Yikes. What a weird thing to try to make it about race. So to clarify, if you're not white and male, then obviously you're just not serious about a job because you're a "diversity" hire and not a serious person. Got it.

If you're (much) less competent but the only reason why you get the job is "diversity", then yes we have a problem.

There can be diverse good candidates of course, there's no racism here.

Right, so if you're not the hiring manager, how do you know someone is a "diversity hire" though? Isn't it racist to just assume someone was hired as a "diversity hire"? Most importantly, people tend to hire people like themselves, if the hiring manager is white it's most likely they'll hire someone who is white regardless if they're more qualified, but I doubt anyone ever questions those hires.

That's the point.

You should not know and should not take it in consideration but in the USA this is part of the application. I understand the whole point is to make sure diverse candidate are not discriminated against (and of course that would be a ridiculous thing to do), but it seems to have been perverted into caricaturical discrimination _for_, even favoring a diverse incompetent candidate over a non-diverse competent one.

> You should not know and should not take it in consideration

Then how do you suppose we ended up with fields where nearly everyone was a white male, if race was never taken into consideration?

Because whites were 85% of the US population for a long time and being a SAHM used to be a viable strategy.

> but it seems to have been perverted into caricaturical discrimination _for_, even favoring a diverse incompetent candidate over a non-diverse competent one.

That's a crazy claim told without any proof. I don't see any studies, sources linked in your comment. That just sounds like your own anecdotal perspective.

Sounds like you’re the one making it about race. Are you saying there is not a single non white male among the veteran group?

The point is, people in this position should be hired based on merit regardless of their race, sex, or anything else.

> Are you saying there is not a single non white male among the veteran group?

I am not saying that and yes that would be obvious. That doesn't negate anything about how it's on the "diversity hires" and not the veterans pointed out in this thread, lol

It's all just speculation.

> The point is, people in this position should be hired based on merit regardless of their race, sex, or anything else.

What's your proof that people aren't hired based on merit regardless of their race, sex, or anything else though? Just wild speculation on your part? lol

More details on this:

https://x.com/restoreorderusa/status/1731058275720831262?s=2...

Why not throw the veterans under the bus as well though? Nope, it's just the "diversity hires" that are the problem lol.

Because the standards were drastically reduced when the diversity initiative was introduced.

I’d love to hear your explanation on why diversity is so detrimental to being an air traffic controller.

It's not. It was the reduction of hiring standards that is a problem.

Well, in your comment that I was replying to, you were complaining about diversity.

I was complaining about them caring about diversity so much that they drastically reduced the hiring standards so they could fill ATC with diverse candidates quickly.

Also, I think it's racist and discriminatory towards young white people.