But do we know that the applicant pool is mostly white males? And if so (seeing as how they account for only around 30% of the population) doesn’t that alone at least suggest a failure to access the full potential of the total workforce? I don’t claim to know all the answers, but these are the types of questions we (understandably) tend to allow ourselves not to ask when a system is unequal in our favor.

As to hiring standards, is it even wise to set the bar so high that you’re only taking the “cream off the top”? My opinion only, but a good airline pilot needs generally above average intelligence, a particular temperament, and a passion for the job. Yes, you could ratchet up the hiring requirements, but at some point, you’re just picking the flashiest resumes in search of the mythical “best of the best”. You have to ask whether someone is necessarily going to be the greatest front-line employee 20 years from now (not to mention the type of guy you want in your cockpit or flying your family around) because he aced his SATs or was an Ivy League-track student. Again, my opinion, but I don’t want the bar set so high that we get a bunch of uber-linear intellectual types who aren’t particularly invested in the job.

My contention is that there are a lot of guys who can do the job & do it well, so from there it becomes a simple question of whether there is enough value in a diversified workplace to make it a priority. The answer I’m hearing from most guys on these forums is no, it is not; which, if that’s the argument you want to make- fine.

For my part, I’m only pointing out that there is a big difference between prioritizing diversity among generally equally qualified candidates; and actively promoting under-qualified candidates in the name of diversity. I certainly hope the latter is not happening, although admittedly I don’t know for a fact that it’s not. But I do find it telling that so many here take diversified hiring statistics as hard proof that it necessarily is.