FAA’s diversity push includes focus on hiring people with ‘severe intellectual’ and ‘psychiatric’ disabilities

Lawman said:
The accusations originally held are that DEI is overriding structural functions that guide hiring practices and promotions. That isn’t a tie breaker best practice, that’s simply we have an and goal of 15-20 years from now looking at representation being all inclusive particularly at top ends of bureaucracy and in order to do so you have to force populations into the program further up the pipe.
Click to expand...

We have seen studies where resumes are "whitened" and as a result are accepted more often even in a DEI environment.


Even AI systems used for filtering resumes has issues.


Honestly the only way to prevent this stuff is to make hiring practices as gender/race neutral as possible. Same goes for disabilities where applicable.

Lawman said:
While it’s easy to just dismiss the source of the article as some has chosen to do as simply “boomer nonsense” or whatever, it’s completely ignorant to conclude that these efforts don’t exist.
Click to expand...

I read it and it was a hit piece from the start. They dumped this part deep into the article after all the fear mongering and likely long after most of their readers stop reading.

"When asked for comment on the initiative, including what roles people with disabilities would fulfill, the FAA told Fox News Digital that the agency thoroughly seeks and vets qualified candidates “from as many sources as possible” for a range of positions."

If the goal is to make an actual well thought out argument it wouldn't start with fear mongering. They may as well have started the article with "Watch them hire a woman with no eyes for an ATC position." Nothing they initially brought up had a background in DEI. The NY Post is just bad.
 
Maurus said:
We have seen studies where resumes are "whitened" and as a result are accepted more often even in a DEI environment.


Even AI systems used for filtering resumes has issues.


Honestly the only way to prevent this stuff is to make hiring practices as gender/race neutral as possible. Same goes for disabilities where applicable.



I read it and it was a hit piece from the start. They dumped this part deep into the article after all the fear mongering and likely long after most of their readers stop reading.

"When asked for comment on the initiative, including what roles people with disabilities would fulfill, the FAA told Fox News Digital that the agency thoroughly seeks and vets qualified candidates “from as many sources as possible” for a range of positions."

If the goal is to make an actual well thought out argument it wouldn't start with fear mongering. They may as well have started the article with "Watch them hire a woman with no eyes for an ATC position." Nothing they initially brought up had a background in DEI. The NY Post is just bad.
Click to expand...

We’ve also seen direct effect of DEI over common standards/sense and bureaucratic malfeasance in moving goal posts in order to meet the desire of higher echelon goals. It’s simply easy to do in large non-profit bureaucracy like government and military simply because merit doesn’t affect bottom line dollars the way it does outside it.

Again I bring up the military because it’s the bureaucracy I directly participate in and get to watch it happen despite protest. We have pressure right now in the military to get rid of swim testing as a means of leveling demographics. That stems from a decade long discussion between Congress and the SEALs demanding to know why there was so few African Americans in that demographic. Kara Hultgren being the easiest such example of the diversity hire getting somebody needlessly killed for the name of progress towards an end goal. https://www.cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/CMRRPT09-0695.pdf

To say that it simply “oh it’s the NY post so ignore it” and dismiss it as it doesn’t happen is the same as to say “nobody plays the race card” or “racism doesn’t exist anymore.” And it’s no more intellectually dishonest as the guy on Twitter insisting single anecdotes being substantive evidence of a vast replacement theory.

It happens, and while it’s • to create needless methods of discrimination it’s not ok to ignore simple lowering of demonstrated effective hiring standards in order to cast a wider net of participation. It’s a shady effort to manipulate outcomes either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Lawman said:
We’ve also seen direct effect of DEI over common standards/sense and bureaucratic malfeasance in moving goal posts in order to meet the desire of higher echelon goals. It’s simply easy to do in large non-profit bureaucracy like government and military simply because merit doesn’t affect bottom line dollars the way it does outside it.

Again I bring up the military because it’s the bureaucracy I directly participate in and get to watch it happen despite protest. We have pressure right now in the military to get rid of swim testing as a means of leveling demographics. That stems from a decade long discussion between Congress and the SEALs demanding to know why there was so few African Americans in that demographic. Kara Hultgren being the easiest such example of the diversity hire getting somebody needlessly killed for the name of progress towards an end goal. https://www.cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/CMRRPT09-0695.pdf

To say that it simply “oh it’s the NY post so ignore it” and dismiss it as it doesn’t happen is the same as to say “nobody plays the race card” or “racism doesn’t exist anymore.” And it’s no more intellectually dishonest as the guy on Twitter insisting single anecdotes being substantive evidence of a vast replacement theory.

It happens, and while it’s • to create needless methods of discrimination it’s not ok to ignore simple lowering of demonstrated effective hiring standards in order to cast a wider net of participation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I dismiss the NY Post because they take it to cartoonish levels rather than using actual facts. That is the entire problem I am talking about. They aren't making a legit argument. For example, the NY Post article above doesn't share how the hiring is being implemented. As far as we know most of these people are taking custodial positions.

Of course people should be required to meet standards. The problem that you ignored in my post is the fact that many don't even get the chance due to outdated hiring practices and biases.

BTW, there is a reason I never went the military route. I learned it was mostly internal politics that won that game. While you may perceive DEI as a culprit it could just be someone knowing the right person at the right time.
 
Last edited:
Maurus said:
I dismiss the NY Post because they take it to cartoonish levels rather than using actual facts. That is the entire problem I am talking about. They aren't making a legit argument. For example, the NY Post article above doesn't share how the hiring is being implemented. As far as we know most of these people are taking custodial positions.
Click to expand...

That wasn’t the problem you were talking about when you attempted to respond to my saying this issue while messaged stupidly does in fact exist.

If you want to respond to the New York Post you could have simply quoted that. You didn’t, you quoted me. So here there are now demonstrated examples of diversity overreach being executed over what the rule book or common standard says should happen. Does the problem simply not exist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
That wasn’t the problem you were talking about when you attempted to respond to my saying this issue while messaged stupidly does in fact exist.

If you want to respond to the New York Post you could have simply quoted that. You didn’t, you quoted me. So here there are now demonstrated examples of diversity overreach being executed over what the rule book or common standard says should happen. Does the problem simply not exist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I literally quoted the NY Post in my response to you complaining about us dismissing the NY Post as a reputable source. It is not reputable at all and I explained why this article is an example of it not being reputable.

Also do realize that I never said DEI was perfect or the ultimate answer. Hell, I have a qualifier in what I said.

"Honestly the only way to prevent this stuff is to make hiring practices as gender/race neutral as possible. Same goes for disabilities where applicable."

Eventually job standards beyond a resume should filter people after the primary hiring process. The filters should only be applicable to the job. The problem is that we still see race and gender issues at the most basic levels of hiring. Having a resume tossed into the trash because your name is "Latisha" is a problem. That is where I stand.
 
Screenshot_20240115_160318_Chrome.jpg
 
trafficinsight said:
View attachment 76012
Click to expand...

So you missed or didn’t read the official report I posted, and responded with Wikipedia.

What’s that about sources and facts?

The original accusations on Hultgreen wasn’t that she would have performed better or worse when that accident happened, it was that she never would have or should have been behind that boat to begin with had the Navy followed its standards and not pushed forward a PR win over the objections of people dealing with her in the training command.

And she’s just a google’ble example we’ve all heard of. I can’t post unofficially written policy we will have any female aviator in training for the 64 conduct a flight with one of the two female IPs we had out at Hanchey before issuing that recommendation. It wasn’t because we were worried guys were harder on them, it was because we were well aware that Katie wouldn’t pull any punches if girl X couldn’t hack it and we needed that defense when they tried to pull something to defend their performance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Lawman said:
So you missed or didn’t read the official report I posted, and responded with Wikipedia.

What’s that about sources and facts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I just think it's probably time to stop talking about Kara Hultgreen. She died flying a difficult airplane and she wasn't the only one, but no one is questioning the qualifications of all men for the next 30 years over it.
 
trafficinsight said:
I just think it's probably time to stop talking about Kara Hultgreen. She died flying a difficult airplane and she wasn't the only one, but no one is questioning the qualifications of all men for the next 30 years over it.
Click to expand...

She’s the one you’ve heard of, because she died publicly after the spot light was put on her. And the Tomcat was not notoriously difficult to fly, it was hard to fly extremely well but there’s a host of Tomcast episodes available on YouTube with a cadre of guys that will all tell you it was not the hard plane in the fleet to pilot.

Again read what I posted in after your quote.

If you’re going to make the declarative stance that Diversity for the sake of its self over standards doesn’t exist or is simply an imagined boogieman you’re going to just have to deal with hearing about the examples those of us dealt with that show it absolutely did.

Nobody bitches when we wash an underperform guy out of training. Try and fail a woman legitimately failing and suddenly the rules get changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
KLB said:
They don't like it when I say that straight white males have crashed more planes than any other group in the industry.
Click to expand...

If they don’t like it or even acknowledge it as fact, they are simply racist. Btw the fact that you have to make that statement means that you are still having conversations in the cockpit in 2024 that embarrass me. I’m sorry you have to go through that.
 
trafficinsight said:
I don't recall saying notoriously.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t “difficult to fly” according to people who actually did it.

She was a previously winged aviator in the A6, so it’s not like she wasn’t going into this and thrown to the wolves of some widow maker.
You quoted a Wiki article, I quoted a report that contains those same statements as well as the stuff that gets edited out of Wikipedia. You know like the whole comment by an Admiral about the manipulation of simulator testing to produce a result that cleared her of any connection and blamed the TF30 and not pilot technique.

Go read the report and come back with why we shouldn’t believe there was a demonstrated action within the Navy to pass people forward on lines of gender. Tell us what evidence you have for those of us that have seen DEI initiatives bend or break standards that the tradition of doing such doesn’t exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top