"Lowering standards in diversity's name" -- to what effect?

In the wake of the events discussed in this thread, the right-wing radio personalities are beating that old drum about police and firefighting agencies (and also airline pilot training programs) having to lower their training standards in order for more female trainees to be able to pass the tests and be hired as cops/firefighters/pilots.

My question is, is there any **credible[/] evidence that this has actually caused harm? Are more police officers getting killed because there are more women officers? More people dying in house fires due to there being women firefighters? Any plane crashes directly attributable to a woman being a pilot?

(Please remember, I stressed the word “credible.” Any study done by a think-tank funded by Richard Mellon Scaife need not be mentioned. That old whoremonger and his ilk have crief Wolf ten too many times for me to lend them a thimblefull of credence.)

Why do you not consider the NY Times fiasco to be prima facie proof of this? Remember, one of the head guys said something to the extent of “we really value diversity here at the times” in explaining why Blair was kept on.

“Landman said top management had made clear that furthering the career of a reporter like Blair, who is African American, was part of the newspaper’s commitment to diversity.”


And how many people lost their lives because Jayson Blair fabricated stories? BFD. :rolleyes

There’s a whole thread on this board (to which I provided a link – see above) where this is being discussed. Read my OP. I’m talking cops, firefighters and airline pilots.

So, unless someone dies, there’s no harm done? A newspaper publishing false information is not “harm”?

what sailor said. The question posed in your OP is:

“My question is, is there any credible evidence that this has actually caused harm?”

My answer is yes. Why are only deaths relevant? What about non-lethal injuries?

Unless you can demonstrate that the epidemic of corporate scandals in recent years is the result of most corporate executives being white, you can’t make the corresponding claim for Blair.

Blair’s supervisors at the Times made egregious errors in oversight and journalistic practice. They didn’t check his credentials. They didn’t check his (made-up) sources. They disregarded warnings and credible evidence that Blair had serious problems.

None of this was in the interest of “diversity”. Blair was the golden boy who expertly sucked up to his superiors and thus evaded the standard scrutiny that is normally applied to reporters by their editors.

Once again, would-be critics of AA miss the point.

  • Airline pilot, no (older planes DID require physical strength but that’s history)

  • Police, maybe (you’ll have to prove to me you can take me down)

  • Fireman, probably. I weigh 170 lbs and would not want me as a fireman. You should be able to carry at least 200 lbs down a ladder. I’ve lifted 180 lbs of quickreteTM from a deadlift off the ground. NOT EASY. I can’t imagine too many women being able to do it and I see no reason to reduce strength requirements because some jackass wants to be politically correct.

And if you’re too stupid to pass a civil servant test, then you’re not qualified to deal with life and death situations.


*Unless you can demonstrate that the epidemic of corporate scandals in recent years is the result of most corporate executives being white, you can’t make the corresponding claim for Blair. *

Sure you can. Nobody hires a white person to further their commitment to diversity.

I agree that Blair as an individual managed to evade normal scrutiny. Also, the Times top management is screwed up.

However, Exec. Editor Howell Raines admitted that race also played a role. In last week’s staff meeting, Raines was asked whether Blair’s race was a reason he got so many chances. He replied:


No offense, Magiver, but you’re not being able to imagine many women being able to do it doesn’t fall within my criteria of “credible evidence.”

Yes, I should have said “physical” or “mortal” harm in my OP. Okay?

December, what’s the point of that quote? To prove that people treat people based on personal experiences? Of course and so what? We all make decisions based on our history…

If Howard Raines gave Blair breaks based on his (Raines) experience has a white southerner, that’s RAINES’ problem. Not one of diversity. In fact, one could say that had Raines had a more diverse background, he might have seen Blair for the con man he was and ‘forgot’ Blair’s race or his own white ‘guilt’.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to show or prove, I think most people agree that Blair’s race was a part of his ‘insulation’, however i question the importance of in this case. We all have some form of ‘egde’ that we can exploit and it seems that Blair’s, was his ability to kiss ass; the color of his skin was an added bonus.

As you know, the (Times) editors had golden children who could do no wrong…you need to ask yourself, had Blair been white, would he have been treated any differently by these same editors? Once the editors took a liking to a reported, the reported seemed to have a free pass? Do you disagree? If you do, please tell why.

That’s what this is really about, Raines acknowledgement of Blair’s race is a convenient excuse…now. Raines’ excuse is that because he saw how Blacks were treated, he gave Blair more chances. However I wonder why didn’t he also say that various editors have their ‘favourites’, who get special treatment as well… were all of them black too?

Had Blair been a leggy Blonde, would Raines tell us that because his wife was a cow, yes that leggy Blonde got a break more than she should have? Whose fault is that? The quest for diversity? Because Raines can’t be honest with himself, diversity is to blame? Had Raines been honest with himself, he would have let Blair go and hired a qualified black reporter. He didn’t. Why? because he liked Blair, the man. Not Blair, the Black Man and like most people, you give people you like extra chances.

The problem at the Times wasn’t a desire for diversity, it was a desire to have news department full of hand picked ‘chosen’ ones.

Even the NY Post realizes this.

sorry…should be reporter, not reported.

He’s probably right, though. Come to thin of it, not every man can haul a 200 pound person down a ladder, and I’m sure I could do it by the skin of my teeth, if at all. I don’t even weigh nearly that much. And, honestly, its true that women are an average less physically powerful than men. Its a matter of muscle.

So, only “physical” or “mortal” harm? Anything else doesn’t matter? A rews[aper carrying false news is totally unimportant? Lower quality of products or services would not count for anything? If your car was destroyed it would not matter because there was no “physical” or “mortal” harm? Really?

Again and again and again: credible evidence! Don’t give me “it’s probably true,” don’t give me “it would logically follow” – these are all just fancy window dressing for guesswork. Show me a credible study done on this by a reputable institution.

And will you get off the newspaper thing already? Go discuss it in that thread. And I’m not interested in your improper wrapped Twinkie already!

Once more:

Airline Pilots

(Hey, I’m not the ones on talk radio dragging this out…)

Sorry. That should be “improperly wrapped Trinkie.”

This is a very interesting standard to judge things by. So the only good way to judge a law or policy is by how many deaths it caused? If a law causes no deaths it is a good law? If an employee cause no deaths he is a good employee? I am not sure I can agree with that. Let me think about it and I’ll get back to you.

Yes! Yes! Prove to me by giving me undeniable cites showing that airline pilots kill people because they are women! And make sure it can’t just be written off as an individual’s flaw, no, it HAS to be because of womanhood! And people have to die, or at least get something amputated if you want it to count, inethical actions and property damage don’t cut the mustard!

Can’t do it? HAH! That means AA is completely fair and non-discriminatory! I’m right and you’re wrong! Thppt!

Sadly, CaptMurdock, your sig was the most informative part of your post.

Belowjob2.0 was discussing Raines had taken race into effect. That’s what Raines was asked. When you cut through the verbiage, his response was,

It’s an actual quote. It was in the Times, but I happened to find the Post cite first.

I totally agree. It’s not a problem with diversity at all. Diversity is good. It wasn’t even a problem with racial preferences in general. This was a problem with preferences as practiced at the New York Times.

Good question. Raines appointed lightweight Gail Collins to his old job as head of the op-ed page. She is totally over her head. Raines and Collins allow Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman to write inaccurate, biased columns. The dishonest jerk Chris Hedges is a reporter on the Times. These four people are white.

I agree with you up to a point. I also agree that the color of his skin was an added bonus. In other words, Raines and Sulzberger had a particular fondness for Blair as an individual, but IMHO Blair’s race was part of his charm.