Nuclear Base Focuses on Diversity, Fails Nuclear Inspections

[GURPS]

A culture notably absent from the Diversity Day festivities at Minot is a culture of competence.

Two Air Force commanders have been fired after their units failed nuclear surety inspections. Another four of their subordinates also went out the door. Firings have become common at Minot AFB which maintains a unique status in the nation’s defense and in the botched leadership that focuses on diversity and political correctness over national security.

The chain of disasters was kickstarted in 2014 when the commander of the 741st Missile Squadron at Minot AFB was forced out over allegations that he had discriminated against pregnant women. Afterward, the “ball began rolling on Minot’s diversity program”.

Nuclear Base Focuses on Diversity, Fails Nuclear Inspections | Frontpage Mag

You can’t nuke China unless you have diversity at a base in North Dakota.

www.frontpagemag.com

 

[Kyle]

Let me guess... Now the two keys must be turned by a Gay, Black, Trans-Furry and a Pre-Teen Gender Fluid Asian Lesbian?

 

[spr1975wshs]

Always though of there as : Why Not Minot? Freezins the reason.

 

[stgislander]

Hmmmm... I wonder what the problem could be.


<cough> <cough> <Air Force> <cough>

 

[Monello]

I bet they aced the proper pronoun usage part of the test.

 

[SamSpade]

The thing is, diversity hiring would never pose a problem so long as the requirements that are VITAL are never relaxed.

When you do something like lower academic standards for say, college admissions - what you end up with is more people dropping out.
When you lower physical fitness qualifications for say, firefighting - someone will be injured. You can't make "diversity" the goal - your goal should be to get the most qualified persons - THEN you consider diversity.

 

[Monello]

The thing is, diversity hiring would never pose a problem so long as the requirements that are VITAL are never relaxed.

When you do something like lower academic standards for say, college admissions - what you end up with is more people dropping out.
When you lower physical fitness qualifications for say, firefighting - someone will be injured. You can't make "diversity" the goal - your goal should be to get the most qualified persons - THEN you consider diversity.

The problem I have is sometimes trying to achieve hiring quotas ensures that better candidates are denied opportunities while concessions are made to inferior candidates.

Take the NBA for example. If they had to adhere to some sort of quota hiring, then the on court product would be diluted. Not that I think any pro sports would touch diversity with a 10 foot pole. Except the NFL, when it comes to hiring head coaches. But that is a separate argument.

Now, let's say, the NBA has to add more Caucasian, hispanic & Asian players to rosters. Clearly many capable black players will be out of a job all in the name of diversity. Which is more important? That talent win out or diversity achieved? Imagine if the NBA was limited to rosters that reflected the overall percentage of a race in the general population. An NBA with 13% black players might be unwatchable. Similar to the WNBA.

 

[OccamsRazor]

Now, let's say, the NBA has to add more Caucasian, hispanic & Asian players to rosters. Clearly many capable black players will be out of a job all in the name of diversity. Which is more important? That talent win out or diversity achieved? Imagine if the NBA was limited to rosters that reflected the overall percentage of a race in the general population. An NBA with 13% black players might be unwatchable. Similar to the WNBA.

I recently watched a segment where an interviewer went to a prestigious SEC college and asked about student diversity. In short, students were asked if the student body should be diversified according to applicants. Of course they answered YES. Agreeing that a certain percentage of Whites, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc. should be let in. Then, the same question was posed about the Football and Basketball teams. "Shouldn't the Football team be equally diverse? Shouldn't the Basketball team be equally diverse?" Of course THEN, the answers were "Well.. they should be picked based on their ability."

 

[SamSpade]

The problem I have is sometimes trying to achieve hiring quotas ensures that better candidates are denied opportunities while concessions are made to inferior candidates.

I don't have a problem IF the most relevant requirements aren't adjusted for divesity's sake.

I've read how - all things being equal - when selecting or hiring someone for a position - people tend to hire or choose people LIKE THEMSELVES, no matter what race or gender or religion or ethnicity. There's just a tendency however unintentional to pick people we're comfortable with. And I think it's likely that people with different backgrounds can be very valuable - but ONLY if they meet the same requirements.

I once went to an engineering school that had the most awful inability to recruit WOMEN. For whatever reason, women just weren't interested in becoming engineers. We referred to thelow incidence of women as "the ratio" which was around 10 to 1 to 7 to 1, depending on the graduation year and discipline. So in their great wisdom, one year, admissions decided to slash admissions requirements for women, and they managed to produce an incoming freshman class down to 2 to 1 - two men for every woman. A great accomplishment.

By the end of the FIRST SEMESTER, most of them had flunked out. The women's dorms - men's dorms they had converted for women to live in - were mostly empty.

This doesn't mean women aren't as smart as men - it's just that you can't increase the pool of women engineers by lowering standards - you have to recruit them from other disciplines. And you have to start at an early enough age to convince women that sciences and math are actually exciting and satisfying careers. When I went to another college - I noticed the same dearth of women engineers - BUT women were the majority of the math majors. Someone had succeeded in recruitment.

 

[Monello]

I don't have a problem IF the most relevant requirements aren't adjusted for divesity's sake.

The higher up you go on the competency scale the field of 'diversity' starts to become dangerous. If you are talking about ditch diggers or truck drivers, sure no problem. Institute quotas or whatever system you want that you think is fair.

But for pilots, surgeons and other similar fields, it starts to get tricky.

I'll make up a field for my example. Fire jugglers. Most of the fire jugglers are from the purple group. This makes the magenta group sad. They insist on fairness and equity for the positions. But since very few magenti juggle, the best juggler among them is no better than a purple juggler from the 50th percentile. But society requires fire jugglers to be competent otherwise they could drop their fire and the village would go up in smoke.

I understand the need for fairness. I'm a big supporter of it. Just like I think in today's society if group A says something about group B, yet if group B says something the same thing about group A, heads would roll and neighborhoods would burn, then we have a problem that needs to be addressed.

Right now some NBA commentators are upset that a European guy might win the most valuable player award. He's claiming the voting is biased because white folks prefer this guy over much darker candidates. But it was OK for blacks to vote for obama. Many folks casting their first votes ever for president because the dude looks like them. Lori Lighfoot is banging the same drum now that she won't be mayor again. No, you losing has nothing to do with the horrible way you ran your city.

 

[LightRoasted]

For your consideration ...

The higher up you go on the competency scale the field of 'diversity' starts to become dangerous. If you are talking about ditch diggers or truck drivers, sure no problem. Institute quotas or whatever system you want that you think is fair.

But for pilots, surgeons and other similar fields, it starts to get tricky.

I'll make up a field for my example. Fire jugglers. Most of the fire jugglers are from the purple group. This makes the magenta group sad. They insist on fairness and equity for the positions. But since very few magenti juggle, the best juggler among them is no better than a purple juggler from the 50th percentile. But society requires fire jugglers to be competent otherwise they could drop their fire and the village would go up in smoke.

I understand the need for fairness. I'm a big supporter of it. Just like I think in today's society if group A says something about group B, yet if group B says something the same thing about group A, heads would roll and neighborhoods would burn, then we have a problem that needs to be addressed.

Right now some NBA commentators are upset that a European guy might win the most valuable player award. He's claiming the voting is biased because white folks prefer this guy over much darker candidates. But it was OK for blacks to vote for obama. Many folks casting their first votes ever for president because the dude looks like them. Lori Lighfoot is banging the same drum now that she won't be mayor again. No, you losing has nothing to do with the horrible way you ran your city.

And who do you think makes up this skulduggery? Those that foment this division? They are not our friends.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

I don't have a problem IF the most relevant requirements aren't adjusted for divesity's sake.

I've read how - all things being equal - when selecting or hiring someone for a position - people tend to hire or choose people LIKE THEMSELVES, no matter what race or gender or religion or ethnicity. There's just a tendency however unintentional to pick people we're comfortable with. And I think it's likely that people with different backgrounds can be very valuable - but ONLY if they meet the same requirements.

I once went to an engineering school that had the most awful inability to recruit WOMEN. For whatever reason, women just weren't interested in becoming engineers. We referred to thelow incidence of women as "the ratio" which was around 10 to 1 to 7 to 1, depending on the graduation year and discipline. So in their great wisdom, one year, admissions decided to slash admissions requirements for women, and they managed to produce an incoming freshman class down to 2 to 1 - two men for every woman. A great accomplishment.

By the end of the FIRST SEMESTER, most of them had flunked out. The women's dorms - men's dorms they had converted for women to live in - were mostly empty.

This doesn't mean women aren't as smart as men - it's just that you can't increase the pool of women engineers by lowering standards - you have to recruit them from other disciplines. And you have to start at an early enough age to convince women that sciences and math are actually exciting and satisfying careers. When I went to another college - I noticed the same dearth of women engineers - BUT women were the majority of the math majors. Someone had succeeded in recruitment.

I'm my graduating class of about 60 with mechanical engineering degrees two were women. The women gravitated to civil and industrial, there was probably one woman per three guys there.

 

[spr1975wshs]

In my wife's class (1981) at Norwich University, VT (military college) of the 12 female cadets that year, 6 were in engineering.
My Mrs. graduated Magna Cum Laude. Her roommate senior year, was class valedictorian as a double major, EE and ME.

When my Mrs. studied for her Master's after being commissioned, 81 - 83, thesis was on digital image processing.

I'm used to female engineers.

 

[SamSpade]

In my wife's class (1981) at Norwich University, VT (military college) of the 12 female cadets that year, 6 were in engineering.
My Mrs. graduated Magna Cum Laude. Her roommate senior year, was class valedictorian as a double major, EE and ME.

When my Mrs. studied for her Master's after being commissioned, 81 - 83, thesis was on digital image processing.

I'm used to female engineers.

I found that - at the time - one of the weirdest things. I have found parity - or at least, substantial numbers - in other tech sciences, including math, applied math, computer science, chemistry, the entire medical and biology fields - NOT physics, so much ---

But engineering seems to be by itself when it comes to a STEM career that women just don't seem to be interested in. And I've met and worked with many. BECAUSE of this difference - they do face a steeper battle within the industry, especially when interacting with other countries. One of my very best friends in New England was a chemical engineer (after 30 years - doing something much more satisfying to her) and she used to tell me that the Asians she interacted with from abroad - Japanese, Chinese - told her point blank they didn't think she had the brains to understand their stuff. Because she was a woman.