4 ms·

This is indeed a thing that happened, but blaming "Obama" personally for it is absurd, it was entirely the FAA's fuckup.

koolba 1y ago
[flagged]
- anonymars 1y ago
  This is a great post that lays it out. I suggest putting tribal politics aside and reading it, you can see in black and white that the FAA, under Obama, consciously weighed diversity over performance, and royally screwed the ATC hiring pipeline. "Pobody's nerfect" https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-faas-hiring https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-fa...
  - Aloisius 1y ago
    Eh. The lawsuit is still ongoing (for 9 years now!). The article summarizes the plaintiffs' argument and conjecture as if it was a finding of fact which is a bit disingenuous.
    - anonymars 1y ago
      I think the FAA slide which discusses "how much adverse performance are we willing to sacrifice for diversity" is pretty damning
      - Aloisius 1y ago
        What could be potentially damning is the answer, not the question. Getting clarity and avoiding potentially incorrect assumptions by asking questions is something professionals should do. I would very much like to see the rest of the deck for context.
        anonymars 1y ago
        I was able to find that deck (make of it what you will): https://savecti.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Controller-Hiring-Proposal-v2.2.pdf https://savecti.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Controller-Hi.... The phrase "adverse impact" means "results in racially disparate outcomes" I spent a bit more time going down the rabbit hole of the article footnotes, but I need to take a step back, as my time management on this has been poor
anonymars 1y ago
Is Donald Trump personally carrying out all the acts he's condemned for? Is it really unreasonable to say that pushing for diversity was a notable goal of the Obama administration?
- explodes 1y ago
  Based on the signed executive orders yes.
  - anonymars 1y ago
    What about the signed executive order promoting diversity and inclusion in the federal workforce? https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/president-signs-order-promote-diversity-and-inclusion-federal-workforce https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/president-signs-order-promote-... It is okay to admit that leaders you agree with are also imperfect. Of course Obama didn't deliberately want to destroy the ATC pipeline, but clearly it was an unintended consequence. I think it's important to understand where people who disagree politically are coming from. Believe me, when Trump spouted all that schlock after the crash, it was humbling to find the element of truth to it. I don't think it caused that crash: it was a disaster waiting to happen in that airspace. But when I saw in black and white a slide from the FAA discussing how much performance they were willing to sacrifice for diversity, do I really disagree with those who think the answer should be "none"?
    - rainsford 1y ago
      "Promoting diversity" only equates to "sacrificing performance" if you accept the premise that white men are by default the most qualified for everything. Or maybe to be slightly more generous, the premise is that the prior state of affairs where mostly white men were being hired was colorblind and based on merit, so anything else must be sacrificing merit based hiring. I see no reason to buy that framing though and plenty of reason to think it's bunk. Even liberals can fall into the trap though, because policies to promote diversity are explicitly stated while it's been a bit (although not all that long in the grand scheme of things) since the biases that can lead to prioritizing white men are actually written down. That's how the "tradeoff" ends up in things like the FAA slides. It's unclear what factual support that slide had, but clearly the author just took it as a given, as do a lot of other people.
exabrial 1y ago
It actually is though, I would go ready about it.

koolba 1y ago

[flagged]

anonymars 1y ago
This is a great post that lays it out. I suggest putting tribal politics aside and reading it, you can see in black and white that the FAA, under Obama, consciously weighed diversity over performance, and royally screwed the ATC hiring pipeline. "Pobody's nerfect" https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-faas-hiring https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-fa...
- Aloisius 1y ago
  Eh. The lawsuit is still ongoing (for 9 years now!). The article summarizes the plaintiffs' argument and conjecture as if it was a finding of fact which is a bit disingenuous.
  - anonymars 1y ago
    I think the FAA slide which discusses "how much adverse performance are we willing to sacrifice for diversity" is pretty damning
    - Aloisius 1y ago
      What could be potentially damning is the answer, not the question. Getting clarity and avoiding potentially incorrect assumptions by asking questions is something professionals should do. I would very much like to see the rest of the deck for context.
      - anonymars 1y ago
        I was able to find that deck (make of it what you will): https://savecti.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Controller-Hiring-Proposal-v2.2.pdf https://savecti.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Controller-Hi.... The phrase "adverse impact" means "results in racially disparate outcomes" I spent a bit more time going down the rabbit hole of the article footnotes, but I need to take a step back, as my time management on this has been poor

anonymars 1y ago

Is Donald Trump personally carrying out all the acts he's condemned for? Is it really unreasonable to say that pushing for diversity was a notable goal of the Obama administration?

explodes 1y ago
Based on the signed executive orders yes.
- anonymars 1y ago
  What about the signed executive order promoting diversity and inclusion in the federal workforce? https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/president-signs-order-promote-diversity-and-inclusion-federal-workforce https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/president-signs-order-promote-... It is okay to admit that leaders you agree with are also imperfect. Of course Obama didn't deliberately want to destroy the ATC pipeline, but clearly it was an unintended consequence. I think it's important to understand where people who disagree politically are coming from. Believe me, when Trump spouted all that schlock after the crash, it was humbling to find the element of truth to it. I don't think it caused that crash: it was a disaster waiting to happen in that airspace. But when I saw in black and white a slide from the FAA discussing how much performance they were willing to sacrifice for diversity, do I really disagree with those who think the answer should be "none"?
  - rainsford 1y ago
    "Promoting diversity" only equates to "sacrificing performance" if you accept the premise that white men are by default the most qualified for everything. Or maybe to be slightly more generous, the premise is that the prior state of affairs where mostly white men were being hired was colorblind and based on merit, so anything else must be sacrificing merit based hiring. I see no reason to buy that framing though and plenty of reason to think it's bunk. Even liberals can fall into the trap though, because policies to promote diversity are explicitly stated while it's been a bit (although not all that long in the grand scheme of things) since the biases that can lead to prioritizing white men are actually written down. That's how the "tradeoff" ends up in things like the FAA slides. It's unclear what factual support that slide had, but clearly the author just took it as a given, as do a lot of other people.

exabrial 1y ago

It actually is though, I would go ready about it.