Affirmative Action in Aviation

HVYMETALDRVR

HVYMETALDRVR

Well-Known Member
Okay I'm posting this as a question. So after a long hiatus with doing any applications and with the recent wave of hiring I started applying and updating my resumes through airlineapps and other individual websites.

So in the process of applying the question comes up of race and ethnic backround. After some advice from someone on the hiring board of a major airline (which airline and the person shall remain nameless) I choose to either leave the question blank, or check the box that says I don't want to answer the question. My question is that if everyone else applying just answers the question straight up and then them come to my resume and I didn't answer is this looked upon negatively? I already did the applications, but now I'm thinking about redoing them and just answering it. But its kind of against my principals....

To set the record straight... I am a normal white American... and I'll leave it at that. I don't mean to set any political undertones in the post. Its just an honest question to see what everybody else does for this question.

Thanks.
 
Personally, I think that stuff should be removed from all applications. What difference does it matter the race? It should be solely off your qualifications!
 
To KEEP the record straight yet provide all the sarcasm :sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm: one can muster from the thread comes a question:

To set the record straight... I am a normal white American... and I'll leave it at that. I don't mean to set any political undertones in the post. Its just an honest question to see what everybody else does for this question.
Click to expand...

What does "normal" mean? ;):bandit:

Also, because your HR rep wishes to remain anonymous (which is cool with me), I would ask that individual "why leave it blank, what impact would filling it out do in the selection process?" Although it shouldn't matter, I'm really curious why an HR person would make such a recommendation?

Also, I'm curious about your title itself. Is the focus related more to "affirmative action" or is it "equal opportunity?" We all (most) know there are significant differences, yet far too many people incorrectly believe the two mean the same thing.
 
Most of it's HR-related, not employability-related.

Remember, it's a job application, not a political statement.

Some of the employers required, for one reason or another, information about our diversity-outreach efforts in order to gain approval to release funds to attend our event last month.
 
mshunter said:
Personally, I think that stuff should be removed from all applications. What difference does it matter the race? It should be solely off your qualifications!
Click to expand...

+ 1. I've seen firsthand the results of preferrential hiring (or "helping") in the aviation training environment for gender/ethnic minorities, and we still have a damn long way to go before it is a good idea. Compete for jobs like everyone else...this is a damn profession, not a PR statement. I'm not going to air dirty laundry, but policies like this have put people I know who have no business flying airplanes, into cockpits that they shouldn't be in by any reasonable measure of ability or skill.
 
Sorry man, I'll get around to answering your email one day, sheesh!
 
Okay, by "normal" I meant that theres nothing in my race, backround, criminal history (I have none), or family history that makes me stand out any more or any less than anyone else.

I posted this to see what everyone else puts down, if you guys are answering the question or ignoring it (like me). I just don't feel comfortable answer it I guess. Thanks.
 
HVYMETALDRVR said:
Okay, by "normal" I meant that theres nothing in my race, backround, criminal history (I have none), or family history that makes me stand out any more or any less than anyone else.

I posted this to see what everyone else puts down, if you guys are answering the question or ignoring it (like me). I just don't feel comfortable answer it I guess. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Don't answer the question if you're not comfortable.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Don't answer the question if you're not comfortable.
Click to expand...

True, but his "discomfort" was precipitated by the HR rep's comment. I would like to fully understand the rationale behind the statement of making an informed decision about filling it out or not filling it out.

For me, I wouldn't care and I do fill it out MOST times given my belief is the race, gender, etc. identification is not seen by the interviewers in the preliminary stages of the hiring process (to be honest, the smaller the company, the less inclined I am to fill in the data). It's strictly used for statistical data later. After the fact, there might be consequences for the company, but I didn't think beforehand there would be an impact pro or con.
 
The point of affirmative action is to accept that there has been preferential treatment for "some" gender/ethnic majorities, and it is an attempt to rectify the problem by providing a reasonable (usually population ratio based) adjustment. There are also plenty of pilots who have been GIVEN preferential treatment prior to affirmative action who have no business flying airplanes... by any reasonable measure of ability, skill, judgement, personality, and/or level of professionalism.
 
fucius said:
The point of affirmative action is to accept that there has been preferential treatment for "some" gender/ethnic majorities, and it is an attempt to rectify the problem by providing a reasonable (usually population ratio based) adjustment. There are also plenty of pilots who have been GIVEN preferential treatment prior to affirmative action who have no business flying airplanes... by any reasonable measure of ability, skill, judgement, personality, and/or level of professionalism.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. And get over it. Things have changed since even the 80's. I can remember when a friend of my fathers was not hired by LAFD because the needed more "ethnic diversity" in the ranks. Even though he was more qualified than a friend of his who was, on his application "hispanic" because his mother was from Mexico, and his father from the US. Would you rather have someone who is the most qualified, or someone who got their position based on race alone?
 
I've said it on here before, but just in case, affirmative action is racist by definition. It should go. Regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference, I want the most qualified pilots in the flight deck not the most diverse.
 
jhugz said:
I've said it on here before, but just in case, affirmative action is racist by definition. It should go. Regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference, I want the most qualified pilots in the flight deck not the most diverse.
Click to expand...
Groups that have received preferential treatment for centuries generally oppose any hint of preferential treatment for other groups for even a generation or two to level that particular playing field.

Has the paying field been leveled - that's a potentially nasty political discussion that will make "pitch v power" seem like a love-fest.
 
Before we form a big gnash cluster and get our panties in a tizzy, affirmative action may have nothing in the world to do with asking demographic information on the job application.

Let's just be clear about that.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Before we form a big gnash cluster and get our panties in a tizzy, affirmative action may have nothing in the world to do with asking demographic information on the job application.

Let's just be clear about that.
Click to expand...

Why do you have to be so damn level headed all the time? :)

I agree with you, but it's not as fun of a discussion.
 
Employers need to fill a quota of different backgrounds. They get fined by different employment authorities. Of course affirmative action will never be described as a quota system but that's what it is.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Groups that have received preferential treatment for centuries generally oppose any hint of preferential treatment for other groups for even a generation or two to level that particular playing field.
Click to expand...

Do I agree that many other "groups" got the short end of the stick? Absolutely. However, two wrongs don't make a right. What's an acceptable period of time for this "preferential" treatment? Just because some ignorant ancestors of mine "could" have owned slaves, slaughtered native americans, or oppressed women doesn't mean I agree with their actions. In fact, I'm 100% against those actions. However I didn't commit any of these terrible acts, and thus shouldn't be punished for them.
 
jhugz said:
Why do you have to be so damn level headed all the time? :)

I agree with you, but it's not as fun of a discussion.
Click to expand...

I've dealt with a lot of HR people over the past year and I gather it's what they'd all want to say if they weren't too busy lurking.

Well, one's already registered but I'm not saying who it is or who they're with! ;)

Just because United got sued when most of you were still in diapers does not mean that is occurring industry-wide.

I can't tell you how many people presumed I am where I am because of some special non-existent program and they weren't although they failed to match even the minimum qualifications for the job I have.
 
I reply 'native american'...Technically its not a lie, I have an Indian card, but I am an extremely small fraction native american. I'm the bluest-eyed native american you'll ever see, but I'd rather take out any possibility that I'd be penalized for my appearance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top