First, a neo-con is not the same as a "conservative", and the label fits more of the pro-Israel, Pro-war in Iraq, pro-Rumsfeldian foreign policy world view than anything to do with AA, or other social conservative issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.. The two are not at all related.. and for the most part, I feel the republican party especially is over run with neo-cons' now who couldn't care less about AA or any of the social conservative issues..

So let's get that straight before we continue..

Now, for you to have flown with 2 black and two Hispanic pilots in one year is pretty good if you ask me, I've not been so fortunate in my entire career (although there are a lot of hispanic sounding names that are white as anyone, but I'm not seeing the dark skin variety at all)

When you consider the applicant pool of said races is rather small in comparison to that of the white pool, you can argue that this representation is fair. The problem lies in that we need to get more Blacks and Hispanics from poorer and underexposed backgrounds into the right kind of schools and exposed to the opportunities that will give them the impetus to get into flying. But the problem lies in the early formative years of these people as they're not exposed in many cases to the idea that this is a profession they can attain if they work hard. Schools must address it at the grass roots level. But that doesn't mean we hire under-qualified or lower experienced people into safety critical jobs just to attain instant fairness.

The treatment that the Tuskegee Airman received after WWII is disgraceful, and they've since been recognized and we've move forward form this dark time. The thing to do now is to focus on fairness in hiring, at the same time nurture the poor inner city youth and 1st generation Mexican American young man to see piloting as a profession that can attain with hard work.

Moving onto the women (and if this poll doesn't tell you something, I don't know what will).. they are indeed a difference case than racial minorities as there are indeed real differences in the sexes, unlike races, where pigment is the only difference. Women as a whole (my wife, mother, sister and daughter all prove this to me without a doubt) are not as interested in male dominated professions as a group.. Sure, you have the statistical outlier and the woman who's more man-line in her interests (and not always a lesbian, but sometimes this is the case). These women, if qualified, and able to pass basic tests (spacial awareness, instrument flying skills, etc..) should be given the same treatment as their male counterparts in the hiring and training. I've not seen this to always be the case however, as women consistently get breaks that their male counterparts are not given. Whether it's for physical differences (i.e. in the case or an ATR captain candidate I knew that couldn't past her final type ride in the aircraft (the Sim was ok) as she couldn't demonstrate to the FAA or our training dept. that she could taxi the aircraft safely due to the stiffness of the tiler on the actual aircraft); or in the case of the F14 female in the Navy some 10 years back that was given pass, after pass, even though she wasn't equipped to handle an F14. The powers that be, demanded that she be passed, and the result was 2 dead people, and a 25 Million dollar plane at the bottom of the Atlantic. This type of social engineering is dangerous, and has no place in our profession.

If a woman can stand on her own merits, then by all means, if not then show her the door. Same goes to any man that doesn't pass these basic standards; except rarely is a man pulled thru for political expediency.