Appallingly slanted reporting from the Guardian -- DC plane crash

[GeneralPeter]

This article describes Trump's theory that DEI had something to do with the crash using debunking words throughout. 'Baselessly', 'without providing evidence' etc etc.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/30/trump-washington-dc-plane-crash-dei

The thing is, this isn't 'baseless'.

The FAA has said that the tower was understaffed. We don't know if that was relevant or has not. We do know that FAA recruitment cratered because of a (very well-evidenced) extremely crude attempt at DEI. There is a long-running class action lawsuit that is on public record and not made up. The test really did award points for saying you had more Ds than Cs at school, for saying science was your weakest subject, etc etc and they did then give the answers to candidates of a particular race before the test.

Sometimes things that sound like loonish right-wing conspiracy theories actually turn out to be true. If you think I must be a right-wing loon, please read this thread first (and many others out there -- this is all public record in court documents and not denied by the FAA).

x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

You would not know any of this if you read the Guardian article. Their reporter must surely know this stuff. So it's another attempt to bury with slurs an ideologically inconvenient actual truth. We've seen this before with sex-based rights, and the Guardian should stop it.

(Obligatory: I'm not a Trump fan, think he is appalling in many respects, several of them disqualifying for the presidency. But while comment is free, facts should be sacred).

Of course done well that is usually the goal.

In the litigated FAA case though it absolutely did impact quality of the service, mainly by reducing applicants. The strategy also had an explicit goal of reducing the cognitive element of the screening too. Maybe that's entirely justified, if it was set unnecessary high, or if other skills are more important. But it wasn't just about encouraging more applicants from a wider range of backgrounds, in the case under discussion.

(That’s without the selective sharing of the answer key, which can’t have helped).

Screening is first stage - those who got through still had to pass multiple rigorous assessments then what is effectively am apprenticeship before being allowed anywhere near controlling an airspace like DCA.

The diversity policies were introduced by Obama but the new policies relevant here were introduced in 2019 when trump was president.

There is no way DEI policies caused this incident - it's going to be airspace design.

OP started this thread as anti Guardian - it's actually anti DEI.

You're putting a lot of weight and expectation of getting the result that you want from what is at present just a lawsuit. It's quite possible that it will fail, then you'll have nothing left to say. A firm of lawyers is making a lot of money from representing a bunch of people who were found not good enough - and it has not yet been decided whether the reasons were valid. Given that there's a shortage of ATCs, it seems most likely that they were valid, regardless of DEI factors.

@FrankieStein403

It takes nuance, right?

Did the FAA's badly-executed 2014 DEI programme exacerbate recruitment problems? That seems pretty clear. One of a few major causes of their chronic national understaffing problem.

Was the tower understaffed? Yes.

Did understaffing in fact cause this crash? We won't know for a while. Possibly no role at all.

Is this an anti-DEI thread? Not really, no. Neither in intention nor in how it turned out. For it to be so, you'd have to think that the FAA's 2014 DEI programme is what DEI is. Even then, this hasn’t, fundamentally, been a thread about that.

I think my view on that (if you are interested) is that FAA 2014 DEI was a very badly conceived and executed program that appears to have caused quite a lot of disruption and a decade of legal problems. Also that there are many other DEI programmes, both in theory and in practice, that are very good. I don't see either of those as particularly punchy takes.

I feel you feel I must be guilty of some kind of wrong-think, but five pages in you haven't quite been able to figure out what that thing is.

The Secretary of Transportation has his own explanation

Sean Duffy on Fox News Sunday suggests that "changing names from 'cockpit' to flightdeck'" undermined safety at the FAA

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lh7cmcuqu22c

think my view on that (if you are interested) is that FAA 2014 DEI was a very badly conceived and executed program that appears to have caused quite a lot of disruption and a decade of legal problems. Also that there are many other DEI programmes, both in theory and in practice, that are very good. I don't see either of those as particularly punchy takes

There are no good DEI programs if you are of the opinion that all hiring should be on merit only.

And cognitive testing is in fact the most accurate predictor of job performance. So you could just hire based on the results of this kind of testing and stop giving a shit if it looks ‘too white’

@RingoJuice

If you mean by DEI critical social justice-inspired programmes, I probably agree.

But I there are many good and important diversity and inclusion measures that support merit, and that recognise the value of diversity of perspectives, experience, and, in many cases, representation.

So I typically support, e.g., measures to increase awareness/applications from under-represented groups, removing barriers to participation, the arranging of facilities recognising the needs of different groups, contextual offers (done thoughtfully), internships being paid, the banning of legacy preferences, action (done thoughtfully) to avoid boards etc becoming dominated by narrow groups, protections for free speech and promotion of ideological diversity, and measures of that sort.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/02/trump-crash-disabilities-dei/

Disability advocates fear backlash, discrimination after Trump's FAA comments

Veterans' groups & advocates for those with disabilities have issued scathing criticisms of the president's baseless comments about the reasons behind the fatal plane crash last week

I don't think your thinking here is right at all. Good DEI programmes open up opportunities for those who are being overlooked by virtue of their colour, sex, disability, orientation etc alone. The public or other perceptions that a woman is only suited to some roles. If you look back at the mindset of the 70s - that girls should only consider certain roles, shouldn't play football, not to mention homophobia and racist views - which still pervade society today - DEI came out of that. DEI should be to get rid of incorrect mindsets, not to be patronising. Of course appointments must be based on merit.

And on the other hand, look at improving education and cognitive training for everyone across the board. Look at programmes which are therapeutic for certain disabilities.

But trying to remove merit in relation to appointments? No, not a good thing and not necessary.

I don't think you do understand what I have written, actually.

@Caplin just to come back to this quickly - you say "you are allowing Trump to distract you from what you don't want to see" - what are you referring to here? What is that I/we don't want to see?

I don't hold out much hope of getting an answer but asking just in case there is something of interest here.

When you said I just haven't "got it" yet, it is more that I don't agree witih your analysis or your personal value judgements, and so I am not v interested in that, but if there is something else you think Trump is distracting me/us from, please let me know. Thanks!

Interesting article in the Atlantic on DEI, with a few paras on FAA hiring near the end.

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/03/dei-buzzword-debate-harms/681882/