←back to thread

The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

(www.tracingwoodgrains.com)
739 points firebaze | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.55s | source
Show context
wand3r ◴[] 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 #
scott_w ◴[] No.42944818[source]
I don’t think DEI itself provides the grounds. It’s simply a case of DEI either being implemented in a lazy or stupid way to tick boxes OR it being used as cover by a small number of activists to engage in discrimination of their own. If DEI didn’t exist, the above things would still happen, just for a different reason and possibly different group of activists.
replies(2): >>42945046 #>>42957852 #
ars ◴[] No.42945046[source]
How is this not DEI? This was a deliberate and conscious attempt to create a test that would pass DEI candidates at higher rates, with question that had nothing to do with the actual needed skills.

And they did it because they were pressured to "increase diversity".

replies(1): >>42945220 #
scott_w ◴[] No.42945220[source]
As I’ve said twice now: it was the actual thing that was done (in this case, lowering standards and throwing qualified people to the wolves) that was lazy and stupid, not the umbrella “DEI” itself. That’s because the actual work to get more candidates from diverse backgrounds is difficult and takes time. It’s things like outreach, financial support, changing societal attitudes. Instead of that, they took the lazy option and just threw out white candidates from the pipeline. I also include “setting hiring targets” as a lazy and stupid way of “achieving DEI,” just for clarity.
replies(7): >>42945399 #>>42950093 #>>42952848 #>>42957025 #>>42957789 #>>42959342 #>>42965382 #
adolph ◴[] No.42952848[source]
> As I’ve said twice now: it was the actual thing that was done (in this case, lowering standards and throwing qualified people to the wolves) that was lazy and stupid, not the umbrella “DEI” itself.

No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one modifies a prior claim in response to a counterexample by asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition. Rather than admitting error or providing evidence to disprove the counterexample, the original claim is changed by using a non-substantive modifier such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", or other similar terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

replies(1): >>42954201 #
scott_w ◴[] No.42954201[source]
Copied from another comment:

At no point do I say these bad initiatives are not “DEI,” since they clearly fit under the umbrella of DEI. I simply say they’re bad initiatives. You might be confused by me saying “DEI isn’t the core of the problem,” but that’s not the same thing as saying “these bad things are not DEI.” I hope this clarifies things for you.

replies(1): >>42962022 #
1. adolph ◴[] No.42962022[source]
No, that doesn’t clarify anything. Copy-pasting irrelevant responses is spam, please stop.
replies(1): >>42963452 #
2. scott_w ◴[] No.42963452[source]
>> asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition

> At no point do I say these bad initiatives are not “DEI,”

I highlighted the relevant points where I addressed your criticism. I hope this helps but feel free to copy-paste from Wikipedia again.