Boeing’s Diversity and Inclusion Pronouncements Should Make Us All Uneasy

Is one’s preference for a particular style of recreational sexual behavior is an indispensable predictor of air traffic control ability?

(source) Former air traffic controller Willie Shields reveals that “Along with under-reporting system failures, the FAA started conspiring, almost openly, with leftist groups like the Black and Hispanic Controller’s Coalition. Gay and lesbian organizations started demanding hiring and promotion slots for their members—as if one’s preference for a particular style of recreational sexual behavior is an indispensable predictor of air traffic control ability.” Shields concedes that “The affirmative action angle is only a part of the problem”—the need to beat the competition, the drive to maximize profit, laziness, and inertia at the top figure prominently—but equity hiring is a major factor.

The crash of two Boeing 737 Max8s

Recently we have heard of the crash of two Boeing 737 Max8s, due apparently, as The Verge reports, to faulty MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) sensor readings, lack of safety features, inadequate pilot training programs and various cost-saving measures.

One may also wonder to what extent, apart from greed and negligence, the practice of affirmative rather than merit-based hiring practices played a role in this, and no doubt other such disasters.


Keeping planes aloft, like keeping bridges standing, demands standards of excellence, custodial liability, and meticulous care before any other desideratum.

Boeing’s Diversity and Inclusion manual

A feel-good promo checking all the politically correct boxes, does little to allay suspicion that quality control is remorselessly being replaced by deficits of knowledge, dubious aptitudes, and social justice ideological platitudes.

Learning that merit and competence are no longer exclusive drivers in hiring and training but that “promot[ing] diversity within the company,” based on “members who share a common interest, such as race, gender or cultural identity” does not inspire confidence.

(The Boeing webpage features five smiling employees, only one of whom is a white male.) A program of this nature has nothing to do with “creating advanced aerospace products and services”—and indeed, may even be contraindicated.

Keeping planes in the air, making sure they take off and land safely, and ensuring the lives of passengers—of whatever race, ethnicity, religious persuasion or cultural identity—is the essential priority.

This means that Boeing—in fact, any company, institution, industry or service provider—should not be motivated chiefly or even at all by diversity and inclusion parameters favoring minority and under-represented cohorts.

It must seek out the best among the hiring pool, independent of racial or gender considerations, in the interests not only of the bottom line and economic survivability but equally for the benefit and advantage of clients, taxpayers and ordinary people in general.

Competence and work-related character come first; social melioration programs are better left to government debate and private charity and are in themselves irrelevant to keeping the majority of people both prosperous and safe.

Refusing to “tolerate discrimination, harassment or retaliation” (whatever Boeing intends by the latter term) may be a noble project—though it is often code for persecuting those who do not fit the preferred identity categories or who dedicate themselves to strenuous achievement.

It clearly should not translate into compulsive and programmatic hiring of discernible minorities or specific genders without attention to qualifications.

It should mean recruiting the best people for the job, people of proven caliber and ability, and yes, even white heterosexual males.

It also means ruling out the inept and delinquent from highly sensitive and gravely responsible positions where other people’s lives and livelihoods are at risk, regardless of cultural pressures, leftist mantras, and social justice protocols.

Boeing is in the business of building planes that fly, not in creating a future utopia

Its mandate is not social engineering but aeronautical engineering.

There is nothing wrong with “equal employment opportunities” to which Boeing and other firms are committed—indeed, there is everything right with them—provided that equal opportunities are offered to those with the proper abilities and genuine credentials.

Maybe then we can cross bridges with assurance and once again fly with some degree of confidence.

One thought on “Boeing’s Diversity and Inclusion Pronouncements Should Make Us All Uneasy

Add yours

  1. Nobody wants to talk about this, but the whole reason that white people SEEM to be “privileged” with respect to blacks is because of of significant differences in IQ between the races. Whites have always scored 10 to 20 points higher than blacks do on IQ tests. This has been replicated hundreds if not thousands of times – there is absolutely no debating that whites are smarter (as a general rule) than blacks are.

    Does this make whites “better” than blacks? Not necessarily. Blacks are (again as a general rule) far better than whites are at playing basketball, for example. Most of the players on a basketball court (particularly in the pro’s) are black and not white. I believe this is largely because blacks have better physical stamina than whites do. (If you’re white, try running up and down a basketball court dozens of times and see how long you last).

    On the other hand, take the game of golf. This is almost exclusively a “white” sport. Sure, in very rare instances you get a Tiger Woods to come along, who gets gobs of media attention. But this is the exception to the rule, which is that at least 98% of the players out on a golf course are white. I would submit this is not due to “white privilege” nearly as much as it has to do with the nature of the game of golf itself. Golf doesn’t require physical stamina as much as it requires concentration and mental clarity. And I believe this correlates with IQ. So, as a general rule, whites do a lot better than blacks do at golf, because it is more a mental sport than a physical one like basketball. It’s definitely NOT because of “racism”, although I am prepared to admit that this could be a big factor – golf courses are located in typically suburban white neighborhoods, but never in black inner-city ones. And I’m sure that blacks were for a long time not permitted to even play on white-only golf courses.

    Look, if blacks the true intellectual equal to whites, you would see bustling metropolises in Chad, Somalia, and Zaire. But you don’t, it’s not even close! Is that because of “white privilege”? No, it’s obviously because whites are smarter than blacks are, plus they have a better work ethic and are more honest (less prone to corruption). You do NOT see this in black-run countries and inner cities in America, because blacks are typically dumber and lazier than whites. As a general rule.

    Fifty years ago everybody including blacks knew this, but didn’t say it because it was OBVIOUS. Now they don’t say it because it is POLITICALLY INCORRECT.

    So the whole idea of having racial quotas is absurd. It’s like requiring more blacks to play in the PGA, or more whites to play in the NBA. Or requiring Saint Bernards to run in a greyhound race! (Would anybody attend something like that?)

    This won’t happen because it is TOTALLY UNNATURAL! Not because anybody is “discriminating” against somebody else. It’s simply because whites are better at some things than blacks are. And vice versa. Whites are undoubtedly better at air-traffic control than blacks are, because this requires mental concentration, which whites are more “gifted” with. Putting unqualified blacks (or Hispanics, etc) into this kind of job simply to fill some ridiculous racial quota is crazy! It puts thousands of lives into jeopardy. For what? So that you can be politically “correct”?

    The talents that one is born with have nothing to do with “privilege”. These are gifts from God. Which probably explains why “secular humanist” liberals will never accept this.

    How did “privilege” enable whites to build shiny metropolises in America, whereas blacks in Africa are still living in mud huts in the jungle? Are white people forcing blacks in Africa to continue living under such miserable conditions? I don’t think so. The fact is that whites are “blessed” with certain intellectual talents that blacks don’t have. And no amount of legislation is going to change that.

    So all this talk about genociding whites is going to have a tragic ending for everybody, if this simple fact isn’t acknowledged and appreciated. Getting rid of the “oppressor” will only send the world back to the Stone Age, where you will have no cars, no electricity, or even indoor plumbing. Who on earth would want to live in such a world?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: