The whole government is trying this failing exercise in many areas, always with detrimental results.
But enforced diversity won’t make it better.
I don't think there was any mention of whether the controllers who WERE hired are or are not any less competent than the rest.
How so? Unless I failed in my reading comprehension or the WSJ printed a complete falsehood. I'm certainly open to correction if either of those things are true.
Can't agree more. That is the proper definition.
Amen.
We disagree on your first point, I think. Some people seem to think that anywhere there is a preponderance of one group (ethnic, gender, whatever) it's due to racism, sexism, or whatever-phobia. I think that's generally not the case.
Opportunity does not guarantee selection, of course. And what if I have two capable candidates, but one is more capable? For example, I am looking for someone with a minimum of two years of experience, and some formal training in the product. One applicant is a white male with a decade of experience, more training and a proven track record at similar companies. The other meets the minimum requirements, but isn't anywhere near as qualified. Must I then still select the minority candidate over the one who will likely require less training and supervision?
Perhaps you should. The article described someone who was well qualified and had gone through all the processes required for the job, at considerable personal expense, and was denied the opportunity to compete based solely on his ethnicity. Regardless of what you think about how things are, I challenge anyone to explain how discrimination based on ethnicity is a good thing.
Agree. But like you said, the long road takes a lot of work, while the short road of just literally bumping someone up or through is much easier, but does not have the long-term benefits that are sought, and often takes the individual responsibility out of the equation. I worked with a woman who was an immigrant from a non caucasian country, and the whole immigration thing really bothered her, because she did everything legally by the books and took her a very long time, and felt that it was unfair for other people not to have to do the same that she had to do. She was all for reform, because she understood the system was broken, but she wasn't in favor of just blanket amnesty
You are right. People do that because it's easier to blame some extrinsic third party element as opposed to maybe your own skill set or choices you have made in your life. We are all afforded and guaranteed the same protections, and when you feel that there's bias there are clear channel's to pursue that. We absolutely do not all have the same opportunities or skills, and some people do have a bigger hill to climb than others, but to fix that you have to fix the core cause of the issue.. which oftentimes starts with education and the home itself. I just recently filled out our company's employee satisfaction survey, and one of the questions asked for a rating from 0 to 10, about how much the company values diversity. I left it blank, and commented simply that I hope the company hires and promotes based on skills and qualifications solely without judging someone by skin color, etc. I'd be really curious to talk to the people who gave that question a rating, the reasoning behind their rating.
How is that fair though? Many places do the same thing to try and balance out the workforce, but how is that fair? Not directed at you personally, but more on the base of principle. Resumes should be considered outside of gender, names, Etc.
I also don't think there's anything wrong with subgroups of people tending to have different interests than other subgroups. There is also nothing wrong with individuals in these subgroups being outliers. As long as everyone is aware that different opportunities are available to them, I see no reason for all this social engineering.
For sure, and I think that's the million-dollar question; that is how do you level out the playing field, so to speak, or make it more fair, that someone who might be just as skilled as you might not be able to do the things you did because they come from a bad situation.. there's a fine line in there somewhere, between the relative Utopia we have and creating some sort of communist or socialist environment, which history has shown tends to long run have an adverse net effect
What we have in this country is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. All government functions are inherently collective in nature, and as such there has always been a mixture. Finding the right balance, now that has been the hard part (and certainly the most contentious).
