Apparently the FAA decided to encourage people to get college degrees for air traffic controller jobs in 1997 and changed their minds during the Obama administration. In principle, that seems like...
Apparently the FAA decided to encourage people to get college degrees for air traffic controller jobs in 1997 and changed their minds during the Obama administration. In principle, that seems like a good thing, since there are too many jobs that unnecessarily require a college degree.
There’s no indication that unqualified people have become controllers because of hiring practice changes. These hires don’t just have to go through extensive training, they also need to get signed off on before being released into duty. If anything, indications are that this process is too strenuous, not that it’s too lax.
Moreover, leaving behind qualified applicants isn’t why we don’t have more controllers. The FAA doesn’t have enough spots to train people.
But the transition was messy:
Facing pressure to diversify an overwhelmingly white workforce, the FAA began using a biographical test as a first screen of candidates.
Meanwhile, minority candidates were fed “buzz words” to bump their resumes up to top priority. Apparently saying your worst subject in school was science served as a golden ticket. Correct answers to the take-home biographical questionnaire were given in their entirety. These questionnaires were later banned.
The people who got college degrees expecting to become air controllers got passed over, resulting in a class action lawsuit. Much more detail about that here.
In 2016, Congress passed Public Law 114-190, which among other things banned the use of biographical assessments as a first-line hiring tool for air traffic controllers. People snubbed by the process filed dozens of lawsuits as a result, culminating in the class-action suit now underway as Brigida v. Buttigieg. In arguing to deny class certification, the defendants argued that the "underlying grievance—that they pursued college degrees in reliance on their perception that the role of the CTI program in the FAA's hiring process would never change—is not actionable." In a moment with a certain bitter irony, black CTI graduates who were left adrift by this process are the only demographic left out of the class: while the plaintiffs tried to include them initially, the court denied certification until they were excluded.
I doubt this is something the general public needs to be concerned about, but it does seem like an interesting example of a diversity initiative gone wrong.
I'm very frustrated with the focus the Bio-Q has been getting recently. It partially stems from general controller anger at the agency for ignoring the staffing level problems and partially from...
I'm very frustrated with the focus the Bio-Q has been getting recently. It partially stems from general controller anger at the agency for ignoring the staffing level problems and partially from the right's current "anti-DEI" focus.
The bottom line is that nothing about the Bio-Q or the hiring practices affected air traffic safety. The real takeaway should be that increasing diversity is not as simple as screening for it, that it's a systemic issue that has to be concurrently addressed at its roots and within orgs as an effort to eliminate biases holistically instead of by countering with a different set of biases.
By "Bio-Q" I presume you mean the questionnaire that's not used anymore. Yes, I think this is mostly of historical interest , except to the would-be air traffic controllers who didn't get hired.
By "Bio-Q" I presume you mean the questionnaire that's not used anymore.
Yes, I think this is mostly of historical interest , except to the would-be air traffic controllers who didn't get hired.
I'm confused by this article, it feels like politically driven rage bait. The airline industry seems to have lots a real issues to dive into... this feels frivolous and shallow. Maybe there's an...
I'm confused by this article, it feels like politically driven rage bait. The airline industry seems to have lots a real issues to dive into... this feels frivolous and shallow.
I linked to a more in-depth blog post in the comments. Here it is again. Maybe I should have posted that one instead, but it doesn't put anything into context, so I thought this one was a bit...
I linked to a more in-depth blog post in the comments. Here it is again. Maybe I should have posted that one instead, but it doesn't put anything into context, so I thought this one was a bit better for a general overview, even though it's pretty shallow.
Although it's obscure, I don't think it's frivolous. Injustice matters to the people affected, and we can take an interest in such things even though it doesn't affect us.
Apparently the FAA decided to encourage people to get college degrees for air traffic controller jobs in 1997 and changed their minds during the Obama administration. In principle, that seems like a good thing, since there are too many jobs that unnecessarily require a college degree.
But the transition was messy:
The people who got college degrees expecting to become air controllers got passed over, resulting in a class action lawsuit. Much more detail about that here.
I doubt this is something the general public needs to be concerned about, but it does seem like an interesting example of a diversity initiative gone wrong.
I'm very frustrated with the focus the Bio-Q has been getting recently. It partially stems from general controller anger at the agency for ignoring the staffing level problems and partially from the right's current "anti-DEI" focus.
The bottom line is that nothing about the Bio-Q or the hiring practices affected air traffic safety. The real takeaway should be that increasing diversity is not as simple as screening for it, that it's a systemic issue that has to be concurrently addressed at its roots and within orgs as an effort to eliminate biases holistically instead of by countering with a different set of biases.
By "Bio-Q" I presume you mean the questionnaire that's not used anymore.
Yes, I think this is mostly of historical interest , except to the would-be air traffic controllers who didn't get hired.
I'm confused by this article, it feels like politically driven rage bait. The airline industry seems to have lots a real issues to dive into... this feels frivolous and shallow.
Maybe there's an angle I'm missing here?
I linked to a more in-depth blog post in the comments. Here it is again. Maybe I should have posted that one instead, but it doesn't put anything into context, so I thought this one was a bit better for a general overview, even though it's pretty shallow.
Although it's obscure, I don't think it's frivolous. Injustice matters to the people affected, and we can take an interest in such things even though it doesn't affect us.