'This will not stand': Air Force resumes teaching on first Black pilots after DEI review

[ColdHardTruth]

MAGA tends to believe that if it isn't white, it isn't right.

Typical racist assholes.

 

[Luce]

The real question is what do you consider historically significant? And does that history in apply any way, shape or form to the task at hand today? If you're going to train pilots then history is important so people know the timeline and the decisions that drove the requirements for today's aircraft/tactics. There's already a lot to learn & a limited time to learn it, we don't need to be teaching unnecessary stuff.

Teaching about previous greats isn't useful for the military?

I guess the Marines can stop telling recruits about Dan Daley and Chesty Puller, and the Army can stop mentioning Audie Murphy, right?

 

[jmotivator]

Let us imagine a business that only hired white peoples.

They'd be hiring based on race rather than merit.

Its recruitment efforts were at predominantly White colleges, predominantly White neighborhoods, and publicity consisted solely of White faces.

Now the company has decided to end its discrimination and hire Blacks, Asians, Hispanics.

If the company did not adopt any DEI policies by specifically recruiting non-whites and by changing its image to to attract non-whites, then there would be no change in the racial makeup.

They would not need to adopt any DEI policies in order to stop selecting employees based on skin color.

They would have to continue selecting employees based on skin color in order to implement DEI.

Unless you’re assuming that all Whites are more qualified or that DEI means racial balance over competence, then “merit” is still a factor.

I have argued precisely the opposite. If you stop recruiting and selecting employees based on skin color your business will become diverse naturally because job skill isn't determined by race.

No it didn’t.

Yes it did.

Not if no efforts to actually hire people of all colors etc are undertaken.

You don't need to recruit and hire people based on skin color. Hire people based on their skills.

And hiring has never been purely about “merit,” A person who comes across as an asshole in the interview or otherwise presents poorly will not be hired over someone of lesser qualifications but who fits better. DEI is about making sure that race, sex, etc are not part of “fits better.”

That is a tired and self defeating argument for two reasons.

First: You have made a "this is how we've always done it" type of argument that simply seeks to enforce a failed product.

Second: Not being an asshole is a pretty valuable job skill to have.

As I tell all of my new hires, there is a scale for all employees, on one side you have your skill weight, on the other side you have your asshole weight... optimally the skill set side of the scale should always outweigh the asshole side of the scale. The minute your asshole outweighs your skill set you are fired.

 

[Bighorn66]

I don’t think Jackie is a very good example, if he wasn’t a super athlete, no one would have heard of him. The DEI pendulum has swung way too far. Hardly anyone has heard of some of the Black mathematicians that got NASA off the ground.

Hmmmmm. I seem to recall….

 

[Luce]

What about those poor, poor white pilots? When will they get their recognition?

What? Like Frank Luke and Eddie Rickenbacher?

Or David McCampbell or Dick Best or Ira Bong?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

They'd be hiring based on race rather than merit.



They would not need to adopt any DEI policies in order to stop selecting employees based on skin color.

They would have to continue selecting employees based on skin color in order to implement DEI.



I have argued precisely the opposite. If you stop recruiting and selecting employees based on skin color your business will become diverse naturally because job skill isn't determined by race.



Yes it did.



You don't need to recruit and hire people based on skin color. Hire people based on their skills.



That is a tired and self defeating argument for two reasons.

First: You have made a "this is how we've always done it" type of argument that simply seeks to enforce a failed product.

Second: Not being an asshole is a pretty valuable job skill to have.

As I tell all of my new hires, there is a scale for all employees, on one side you have your skill weight, on the other side you have your asshole weight... optimally the skill set side of the scale should always outweigh the asshole side of the scale. The minute your asshole outweighs your skill you are fired.

Defending Trump's racism is not acceptable.

The Air Force is now a racist, sexist institution and have shamed themselves.

They have said, if you're not white or male, don't join.

This is despicable.

There needs to be a MASSIVE lawsuit filed.

 

[jmotivator]

Defending Trump's racism is not acceptable.

The Air Force is now a racist, sexist institution and have shamed themselves.

They have said, if you're not white or male, don't join.

This is despicable.

There needs to be a MASSIVE lawsuit filed.

There was no Trump racism. There was no order to not teach about the Tuskegee Airman because teaching about the Tuskegee airman doesn't require DEI and never has.

It was a stupid political stunt by Biden supporters in the Airforce and the usual suspects swallowed it without thinking.

 

[Rexedgar]

Hmmmmm. I seem to recall….

Congratulations!

 

[Bodecea]

DEI is/was institutionalized racial discrimination over merit based hiring.

The future is in hiring people based on merit while DEI idiots decided screw that we just need different racism.

Merit based hiring? Like those the rapey felon is hiring right now?

 

[NolanVoyd]

We have been able to teach about these groups without DEI for a long time.

These are stories of merit winning out over racial discrimination. DEI is enforcing Racial discrimination regardless of merit.

Jackie Robinson wouldn't be such a great story if he was a mediocre player who was drafted because he was black rather than breaking the color barrier because he was clearly a better baseball player than the majority of players in the league.

Lol.
You have no idea what DEI is.

 

[jmotivator]

Lol.
You have no idea what DEI is.

I always love these kinds of responses where someone claims that I don't know something and prove through their inane post that they actually have nothing to contribute.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

No answer?

Seems reasonable to me that the Air Force, or any branch, would have a segment of its boot camp academics set aside for teaching Air Force history. Its something that a recruit may want to know or maybe should know, the history of his/her organization.

I would be surprised if they spend a whole lot of time on this.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I always love these kinds of responses where someone claims that I don't know something and prove through their inane post that they actually have nothing to contribute.

Your post proves you have no idea what ot is.

 

[Lycanthrope]

No answer?

My answer is that each military branch teaches its history.

 

[multivita-man]

DEI is/was institutionalized racial discrimination over merit based hiring.

No it wasn't. Saying that just tells me you don't know what DEI is or isn't.

 

[Lisa]

We have been able to teach about these groups without DEI for a long time.

These are stories of merit winning out over racial discrimination. DEI is enforcing Racial discrimination regardless of merit.

Jackie Robinson wouldn't be such a great story if he was a mediocre player who was drafted because he was black rather than breaking the color barrier because he was clearly a better baseball player than the majority of players in the league.

Teaching the history of racism isn't racist to white people. Its almost as if racial discrimination is a core value of conservatism, so addressing it is offensive to them.

 

[multivita-man]

The real question is what do you consider historically significant?

We know you don't consider the history of racial discrimination of the military important. Who gives a **** what you consider or not? If someone doesn't think it's important, then fine, they don't have to.

And does that history in apply any way, shape or form to the task at hand today?

You don't do tasks in the military; it's not a task, it's a job, and that job is defending a highly complex, diverse society, with the military recruiting heavily from communities of color. Seems reasonable to acknowledge that, but you do David Duke if you want.

If you're going to train pilots then history is important so people know the timeline and the decisions that drove the requirements for today's aircraft/tactics.

There's already a lot to learn & a limited time to learn it, we don't need to be teaching unnecessary stuff.

 

[multivita-man]

We have been able to teach about these groups without DEI for a long time.

Because this country has been discriminating on the basis of race for a long time.

These are stories

There are stories...

Everyone's got a story. I'm guessing they're mostly fiction.

 

[Nickyjo]

Sounds like someone at the Air Force may be moving on to the private sector.

For teaching about the Tuskegee Airmen?

 

[eman623]

For teaching about the Tuskegee Airmen?

For not following lawful orders.

 

[Taylor]

Not sure how you can acknowledge these two groups without dragging DEI into it. Any thoughts?

You just teach history.

 

[Nickyjo]

For not following lawful orders.

Don’t understand or missed the point. What were the lawful orders?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

For not following lawful orders.

Since when is it lawful to discriminate?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

There was no Trump racism. There was no order to not teach about the Tuskegee Airman because teaching about the Tuskegee airman doesn't require DEI and never has.

It was a stupid political stunt by Biden supporters in the Airforce and the usual suspects swallowed it without thinking.

Not true.

We will not be dumping this bullshit on Biden.

 

[jmotivator]

No it wasn't. Saying that just tells me you don't know what DEI is or isn't.

Yes, if fact it was. But I'll add you to the list of responders who claim "that isn't what DEI is!!" without offering your own argument of what you think DEI actually is...