←back to thread

The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

(www.tracingwoodgrains.com)
739 points firebaze | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
s3r3nity ◴[] No.42949571[source]
The cheating element is only _part_ of it, and the dominant regime at the time downplayed / ignored the DEI elements because that was supported by their ideology...like a sacred cow. Litigating "disparate impact" cases across any category became a successful attack vector against capitalist structures, and supported by Democratic leadership.

This isn't "slapping a new coat of paint for propaganda," but rather exposing the rest of the iceberg that was otherwise concealed. Both pieces are relevant.

replies(3): >>42950022 #>>42950196 #>>42950634 #
legitster ◴[] No.42950196[source]
> and the dominant regime at the time downplayed / ignored the DEI elements because that was supported by their ideology

In the eye of the beholder. The current regime is upplaying the DEI elements because of their ideology.

The difference though is, unless everyone involved has a time machine, using current cultural agenda items and going back in time and attributing them to people is always going to be wild speculation.

replies(1): >>42950707 #
SR2Z ◴[] No.42950707[source]
> using current cultural agenda items and going back in time and attributing them to people is always going to be wild speculation.

I'm as blue as they come, but let's not mince words.

This was a racial equity policy. Like a lot of them, it was designed by idiots and/or racists.

Much like the elite college admissions lawsuit, we don't need to guess at people's ideology - they WROTE DOWN that the cognitive test "disadvantaged" black applicants and so a biographical questionnaire was needed to re-advantage them.

When Trump opened his mouth to blame DEI for the crash, about 95% of what he said was hateful, totally-made-up bullshit. Despite that and speaking practically, DEI had a significant role to play in the ATC understaffing during the crash.

I really wish that our party was better at calling out crazy people within our ranks, ESPECIALLY when they do stuff that's guaranteed to alienate a solid chunk of the country just based on if "their worst subject in school was science" or whatever other deranged, racist proxy for race they come up with.

replies(3): >>42951350 #>>42957224 #>>42959106 #
legitster ◴[] No.42951350[source]
The difference between this and the college scandal is that there were limited numbers of seats at colleges, so to putting in an underqualified white student meant you had to pull an overqualified Asian student.

The situation here was the ATC was chronically understaffed and unable to fill positions. So an effort for them to boost applications makes sense even under non-DEI principles.

replies(4): >>42952121 #>>42952131 #>>42957607 #>>42959563 #
1. BeetleB ◴[] No.42957607[source]
> The difference between this and the college scandal is that there were limited numbers of seats at colleges, so to putting in an underqualified white student meant you had to pull an overqualified Asian student.

I know this is a tangent, but in case people read this, they may get the wrong idea. While some elite universities like Harvard have a cap on how many people they admit (leading to the displacement you refer to), the vast majority of universities (including probably all top public universities) do not have a cap. Simply put, if you met the (academic) criteria, you got admission. That they also admitted people who did not meet that criteria had no impact on your admission.

(Sorry - just hear this complaint too often from people who did not get into "regular", non-elite universities. No, affirmative action isn't the reason you did not get admission. You just weren't good enough).

replies(1): >>42967819 #