BibleForums Christian Message Board
General Category => In General => Topic started by: Sojourner on January 15, 2024, 11:02:25 AM
-
As part of their diversity and inclusion policy, the FAA is actively seeking applicants with disabilities that specifically include intellectual and psychiatric issues. I get not discriminating against the handicapped. What I don't get is why qualifications for a job are incidental to checked boxes. I guess in this instance, the ideal candidate would be a schizophrenic, epileptic, paraplegic dwarf. Your FAA at work.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/faas-diversity-push-includes-focus-hiring-people-severe-intellectual-psychiatric-disabilities
-
I remember quite a lot of years ago one of the police forces where I lived at the time was looking to hire beat cops. Because handicapped people were underrepresented they were particularly interested in applications from people with visual or auditory impairmets.
Wanted: blind and/or deaf beat cops. You couldn't make this stuff up.
-
Hopefully, candidates for air traffic controller positions won't include psychotic people with narcolepsy.
-
Hopefully, candidates for air traffic controller positions won't include psychotic people with narcolepsy.
Maybe the excitement of applying will send them to sleep and they won't complete the process.
-
Okay but like, if these people wanted to work and accommodation was provided to them, then what's the problem? Or is this an argument in favour of a welfare state instead?
-
Okay but like, if these people wanted to work and accommodation was provided to them, then what's the problem? Or is this an argument in favour of a welfare state instead?
No, it's an argument that the safety of airline passengers should not be put at risk because of woke policies that favor diversity over more qualified applicants. There are many types of jobs under the auspices of the FAA for which properly trained disabled people would be qualified. But I for one, would not want to be on a flight monitored by an air traffic controller susceptible to psychotic episodes.
On Oct 23 of last year, an off-duty airline pilot traveling in the cockpit of an Alaska Airlines flight tried to shut off the plane's engines because he believed he was dreaming and thought crashing the plane would make him wake up. He later told authorities he had been depressed, hadn't slept for days, and was under the influence of psychedelic mushrooms. Prior to the incident, he had been an excellent pilot with an unblemished record. If someone like that can become a liability, why risk problems by seeking out applicants known to suffer psychiatric issues?
-
Okay but like, if these people wanted to work and accommodation was provided to them, then what's the problem? Or is this an argument in favour of a welfare state instead?
I guess it's a question of whether a suitable accommodation can be provided before it becomes a liability.
An example I often use is when people struggle to speak English and understand spoken English. If you're sweeping the roads then as long as you can understand the job requirements and actually sweep the roads it probably doesn't matter if you struggle with English. Arguably if you're performing surgery, as long as you can communicate with the surgical team in some efficient manner and understand before the patient goes under exactly what you're supposed to be doing to them and any limits of their consent in the event of problems you might argue that it's workable. But you're probably not going to be much good providing telephone support to people if you can't understand what they are saying and you can't speak the language well enough to suggest solutions.
If you're hard of hearing you can probably work an office job reasonably well with accommodations. If you have visual impairments the chances are an office job can make accommodations for you. You probably don't want a beat cop who didn't see what happened because their vision is so bad.
-
Okay but like, if these people wanted to work and accommodation was provided to them, then what's the problem? Or is this an argument in favour of a welfare state instead?
No, it's an argument that the safety of airline passengers should not be put at risk because of woke policies that favor diversity over more qualified applicants. There are many types of jobs under the auspices of the FAA for which properly trained disabled people would be qualified. But I for one, would not want to be on a flight monitored by an air traffic controller susceptible to psychotic episodes.
On Oct 23 of last year, an off-duty airline pilot traveling in the cockpit of an Alaska Airlines flight tried to shut off the plane's engines because he believed he was dreaming and thought crashing the plane would make him wake up. He later told authorities he had been depressed, hadn't slept for days, and was under the influence of psychedelic mushrooms. Prior to the incident, he had been an excellent pilot with an unblemished record. If someone like that can become a liability, why risk problems by seeking out applicants known to suffer psychiatric issues?
Is that what's being suggested? (I'm honestly not sure, so asking.)
-
Is that what's being suggested? (I'm honestly not sure, so asking.)
That depends on how the FAA defines a "psychiatric disability". From the FAA website regarding diversity hiring policy:
Targeted Disabilities
Targeted disabilities are those disabilities that the Federal government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis in recruitment and hiring. They include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism.
While most of the listed disabilities are clearly defined physical or mental limitations for which accommodations can be made, "psychiatric disability" seems vague and out of place. Psychiatric disorders encompass a wide spectrum of maladies, some more serious than others, such as schizophrenia and personality disorders. Those in charge of DEI policy don't always exercise sound judgment, and a bad hiring decision could have detrimental consequences.
-
What I mean is, are they going to hire people with psychotic disorders in air traffic controller positions? Do they already?
-
I have no idea whether people with psychotic disorders currently are or could become air traffic controllers -- or even how that information could be ascertained. But the fact that the designation "psychotic" is even specified among the disabilities FAA diversity policy seeks to include in its diversity initiative is telling. People with certain psychotic conditions can be volatile and unpredictable, so we can only hope such individuals are properly evaluated prior to being hired.
-
Another aspect of it is that it's one thing to make accommodations for someone who is perfect for the job but who suffers from some physical or mental condition that doesn't affect their performance. Making an accommodation for a wheelchair user who ticks all the required boxes means that an ideal candidate isn't rejected over something that can be worked around,
It's another thing entirely to actively seek out people with specified conditions for the sake of some check-box called "diversity". It's one thing to make accommodations for a wheelchair user to facilitate them doing the job, it's another thing entirely to specify that people in wheelchairs are specifically desired.
Maybe people with psychotic tendencies are being sought out to sweep the floors. I'd still question why it's necessary to actively seek out people with specific conditions rather than simply saying that floor sweepers are required and that as long as you can sweep the floor other aspects don't matter.
-
Agreed. Being qualified for the job should be a priority when considering applicants instead of seeking out less qualified people who tick the boxes. The term"diversity" is essentially code for "other than white, able-bodied, male cisgender". It's ironic that the equity and inclusion goals of DEI initiatives can only be met by means of discrimination.
-
Another problem with a focus on diversity as a goal in and of itself is that it casts a permanent cloud over people who are hired. I remember a black guy I worked with years ago who hated the idea of racial quotas, affirmative action, or whatever else the process to say "we don't have enough black workers" was called at the time. As he said he wanted to stand or fall on his merits rather than the color of his skin and as the only black guy on an otherwise white team he constantly wondered whether he was hired as the token black guy or because he was the best candidate.