!

replies(1): >>42959227 #
7. polski-g ◴[06 Feb 25 01:07 UTC] No.42957675[source]▶
Using race as a metric in your hiring decisions, for any reason at all, is illegal. You simply cannot do it. Not as a tie breaking point, not a plus factor-- nothing at all.

The law is crystal clear on this:

https://x.com/andrealucasEEOC/status/1752006517761421719?t=v...

replies(1): >>42963970 #
8. risenshinetech ◴[06 Feb 25 04:54 UTC] No.42959227{3}[source]▶
The "nuanced" argument you're responding to at least gives a window into why LLMs all talk about this same sort of nonsense and have this same bias. This kind of thinking is absolutely rampant these days -- especially on Reddit, which makes up a large portion of the training data.
9. lazide ◴[06 Feb 25 16:28 UTC] No.42963970{3}[source]▶
Yet it is impossible to implement Affirmative Action without discriminating based on race.

And no one is going to care if some farmer won’t hire white people for his farm.

replies(1): >>42979424 #
10. frugalmail ◴[08 Feb 25 01:20 UTC] No.42979424{4}[source]▶
Affirmative Action is racisim. If you don't believe it, find the FAA people (or college students, law enforcement, numerous other recent cases) that were more qualified and excluded and ask them.
replies(1): >>42983692 #
11. brookst ◴[08 Feb 25 15:46 UTC] No.42983692{5}[source]▶
Affirmative action is racism. So is the lack of affirmative action.

Turns out this is a complex topic. Anyone pushing a simplistic viewpoint either doesn’t understand the topic or has ulterior motives.

replies(2): >>42990058 #>>43075943 #
12. ConradJarret ◴[08 Feb 25 19:55 UTC] No.42985695[source]▶
Holy shit.

You can still delete this.

13. lazide ◴[09 Feb 25 11:44 UTC] No.42990058{6}[source]▶
So what is the answer? Because racism in hiring is illegal.
14. frugalmail ◴[17 Feb 25 06:45 UTC] No.43075943{6}[source]▶
What I said is based on the 14th amendment, as part of the highest law of the land.

Perhaps anyone pushing doubt with ZERO substance behind their claim has ulterior motives.