The Grand Illusion
Last week, President Trump effectively stated that the nation’s air safety was degraded by federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, even going on to say that FAA air traffic controllers needed to be “brilliant,” in a context implying that anyone benefiting from DEI policies was unqualified.
While federal DEI programs were designed to promote equal access, opportunity, employment, and inclusion of underrepresented people in the workplace, they did not override or supersede existing job or position requirements based on ability to do the job. Nor did they mandate replacing existing employees with underrepresented individuals. What they did attempt to override was a long-standing and unspoken cultural assumption that the best person for a position was a straight white male.
The problem with DEI was that it went too far, especially on the state level and elsewhere, with an assumption that diversity, equity, and inclusion can and should be mandated, and achieved instantly and without adverse legal effects, rather than requiring efforts to attain DEI objectives.
The state of California enacted a law requiring corporations to place members of unrepresented groups on their corporate boards. That requirement was struck down by a federal judge in California, but the state is pursuing an appeal. The Nasdaq Stock Market had required corporations listed on the exchange to report that they had, or explain why they did not have, racial, gender or LGBTQIA+ diversity among the directors on their boards. That requirement was struck down by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Both decisions were based on earlier Supreme Court rulings that racial and ethnic quotas are unconstitutional.
The examples of DEI overreach created a backlash, primarily from conservative white males, who saw and apparently continue to see DEI policies as a threat, with the result that Trump issued an executive order not only eliminating all federal DEI policies and actions, but also effectively removing most federal affirmative action programs and threatening to remove federal educational aid to colleges and universities that do not remove all DEI policies and programs. (Of course, Utah already did that last summer).
In the end, overreach by either side usually results in overreaction, certainly as it has in this instance. Unfortunately, it appears that this was just the beginning.
Speaking as a conservative white male, it sure seems to me that a lot of conservative white males feel threatened by just about everything that isn’t a conservative white male.
Sadly, their response was to put in power over them a bunch of bozo billionaires who are only in it for themselves, not for the people who were idiot enough to elect them.
Well, maybe after the buffoons in power Make America Godawful Again, there will be a reckoning.
The notion that ATCs should be genii or brilliant is itself non-sensical. They should instead be professional. That means they are trained and competent to do their jobs. A standard like ‘genius’ is rare and subjective and would immediately mean the workforce requirements for number of ATCs would not and could not be met. These statements and positions are continued evidence that policy by emotion rather than critical thinking is ultimately destructive – like everything Trump does.
Indeed. Actually a key requirement for ATC work is actually the opposite of a brilliance in many ways – it’s quite a simple and repetitive job in general, and overly intelligent or imaginative people more easily get bored or distracted which is a big no. Instead they need very good spatial awareness, mathematical and organisational skills, combined with good clear speech and a steady process driven demeanour.
It’s hard to fill those roles for a reason.
“very good spatial awareness, mathematical and organisational skills, combined with good clear speech and a steady process driven demeanour.” (and not freaking out even when things seem to be out of control)
This is rare… like genius, or being brilliant. Trump is not a clear precise speaker, but “weaves” and analogizes. Holding him to precision simply doesn’t work, one has to interpret his utterances more than most people… so my guess is by “brilliant” he meant have a rare combination of attributes.
The backlash against DEI is all of a piece with the entire thrust to “Make America White Again”, which I’ve always heard MAGA as a thinly disguised dog whistle for.
I am sure that some of the DEI policies went too far. The issue is that when the Supreme Court said quotas were illegal that includes quotas of 0. How can you determine that there is a quota in place and there just aren’t the right candidates who aren’t straight white males? It is fairly easy when hiring a large number of people for an entry level position. But for higher level positions or those with more complex requirements it is not as simple.
Having worked in corporate America for far too long, the only factor that correlates to choosing a candidate is that there is an opening. Over and over I have seen people pick a candidate and then come up with the reasons for hiring that person over another. I am not sure that is wrong but it makes it difficult to determine if quotas are being used.
Companies hiring the best candidates will over time have an advantage over those that don’t. But that can take time and there are other factors that influence the success of a company.
The issue in the overall discussion though is how people respond when they don’t get the job. No one likes rejection and no normal person hasn’t been rejected. The desired response is to persevere and try again. If there are repeated rejections, it is useful to see if there is anything that can be done to improve to reduce the chance of rejection.
We have two things going on right now. There are people who instead of working to improve themselves, are blaming people who they feel superior to for no valid reason for their situation. This is not new. Also, we have loud voices amplifying and normalizing that feeling to promote their own ends. This is also not new but the desired ends are a restructuring of US society to a disastrous extent.
90% of air traffic control towers are understaffed.
10% are fully staffed if one includes trainees.
2% are fully staffed if one only includes professional Air Traffic controllers.
A lawsuit claims that thousands of Air Controllers weren’t given a job because they had the wrong immutable characteristics.
It seems to be a no-brainer to state DEI went far too far.
Has DEI gone too far sometimes? Probably. It’s administered by humans, and they’re certainly fallible.
Then again, let me provide a different perspective. I’ve got an old family photo showing an ancestor born in the mid-1800s, and he’s sitting on a chair on a piece of property he owned.
Many years later my mom inherited a share of that property, and subsequently sold it. Eventually she died, and I did inherit some money.
If that ancestor had been a freed slave, who couldn’t own property, would I have inherited anything?
If that ancestor had been a Native American taken off his land and sent to a reservation, would I have inherited anything?
If a later ancestor had been a Japanese-American on the west coast, losing all his property and sent to a camp, would I have inherited anything?
So maybe sometimes DEI programs go too far. But the case is there to be made that such programs don’t go far enough.
Plenty of white people don’t inherit anything either. They too are part of the unlucky sperm club who chose their parents poorly.
Ultimately, given that evolution is predicated on passing genetic information and resources from parents to children, and then weeding out the unsuccessful, I’m not sure how you do that. Genetic editing? Children fostered by other parents? Redistributing or using a lottery to allocate the wealth of those who die? A Handicapper general? It seems to me that these efforts to enforce fairness quickly lead to dystopia.
The only solution I know that seems fair is ruthless application of meritocracy, and DEI goes against that, which is why I oppose it in all its forms. To the extent we don’t live in a meritocracy, we should work towards fixing that, rather than giving up on it.
Well, don’t worry, I wasn’t trying to persuade you. Just presenting an alternate viewpoint, whether you were okay with it or not.
Or you know, you look at facts and the facts are for the last 4 years there were no such plane accidents.
Then Trump gets put in charge.
Trump fires head of the FAA for offending President Musk.
Trump eliminates all DEI.
Trump blames people being not white as source of crash despite that clearly not being the case.
Maybe just maybe look at that instead of blaming a program that doesn’t stop hiring.
Like, literally, that’s a lie with a few exceptions that are paraded around. DEI is not “We’re not hiring this white guy, let’s put this unqualified minority in place.” It’s you can’t not look at someone’s resume for being non white male. You have to give fair chances to all to get a job. That doesn’t take away a job’s qualifications or the checks and balances in place to keep it safe.
Not a fair analogy: if you don’t mitigate, one day a wildfire will devastate your land. If the land was just, it is ridiculous to blame the current owner and exonerate the previous one for the catastrophe. Same here.
https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-faas-hiring explains what happened at the FAA.
To be chosen you literally had to be bad at science… because rotating things in your head is a true disadvantage to making sure planes flying around in the 3D sky don’t crash into each other.
Is there something in the US system which means that the middle ground has been abandoned?
By UK standards, I am slightly right-of-centre. I also grew up when being a hard-working and intelligent man from a lower middle-class background meant that my lack of self-confidence was overlooked.
I went to a college in the UK in the university equivalent of Harvard and Yale, which had a 90% state school intake at the time.
I would be interested to hear if LEM or his wife recognises something I have heard from musicians in the UK: that females and non-blotchy pink musicians are more likely to be selected for orchestras if the only thing they are judged on is the music they play behind a screen.
I also knew people who got no interviews when they used their obviously immigrant surname and reapplied with a number in lieu of a name. Surprise, surprise, they were interviewed and, when given the opportunity, got the job and performed well.
I can also believe that people can game the system. While I hate the phrase intersectionality, the idea that wealth is at least as or possibly more important than colour or background as social acceptability is not obviously untrue.
I can have conversations in the UK with people I disagree with about the right answer without having to say that the other person is totally wrong or evil. Often, it helps me refine my own views if I can understand where the people I disagree with are coming from and respect (if not agree with) their starting point.
The composition of orchestras in the U.S. changed markedly once blind auditions were adopted (and, as one of my daughters insists, once women were advised not to wear heels to the audition, since those were also a giveaway, because they sound distinctively on hardwood or stone floors).
Even so, the U.S. classical musical field remains predominantly male, especially on the academic side. At present, my wife (a full professor) is the only full-time tenured/tenure track woman in the music department at the local university (enrollment roughly 16,000), and it’s not much better at many other universities.
Anonymous evaluation is great and to my mind should be standard… No need for the upper class (UK), or the Brahmins (India), or the WASPs (US) to be given an unfair advantage. Everyone benefits most from a person’s work, if the person is the most competent.
I also agree with your last paragraph. Unfortunately the US is so polarized that any disagreement can lead to social exclusion. I wish it were otherwise.
Joe, I actually agree with you.
ADB, the fundamental reason is that people in the USA don’t agree on what the facts are. For example, is Trump a convicted felon who evaded any real accountability? Or is he the victim of political persecution who triumphed over it?
When people can’t agree on what reality is, the situation starts to seem like insanity.
I have to disagree about anonymous evaluations, at least broad scale ones. Such evaluations are destroying higher education because they give enormous power to largely ignorant 18 year-olds and because admiministrators will do anything to keep the student numbers up, and very little to support good teaching and excellent teachers. “Consumerism” carried to extremes degrades everything from education to politics.
Based on context, in this case I’d actually give Joe the benefit of doubt, that he was talking specifically about hiring and admittance, not upwards evaluations like students reviewing teachers or employees reviewing their bosses.
Yes, that’s what I meant.
I don’t believe I’ve ever had the opportunity to review a teacher, let alone a boss.