The relevant question is whether this issue affected the absolute number of filled ATC positions, not just who got them.
Though the facts on the latter are Not Great, and nuance is not exactly abundant right now.
back
2 comments
They mention that extended offers declined year-over-year after the policy. The implication to me (though it is left unsaid) is that the treatment of students, colleges, etc. by the FAA led to fewer people interested in spending their own time and money for ATC training since the FAA fucked them over so badly.
> Per Fischer, applicants declined year-over-year from 2014 onward. In 2016, hiring was divided into two pools: Pool 1, veterans and CTI students (4021 applicants, 1451 offer letters) and Pool 2, for general population (25,156 applicants, 6799 who passed the biographical questionnaire, 1500 offer letters). By 2019, only 9265 applied, with 6419 (923 from Pool 1, 5496 from Pool 2), with 234 Pool 1 offer letters and 680 in Pool 2.16
Both of those questions are relevant.
How is the composition of the ATC workforce independently relevant, except as mediated through staffing levels?
It's relevant that people were told they'd be a shoe-in for the job if they spent time and money on education and training and passed the relevant aptitude tests, but were instead denied on the basis of race. That also likely had the knock-on effect of reducing the number of people willing to take an educational track to become an ATC, because e.g. colleges could no longer tell their students it was a viable path for them.
"Like 85% of their fellow CTI students, Brigida and Reilly found themselves faced with a red exclamation point and a dismissal notice: “Based upon your responses to the Biographical Assessment, we have determined that you are NOT eligible for this position."
The article also mentions that there were fewer applicants and fewer offers extended from 2014 onward.