1) "...if you're mostly hiring white men, you're probably not hiring the best person for the job".
2) "...if you're mostly hiring black women, you're probably not hiring the best person for the job".
With all due respect, you're using convoluted logic. And in an inartful way, making the opposite argument.
Best.
If mostly black women or white men or purple leprechauns are the most qualified for the job then you will have mostly that segment of society in that job. Are you saying there should not be any one demographic mostly filling one position? Every job should be equally filled with every type of person, gender and race? That is convoluted logic. The most important question for you is should this be mandated? If 95% of white males enter computer programming and 5% of black females enter computer programming, should companies be splitting the workforce 95/5 or 50/50? To me, the split doesn't matter at all, the amount of any one group should not matter. There should only be qualified and unqualified people. Painting all companies with your mile wide broad brush does nothing to stop racism. All it does is promote reverse-racism where you promote race over qualifications. You are targeting companies and just assuming they don't diversify without even considering that maybe, just maybe, the directors were hired on merit.
If mostly black women or white men or purple leprechauns are the most qualified for the job then you will have mostly that segment of society in that job. Are you saying there should not be any one demographic mostly filling one position? Every job should be equally filled with every type of person, gender and race? That is convoluted logic. The most important question for you is should this be mandated? If 95% of white males enter computer programming and 5% of black females enter computer programming, should companies be splitting the workforce 95/5 or 50/50? To me, the split doesn't matter at all, the amount of any one group should not matter. There should only be qualified and unqualified people. Painting all companies with your mile wide broad brush does nothing to stop racism. All it does is promote reverse-racism where you promote race over qualifications. You are targeting companies and just assuming they don't diversify without even considering that maybe, just maybe, the directors were hired on merit.
If mostly black women or white men or purple leprechauns are the most qualified for the job then you will have mostly that segment of society in that job. Are you saying there should not be any one demographic mostly filling one position
There's always going to be exceptions to every rule, which is why I said 'probably'.
Do you really think that there's a dearth of women capable of being Fortune 500 board members?
Who gives a rat's a$$. If you're qualified should be the first criteria, minority, women, white, etc shouldn't be a criteria. We don't need affrimative action at the board level. Layoff backseat drivers and let management do it's job!
Man, enough already. BTW, I am a minority but I don't expect Apple to hire me because of that fact, but because of my skills. I have more self pride to be hired because of my race only.
Al Gore could very well be a major influence on Apple's environmental policies. Their renewable energy outlays for their data centers are evidence of some heavy commitment in this area. This may be one of his "qualifications" that you're asking for—making carbon reduction a tangible goal.
Yeah if environmentalism is your thing. It's not mine.
People tend to hire people who are similar to themselves, rather than the absolutely best person for the job. 'Blind' interview/audition experiments have proven this. Just look at the success of the Rooney Rule in the NFL.
If you're mostly hiring white men, you're probably not hiring the best person for the job.
They won't get it RichL.
Just as they don't get that the single most effective way, world-wide, to decrease poverty and birth rates is to educate women.
The fact that we're ignoring critical talent from 50% of the population, in the same way that paternalistic societies run by fundamentalist religions do the same, is beyond them.
Who gives a rat's a$$. If you're qualified should be the first criteria, minority, women, white, etc shouldn't be a criteria. We don't need affrimative action at the board level. Layoff backseat drivers and let management do it's job!
Man, enough already. BTW, I am a minority but I don't expect Apple to hire me because of that fact, but because of my skills. I have more self pride to be hired because of my race only.
I think it's more of a complex problem.
If the drinking fountain says, "Whites only," or the sign on the front door of the Augusta "National" Golf Course says, "Men Only," it's obvious (to most) of the inequity. And address it, accordingly.
But there is an insidious element to the problem, where there are no "signs." I think women and minorities experience this often (purple leprechauns, not so much). That's all.
No one has suggested quotas, or directives. I just take issue with the insipid comments that presume there is no problem and who gives a rat's a$$.
Just as they don't get that the single most effective way, world-wide, to decrease poverty and birth rates is to educate women.
The fact that we're ignoring critical talent from 50% of the population, in the same way that paternalistic societies run by fundamentalist religions do the same, is beyond them.
Apple is pretty darn diverse. It's been part of the organizational DNA from way back.
Board members are not as influential at a company as most people think. They're selected mostly for their ability to wield external influence. This is why they tend to be similar to other bigwigs (but Apple has often had women on the board or in high positions.)
On the other hand, some of the comments here are shockingly out of touch. Also the tech world, in general, is dominantly male and largely out of touch with gender issues (and many other things.) This creates a huge blind spot. Diversity is about a diversity of thought and experience, not simply race, gender, etc. Apple should strive for diverse leadership and talent as a smart strategic way to make the company strong and nimble. It's not about checking boxes, it's about good business. I think this is largely what they have tried to do from the start anyway.
Moreover, board members are also the ceremonial face of the corporation, so some care must be taken in their selection.
Females are a huge portion, probably a majority of Apple's product purchaser/influencers (think for example, females/Moms.) It only makes sense that women should be among the influential people working at Apple. Sure, on the board is nice, but more importantly, in the actual corporate organization as team members and leaders. Of course this can only be according to their skill and experience. But having poor diversity at any level of the organization should be avoided just like any other corporate weakness.
In any case, folks need to relax a bit and open their minds on the diversity issue.
Comments
You think we shouldn’t immediately dismiss this kind of statement:
?
Really. This warrants further discussion, does it?
Both statements are correct, aren't they?
1) "...if you're mostly hiring white men, you're probably not hiring the best person for the job".
2) "...if you're mostly hiring black women, you're probably not hiring the best person for the job".
With all due respect, you're using convoluted logic. And in an inartful way, making the opposite argument.
Best.
If mostly black women or white men or purple leprechauns are the most qualified for the job then you will have mostly that segment of society in that job. Are you saying there should not be any one demographic mostly filling one position? Every job should be equally filled with every type of person, gender and race? That is convoluted logic. The most important question for you is should this be mandated? If 95% of white males enter computer programming and 5% of black females enter computer programming, should companies be splitting the workforce 95/5 or 50/50? To me, the split doesn't matter at all, the amount of any one group should not matter. There should only be qualified and unqualified people. Painting all companies with your mile wide broad brush does nothing to stop racism. All it does is promote reverse-racism where you promote race over qualifications. You are targeting companies and just assuming they don't diversify without even considering that maybe, just maybe, the directors were hired on merit.
And yet I've linked to studies that prove my point.
Perhaps you should do some research into the subject and get back to me, rather than making your own uninformed guesses.
You think we shouldn’t immediately dismiss this kind of statement:
?
Really. This warrants further discussion, does it?
I think it's one of the best, most succinct quotes said today.
If you want to stop racism, then stop pulling the race card. You are just pointing to color and criticizing it. You are perpetuating the stereotypes.
If mostly black women or white men or purple leprechauns are the most qualified for the job then you will have mostly that segment of society in that job. Are you saying there should not be any one demographic mostly filling one position? Every job should be equally filled with every type of person, gender and race? That is convoluted logic. The most important question for you is should this be mandated? If 95% of white males enter computer programming and 5% of black females enter computer programming, should companies be splitting the workforce 95/5 or 50/50? To me, the split doesn't matter at all, the amount of any one group should not matter. There should only be qualified and unqualified people. Painting all companies with your mile wide broad brush does nothing to stop racism. All it does is promote reverse-racism where you promote race over qualifications. You are targeting companies and just assuming they don't diversify without even considering that maybe, just maybe, the directors were hired on merit.
Huh?
There's always going to be exceptions to every rule, which is why I said 'probably'.
Do you really think that there's a dearth of women capable of being Fortune 500 board members?
...Do you really think that there's a dearth of women capable of being Fortune 500 board members?
EDIT: OK. I think this is the best, most succinct quote said today!
How we got from this position to "purple leprechauns," is beyond me!
Best.
Man, enough already. BTW, I am a minority but I don't expect Apple to hire me because of that fact, but because of my skills. I have more self pride to be hired because of my race only.
People who force the issue of diversity are the worst bigots.
Valid points if applied to tech boards as a whole.
But care to point to more diverse boards, or is this just more using Apple to gain attention?
Yeah if environmentalism is your thing. It's not mine.
Yeah... screw the kids. 'I got mine.'
Since when are women a minority?
People tend to hire people who are similar to themselves, rather than the absolutely best person for the job. 'Blind' interview/audition experiments have proven this. Just look at the success of the Rooney Rule in the NFL.
If you're mostly hiring white men, you're probably not hiring the best person for the job.
They won't get it RichL.
Just as they don't get that the single most effective way, world-wide, to decrease poverty and birth rates is to educate women.
The fact that we're ignoring critical talent from 50% of the population, in the same way that paternalistic societies run by fundamentalist religions do the same, is beyond them.
Who gives a rat's a$$. If you're qualified should be the first criteria, minority, women, white, etc shouldn't be a criteria. We don't need affrimative action at the board level. Layoff backseat drivers and let management do it's job!
Man, enough already. BTW, I am a minority but I don't expect Apple to hire me because of that fact, but because of my skills. I have more self pride to be hired because of my race only.
I think it's more of a complex problem.
If the drinking fountain says, "Whites only," or the sign on the front door of the Augusta "National" Golf Course says, "Men Only," it's obvious (to most) of the inequity. And address it, accordingly.
But there is an insidious element to the problem, where there are no "signs." I think women and minorities experience this often (purple leprechauns, not so much). That's all.
No one has suggested quotas, or directives. I just take issue with the insipid comments that presume there is no problem and who gives a rat's a$$.
Best.
They won't get it RichL.
Just as they don't get that the single most effective way, world-wide, to decrease poverty and birth rates is to educate women.
The fact that we're ignoring critical talent from 50% of the population, in the same way that paternalistic societies run by fundamentalist religions do the same, is beyond them.
Wow! GCB. We could've used your help an hour ago!
Well said...couldn't agree more.
No “studies” can possibly prove that point.
Wanted: Fathers.
Now shut up.
Stig McNasty has a quick trigger finger to match his reptilian demeanor.
Apple is pretty darn diverse. It's been part of the organizational DNA from way back.
Board members are not as influential at a company as most people think. They're selected mostly for their ability to wield external influence. This is why they tend to be similar to other bigwigs (but Apple has often had women on the board or in high positions.)
On the other hand, some of the comments here are shockingly out of touch. Also the tech world, in general, is dominantly male and largely out of touch with gender issues (and many other things.) This creates a huge blind spot. Diversity is about a diversity of thought and experience, not simply race, gender, etc. Apple should strive for diverse leadership and talent as a smart strategic way to make the company strong and nimble. It's not about checking boxes, it's about good business. I think this is largely what they have tried to do from the start anyway.
Moreover, board members are also the ceremonial face of the corporation, so some care must be taken in their selection.
Females are a huge portion, probably a majority of Apple's product purchaser/influencers (think for example, females/Moms.) It only makes sense that women should be among the influential people working at Apple. Sure, on the board is nice, but more importantly, in the actual corporate organization as team members and leaders. Of course this can only be according to their skill and experience. But having poor diversity at any level of the organization should be avoided just like any other corporate weakness.
In any case, folks need to relax a bit and open their minds on the diversity issue.
Stig McNasty has a quick trigger finger to match his reptilian demeanor.
Yeah, I've noticed, Vaporland.
What's up, is down and what's black is white.
Next he'll try telling us, horses sleep standing up!