What you quoted from me was my genuine objection to an insulting comment that I believe was directed at me, accusing me of being “eager to enforce segregation against Black and brown people” and of believing “other demographics” are “mentally ill-suited to certain jobs”. Those are horrible accusations.
Not sure what you meant at the end there, though. Did I say something was extremely rare? I don’t think I did.
I don’t think I said any such thing. I said it was presented as such, not that you directly said it.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
First, like I said above, I personally depend on benefits that were negotiated by DEI-related employee groups. Those benefits were a big part of why I took the job. They’re expensive to provide, and we’re a tiny minority group, but until recently the political winds were in our favor. Now, with that changing, no one knows if the benefits will still exist next year, at that company or its competitors.
I’m not even confident I’ll be able to get another job in my current field, thanks to changes in the industry, huge rounds of layoffs, and the nature of my work experience.
And, without getting too personal (or scaring my lawyer), I’ll just add that I spent more than a year in regular contact with a DEI-related department, and without assistance from that department, my time at the company would’ve been very short and miserable.
Second, I wouldn’t describe myself as anti-DEI, but you’ve evidently assigned me to that category. In fact, you said this to me a week ago:
(For the record: I don’t care about a pilot’s race, sex, or any other classifications that have nothing to do with being able to safely land the plane. I can’t think of the last time I even knew a pilot’s race. They’re behind a locked door!)
Finally, I haven’t said DEI is a net negative for society. What I’ve done is bring up some specific examples of DEI programs that had a negative impact, and then defended my criticism when others claimed those programs were actually fine.
I know a lot of people are hesitant to criticize “their own side’s” mistakes. For example, @GIGObuster objected to that earlier:
And he’s got a point, but I’m still not a fan of the mindset that says we shouldn’t criticize anything or anyone on “our side” because it’ll help the other side, especially when it’s something the other side is already criticizing. If we know there’s a problem, and they know, then it doesn’t help us to pretend we don’t know about it. The way to shore up our position and save face is to actually fix the problem.
(Plus, I have been demanding better alternatives.)
All right, so what is the “it” that you believe I presented as an extreme rarity?
Uh, it is not a fallacy when everyone can see what they are doing, as noted, they are tossing the baby with the bathwater.
BTW I do think that yes, one should criticize when DEI proponents do an alleged bad thing at the FAA, as pointed many times, it has been taken into account. It is illogical in the extreme to then assume that it goes the same for other DEI efforts.
I agree. No assumptions.
I already directly quoted you, so doing it again seems like a waste of time to me.
And then is this, no, one should not logically say this when the DEI efforts were there in support of equal opportunity and other efforts. Also when taking into account the demonization that was done in big part with lies from the right wing, it is really gross to just imply that DEI was not a good alternative.
Oh! You mean this?
I don’t know how I managed to read your comment and miss that you were talking about the bit you quoted in that very comment.
Actually… looking further back, I must have read it as a continuation of this exchange, minutes earlier.
Well. That makes a lot more sense. Hopefully it explains my response, too.
Can’t say I’ve ever seen anyone do all of that for a position they oppose—and it seems like that would be counterproductive, but I’ll take your word for it.
Just nine minutes earlier, you wrote this:
Is there a subtle difference I’m overlooking? Because it sounds to me like you’re saying we should criticize bad DEI efforts but only if they’re at the FAA, nowhere else.
Oy vey! Yes it can be criticized, as well as other demonstrated DEI problems, but I did take a look and even this criticism has to take into account the context or one can fall for the usual exaggerations from the right.
Here you seem not to know what a hasty generalization is. And then: I know a lot of how the right frames things and that why I said alleged, because ATC requirements at the FAA must be met to get hired, this test was not the only thing for them to do before getting the job, anyone passing it still had to do a lot of training before becoming a controller. And then, whoever was responsible for the test is gone already, the test hasn’t been done in 7 years, so the shortages and other problems at the FAA being blamed on the test are a bit moot nowadays. So while there was a concern, it was dealt with already. In no small part by congress banning the test in 2018, but unless you can point at DEI as the reason on why or how that test was implemented…
Because I checked the law and there was no mention of DEI, the reason for the ban was for the allegations that the test discriminated, hence the big point made by others that that test and the way it was implemented was not DEI. As all the DEI training I got and seen showed, there was no DEI boogeyman there, and DEI was not the reason to demand the removal of that test then. Regardless, the dog whistle prevails.
I do, actually. Was that just a random insult, or are you going to connect that phrase to something in this discussion?
I’d appreciate it if you stopped making these snide little remarks about me, by the way. I’ve ignored most of them so far, trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because there seems to be a language barrier involved. But you haven’t been addressing the points I raise, so this is feeling less like a conversation and more like a slow-motion rap battle. Time is the fire in which we burn.
For example, I quoted seemingly contradictory comments you’ve made here about whether bad DEI efforts should be criticized, and asked what was up with the discrepancy. What I got in response was an insulting rant about half a dozen different aspects of the FAA hiring scandal, including an unexplained link to a seemingly irrelevant article, but it still didn’t clarify whether you think people should or shouldn’t criticize bad DEI efforts, or what makes the cases where you said they should different from the cases where you said they shouldn’t.
The articles I linked earlier already explained that, so if you need more clarification, I encourage you to read those articles and the original court filings linked therein.
The “quick overview” spends several paragraphs explaining the pressure the FAA was under to hire more diverse air traffic controllers, and how that pressure led to implementing the test. The “full story” explains it even further, going into the internal decision-making process and the potential impact on long-term hiring. Both articles cite written documentation and statements from the people who were responsible for it.
And then there is no need to deal with the items I pointed out on why it is not really DEI, because you call it a rant. Very easy to deal with then /s
And, there was no report about it being because of DEI, again, the misguided diversity effort could had been because of radical affirmative action or misguided quotas, not DEI as my training taught me about it.
Incidentally, why is that you think me saying: “Yes it can be criticized, as well as other demonstrated DEI problems” means that I contradict myself or that I’m not clear is a silly thing.
The point here is that it is your turn to show where the FAA got a DEI consulting firm or group to organize the testing and the seemingly bad way the FAA did open opportunities to other candidates. So far, what I have seen points to people at the FAA thinking that they were doing the right thing, when it had little to do with how DEI trainers and groups go about it.
One big reason why I say that the accusation that it was DEI what took place in the FAA is silly, is because the misguided effort at diversity was over by 2018.
Most companies did not bother about DEI until the murder of George Floyd in 2020. The big movement to deal with the lack of diversity made companies and government agencies to look for training and methods that were legal and that avoided quotas. DEI, that in reality is less pressuring than affirmative action as it was understood before, is in reality just like an advisor group in a business.
It is really easy for moderate people to fall for the right wing rhetoric, many did fail to see how damaging the right became by calling everything they did not like as being “Woke” and did not realize how enabling it was for the real bigots.
With the FAA case, is very likely that the FAA did not consult a proper DEI group to set their seemingly misguided diversity efforts. That realization should make everyone notice how manipulative Trump and others in the right are by calling what the FAA did as being the same as what DEI groups and consultants do.
Don’t fall for it.
Looks like the FAA is the latest thing to be broken by Musk and his flunkeys 
:
Yes, the idea of cutting costs by firing everyone who was recently hired (presumably to meet a need) and everyone who was recently promoted (presumably because they were strong employees) seems unusually broken.
But not so unusual if your purpose is to break things.
Gosh, I wonder why Musk would come after the FAA, specifically…
Many of these anecdotes were from managers saying they were eg given targets to hire a certain number of ‘diverse’ employees on which their bonus depended, only sent ‘diverse’ candidates by HR, who weren’t properly qualified for the job, banned from hiring white men for some time because the company had hired ‘too many’, or were not allowed to hire the candidate they selected because no or not enough minorities had applied for the open position, so HR had to go back and readvertise it.
Some complained this resulted in substandard hires, others that it lead to positions going unfilled for months, putting strain on the team. One I saw was from a woman defending affirmative action, saying they had a quota on the final pool of candidates rather than on actual hires. (This still puts non-‘diverse’ candidates at a disadvantage.)
It seems to have been a tough job market for CS grads for the last few years, which of course heightens the resentment towards people perceived to be playing on easy mode.
You weren’t just reserving judgement on the FAA case though, you were trying to defend the FAA and explain away the Biographical Assessment.
And the fact the article with the evidence predates the talking point by a year makes no difference?
Bad DEI is still DEI.
Yes, that’s in society’s interest, though it’s unlikely you’d end up with parity in every profession because different people value different things.
I think it took that long because of wider societal factors, which could not possibly have been changed by employers trying to hire more women.
He hasn’t, they are doing the same thing everywhere. DEI is not the issue for them, looks like they really are trying to break the federal government.