And short people, and people with speech impediments, and lactose intolerant people, and people with peculiar surnames, and left handed people and people who use Wintel computers, and children, oh the children....
Good God, people, grow up.
You forgot ATHEIST and you just discriminated against ATHEIST not one but twice, once by excluding them from your list and second by by saying GOOD GOD.
Making an effort to diversify is not the opposite of racism, sorry to those who believe that. The opposite of racism is choosing people based purely on their ability to do the job.
I'd say that MOST boards have no way of concluding "merit." People who are connected and helping other people are making their decisions on; "how much did this board member or will this board member help ME." If it helps the company -- that's icing on the cake.
If I had a company, I'd put some prince of England on it -- if I could. I don't care if I was selling aerospace products or diapers -- the "merit" in question is that successful people have successful people who have lots of success.
I agree, you could have the dumbest person on earth on your board of directors but if they somehow have the ability to market or make money for your company, they have merit. You will never see me hire certain people for the sole reason that I can fill out some politically correct checklist to make other people feel good. I will hire people who will make my company money, plain and simple. Doing otherwise is simply hiring for charity.
What is the suggestion to fix the problem? Making an assertion that a lack of diversity implies a problem of discrimination isn't a solution to it. All that does is make unsubstantiated accusatory statements.
Women, varied sexualities and ethnic minorities have been at an unfair disadvantage for a long time and some people think providing an unfair advantage will undo the damage more quickly but it's not the right way to go about it because it's just doing some of the same thing with the roles reversed.
Given sufficient equality, there might be an assumption that this will inevitably lead to a more even distribution of groups in all walks of life but there needs to be an acceptance that different groups have different traits and it's not a bad thing that they do. Here's an article from 2010 talking about women in tech jobs:
Just 5% of technology companies are founded by women - the number in all business is 30%+. The following page here links to some programs to counter this:
To me, the following are the wrong way to go about it by making exclusive groups rather than trying to bring minority groups (women being a minority in the technology sector) into collaborative environments:
"In middle school, 74% of girls express interest in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM), but when choosing a college major, just 0.3% of high school girls select computer science."
"Women today represent 12% of all computer science graduates. In 1984, they represented 37%."
"While 57% of bachelor’s degrees are earned by women, just 12% of computer science degrees are awarded to women."
It appears that women simply aren't all that interested in technology. I think most of us should be aware of this by now. Is that a problem? I would say no. If Apple's board reflects the lack of interest in technology that women have demonstrated then it's similarly not a problem. People should be free to have whatever interests they want and if it so happens that more women gravitate towards:
You've put a lot on the table-Most of which I agree with. Well thought out and presented.
Not sure I'm the one answer it all.
But just a couple of thoughts...
What to do to fix the problem? Again, not sure. Electing an African American president and he appointing a female Secretary of State is certainly encouraging! In fact, just having this discussion, is encouraging.
I suppose, on one end of the spectrum, discussions like these help a little bit, I guess. (90% of the comments here don't seem to get it) and at the other end of the spectrum, may be it's just time and they just have to die. I don't mean kill them. I mean, a lot of it seems to be generational and they just have to go away.
In between those two extremes, I suppose it's more education, a more responsible media, reducing poverty, less religion, etc., etc.
Just to digress, a moment. You mentioned "poverty." If we could get rid of poverty, we would not have an education problem, an obesity problem, a smoking problem, a murder/crime problem, a health crisis.
When my daughter was born 30 years ago, I knew that most females couldn't throw a football or run fast. Also, they weren't very good at "spatial perception." I put this down to the fact, they just weren't exposed to it enough.
She couldn't throw the football as far as Tom Brady...but I made her look like Tom Brady when she dropped back, bounced on her feet, surveyed the field, looking left and right and then threw a spiral.
I got an excited call from her when she was 17. She was in San Diego for a HS volleyball tournament. Her team went to the beach for a little R&R. Some guys were throwing a football and an errant throw landed in front of them. Alex picked up the ball, dropped back like Tom Brady and threw a perfect spiral. The guys were shocked and impressed. Instant respect. My daughter said it was the best thing I had ever taught her. I should say, she looked like Tom Brady, if Tom Brady was 5'11" 110#'s with long blonde hair dressed in a bikini!
As far as spatial perception. Starting at 4 years old, we would make plastic models of jet fighters (the last one we made was a "pink" B-52 with a 3' wingspan). I wanted her to be able to look at an exploded two dimensional drawing and put it together in 3D.
While in Med school, she won the first triathlon she entered, and got a 250 score on her second step exam. And is now an MD. (Got her mother's brains!)
As far as women not getting computer science degrees...can you blame them? Who would choose to sit in front of a computer all day? There are not too many things more boring than programming. Maybe, Accounting, or being a Pharmacist.
But as far as Science, there are more women in Med school now than men. And most if not all have science degrees. More women than men in college, too.
So many businesses that are run by ethnic minorities are 100% the race of that minority. Go to your nearest South Korean supermarket in the US and see how many blacks or whites are working there. Whites generally employ all races, the same is often not the case with other races.
There can be no doubt that the Apple board are choosing people who have the most to offer and will add to the overall cohesion and success of the board. The Apple board is not going to hire say, either a woman or a Mexican just because some authoritarian outsider calls it commonly over used names like, "racist" and "misogynistic". The demographics and success of Apple's board shows clearly how decisions based on board members views and experience are far more important than meddling politician's.
You've put a lot on the table-Most of which I agree with. Well thought out and presented.
Not sure I'm the one answer it all.
But just a couple of thoughts...
What to do to fix the problem? Again, not sure. Electing an African American president and he appointing a female Secretary of State is certainly encouraging! In fact, just having this discussion, is encouraging.
I suppose, on one end of the spectrum, discussions like these help a little bit, I guess. (90% of the comments here don't seem to get it) and at the other end of the spectrum, may be it's just time and they just have to die. I don't mean kill them. I mean, a lot of it seems to be generational and they just have to go away.
In between those two extremes, I suppose it's more education, a more responsible media, reducing poverty, less religion, etc., etc.
Just to digress, a moment. You mentioned "poverty." If we could get rid of poverty, we would not have an education problem, an obesity problem, a smoking problem, a murder/crime problem, a health crisis.
When my daughter was born 30 years ago, I knew that most females couldn't throw a football or run fast. Also, they weren't very good at "spatial perception." I put this down to the fact, they just weren't exposed to it enough.
She couldn't throw the football as far as Tom Brady...but I made her look like Tom Brady when she dropped back, bounced on her feet, surveyed the field, looking left and right and then threw a spiral.
I got an excited call from her when she was 17. She was in San Diego for a HS volleyball tournament. Her team went to the beach for a little R&R. Some guys were throwing a football and an errant throw landed in front of them. Alex picked up the ball, dropped back like Tom Brady and threw a perfect spiral. The guys were shocked and impressed. Instant respect. My daughter said it was the best thing I had ever taught her. I should say, she looked like Tom Brady, if Tom Brady was 5'11" 110#'s with long blonde hair dressed in a bikini!
As far as spatial perception. Starting at 4 years old, we would make plastic models of jet fighters (the last one we made was a "pink" B-52 with a 3' wingspan). I wanted her to be able to look at an exploded two dimensional drawing and put it together in 3D.
While in Med school, she won the first triathlon she entered, and got a 250 score on her second step exam. And is now an MD. (Got her mother's brains!)
As far as women not getting computer science degrees...can you blame them? Who would choose to sit in front of a computer all day? There are not too many things more boring than programming. Maybe, Accounting, or being a Pharmacist.
But as far as Science, there are more women in Med school now than men. More women in college.
Just wait until they "get the vote!" s/
Best.
Nice! : )
Similar situation with me and my nieces.
Change does take time.
Like you (I imagine,) I just don't see any reason sensible change should take a whole generation or more to occur.
Like you (I imagine,) I just don't see any reason sensible change should take a whole generation or more to occur.
Good of you to say! Thx, bro.
Your nieces are very fortunate. This may sound silly, but I think when a niece/daughter is shown things like fishing, or playing catch or making models, she is treated more like a boy. Being female, the end result is, she's treated more like a "person." I know, sounds silly.
Real quick: When she was six, I got a moderately priced microscope. I wanted her not to be squeamish around bugs (I am "very" squeamish around bugs!)
I could never kill a living insect, but we would take the dead ones we found and look at their wings, eyes, legs, etc. Fascinating.
When she was seven I went to the local university and bought a 13" pickled frog and a dissecting kit. My Dad (Degree in Chemistry) and my nine year old nephew and Alex dissected it one Saturday afternoon. It was amazing...all the organs were dyed different colors.
We had frog legs for dinner. (Not the dissected one.)
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!
Stop frothing. Sensible people here are simply pointing out that the two sets of attributes are not mutually exclusive.
In all likelihood, what’s happening is that this not an issue that Apple has thought a lot about, and they’re now beginning to. It’s not like they’re being venal or anything. It probably didn’t occur to them that it could be a big deal, that’s all.
And short people, and people with speech impediments, and lactose intolerant people, and people with peculiar surnames, and left handed people and people who use Wintel computers, and children, oh the children....
Good God, people, grow up.
You forgot ATHEIST and you just discriminated against ATHEIST not one but twice, once by excluding them from your list and second by by saying GOOD GOD.
Stop frothing. Sensible people here are simply pointing out that the two sets of attributes are not mutually exclusive.
In all likelihood, what’s happening is that this not an issue that Apple has thought a lot about, and they’re now beginning to. It’s not like they’re being venal or anything. It probably didn’t occur to them that it could be a big deal, that’s all.
Really? Two things you missed about my post, first I wasn't addressing people on this forum, I was addressing the so called "critics." Second I think you're right, apple didn't think about that because they could careless about anything other than talent, as they should.
So many businesses that are run by ethnic minorities are 100% the race of that minority. Go to your nearest South Korean supermarket in the US and see how many blacks or whites are working there. Whites generally employ all races, the same is often not the case with other races.
There can be no doubt that the Apple board are choosing people who have the most to offer and will add to the overall cohesion and success of the board. The Apple board is not going to hire say, either a woman or a Mexican just because some authoritarian outsider calls it commonly over used names like, "racist" and "misogynistic". The demographics and success of Apple's board shows clearly how decisions based on board members views and experience are far more important than meddling politician's.
You know there's a difference between mom &pop shops and multi-national corporations, right?
Really? Two things you missed about my post, first I wasn't addressing people on this forum, I was addressing the so called "critics." Second I think you're right, apple didn't think about that because they could careless about anything other than talent, as they should.
Ok. Replace 'people on this forum' with 'critics' in my comment.
As to 'talent,' please. Apple has had a fair number of white male duds. Papermaster, Rubin, Forstall, and Browett come to mind right away.
I am sure I could easily add another half dozen if I thought about it for a couple of more minutes.
Didn't realize Silicon Valley boards had quotas for these things.
No, it's just smart business.
For instance, given that China has become Apple's most substantial market after the US -- and could even overtake the US some day -- I would, as an Apple shareholder, like Apple to get a solid Chinese corporate leader on board. I'd take someone like that any day over the Intuit guy, the J Crew guy, the Avon lady, or the has-been politician. .
Comments
You forgot ATHEIST and you just discriminated against ATHEIST not one but twice, once by excluding them from your list and second by by saying GOOD GOD.
I'd say that MOST boards have no way of concluding "merit." People who are connected and helping other people are making their decisions on; "how much did this board member or will this board member help ME." If it helps the company -- that's icing on the cake.
If I had a company, I'd put some prince of England on it -- if I could. I don't care if I was selling aerospace products or diapers -- the "merit" in question is that successful people have successful people who have lots of success.
I agree, you could have the dumbest person on earth on your board of directors but if they somehow have the ability to market or make money for your company, they have merit. You will never see me hire certain people for the sole reason that I can fill out some politically correct checklist to make other people feel good. I will hire people who will make my company money, plain and simple. Doing otherwise is simply hiring for charity.
What is the suggestion to fix the problem? Making an assertion that a lack of diversity implies a problem of discrimination isn't a solution to it. All that does is make unsubstantiated accusatory statements.
Women, varied sexualities and ethnic minorities have been at an unfair disadvantage for a long time and some people think providing an unfair advantage will undo the damage more quickly but it's not the right way to go about it because it's just doing some of the same thing with the roles reversed.
Given sufficient equality, there might be an assumption that this will inevitably lead to a more even distribution of groups in all walks of life but there needs to be an acceptance that different groups have different traits and it's not a bad thing that they do. Here's an article from 2010 talking about women in tech jobs:
http://www.businessinsider.com/lets-be-real-about-the-lack-of-women-in-tech-2010-10?op=1
Just 5% of technology companies are founded by women - the number in all business is 30%+. The following page here links to some programs to counter this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-women-founders-matter-2013-3
To me, the following are the wrong way to go about it by making exclusive groups rather than trying to bring minority groups (women being a minority in the technology sector) into collaborative environments:
http://www.blackgirlscode.com
http://learninglabs.org/members/girls-learning-code/
http://www.girlswhocode.com
That last site has stats that say:
"In middle school, 74% of girls express interest in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM), but when choosing a college major, just 0.3% of high school girls select computer science."
"Women today represent 12% of all computer science graduates. In 1984, they represented 37%."
"While 57% of bachelor’s degrees are earned by women, just 12% of computer science degrees are awarded to women."
It appears that women simply aren't all that interested in technology. I think most of us should be aware of this by now. Is that a problem? I would say no. If Apple's board reflects the lack of interest in technology that women have demonstrated then it's similarly not a problem. People should be free to have whatever interests they want and if it so happens that more women gravitate towards:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2009/01/26/10-industries-where-women-rule/
Healthcare, education, child-care etc, so be it.
Just look at Laurene Powell. She could be on Apple's board but she's on a board for education:
http://excelined.org/team/laurene-powell-jobs/
You've put a lot on the table-Most of which I agree with. Well thought out and presented.
Not sure I'm the one answer it all.
But just a couple of thoughts...
What to do to fix the problem? Again, not sure. Electing an African American president and he appointing a female Secretary of State is certainly encouraging! In fact, just having this discussion, is encouraging.
I suppose, on one end of the spectrum, discussions like these help a little bit, I guess. (90% of the comments here don't seem to get it) and at the other end of the spectrum, may be it's just time and they just have to die. I don't mean kill them. I mean, a lot of it seems to be generational and they just have to go away.
In between those two extremes, I suppose it's more education, a more responsible media, reducing poverty, less religion, etc., etc.
Just to digress, a moment. You mentioned "poverty." If we could get rid of poverty, we would not have an education problem, an obesity problem, a smoking problem, a murder/crime problem, a health crisis.
When my daughter was born 30 years ago, I knew that most females couldn't throw a football or run fast. Also, they weren't very good at "spatial perception." I put this down to the fact, they just weren't exposed to it enough.
She couldn't throw the football as far as Tom Brady...but I made her look like Tom Brady when she dropped back, bounced on her feet, surveyed the field, looking left and right and then threw a spiral.
I got an excited call from her when she was 17. She was in San Diego for a HS volleyball tournament. Her team went to the beach for a little R&R. Some guys were throwing a football and an errant throw landed in front of them. Alex picked up the ball, dropped back like Tom Brady and threw a perfect spiral. The guys were shocked and impressed. Instant respect. My daughter said it was the best thing I had ever taught her. I should say, she looked like Tom Brady, if Tom Brady was 5'11" 110#'s with long blonde hair dressed in a bikini!
As far as spatial perception. Starting at 4 years old, we would make plastic models of jet fighters (the last one we made was a "pink" B-52 with a 3' wingspan). I wanted her to be able to look at an exploded two dimensional drawing and put it together in 3D.
While in Med school, she won the first triathlon she entered, and got a 250 score on her second step exam. And is now an MD. (Got her mother's brains!)
As far as women not getting computer science degrees...can you blame them? Who would choose to sit in front of a computer all day? There are not too many things more boring than programming. Maybe, Accounting, or being a Pharmacist.
But as far as Science, there are more women in Med school now than men. And most if not all have science degrees. More women than men in college, too.
Just wait until they "get the vote!" /s
Best.
So many businesses that are run by ethnic minorities are 100% the race of that minority. Go to your nearest South Korean supermarket in the US and see how many blacks or whites are working there. Whites generally employ all races, the same is often not the case with other races.
There can be no doubt that the Apple board are choosing people who have the most to offer and will add to the overall cohesion and success of the board. The Apple board is not going to hire say, either a woman or a Mexican just because some authoritarian outsider calls it commonly over used names like, "racist" and "misogynistic". The demographics and success of Apple's board shows clearly how decisions based on board members views and experience are far more important than meddling politician's.
You've put a lot on the table-Most of which I agree with. Well thought out and presented.
Not sure I'm the one answer it all.
But just a couple of thoughts...
What to do to fix the problem? Again, not sure. Electing an African American president and he appointing a female Secretary of State is certainly encouraging! In fact, just having this discussion, is encouraging.
I suppose, on one end of the spectrum, discussions like these help a little bit, I guess. (90% of the comments here don't seem to get it) and at the other end of the spectrum, may be it's just time and they just have to die. I don't mean kill them. I mean, a lot of it seems to be generational and they just have to go away.
In between those two extremes, I suppose it's more education, a more responsible media, reducing poverty, less religion, etc., etc.
Just to digress, a moment. You mentioned "poverty." If we could get rid of poverty, we would not have an education problem, an obesity problem, a smoking problem, a murder/crime problem, a health crisis.
When my daughter was born 30 years ago, I knew that most females couldn't throw a football or run fast. Also, they weren't very good at "spatial perception." I put this down to the fact, they just weren't exposed to it enough.
She couldn't throw the football as far as Tom Brady...but I made her look like Tom Brady when she dropped back, bounced on her feet, surveyed the field, looking left and right and then threw a spiral.
I got an excited call from her when she was 17. She was in San Diego for a HS volleyball tournament. Her team went to the beach for a little R&R. Some guys were throwing a football and an errant throw landed in front of them. Alex picked up the ball, dropped back like Tom Brady and threw a perfect spiral. The guys were shocked and impressed. Instant respect. My daughter said it was the best thing I had ever taught her. I should say, she looked like Tom Brady, if Tom Brady was 5'11" 110#'s with long blonde hair dressed in a bikini!
As far as spatial perception. Starting at 4 years old, we would make plastic models of jet fighters (the last one we made was a "pink" B-52 with a 3' wingspan). I wanted her to be able to look at an exploded two dimensional drawing and put it together in 3D.
While in Med school, she won the first triathlon she entered, and got a 250 score on her second step exam. And is now an MD. (Got her mother's brains!)
As far as women not getting computer science degrees...can you blame them? Who would choose to sit in front of a computer all day? There are not too many things more boring than programming. Maybe, Accounting, or being a Pharmacist.
But as far as Science, there are more women in Med school now than men. More women in college.
Just wait until they "get the vote!" s/
Best.
Nice! : )
Similar situation with me and my nieces.
Change does take time.
Like you (I imagine,) I just don't see any reason sensible change should take a whole generation or more to occur.
Nice! : )
Similar situation with me and my nieces.
Change does take time.
Like you (I imagine,) I just don't see any reason sensible change should take a whole generation or more to occur.
Good of you to say! Thx, bro.
Your nieces are very fortunate. This may sound silly, but I think when a niece/daughter is shown things like fishing, or playing catch or making models, she is treated more like a boy. Being female, the end result is, she's treated more like a "person." I know, sounds silly.
Real quick: When she was six, I got a moderately priced microscope. I wanted her not to be squeamish around bugs (I am "very" squeamish around bugs!)
I could never kill a living insect, but we would take the dead ones we found and look at their wings, eyes, legs, etc. Fascinating.
When she was seven I went to the local university and bought a 13" pickled frog and a dissecting kit. My Dad (Degree in Chemistry) and my nine year old nephew and Alex dissected it one Saturday afternoon. It was amazing...all the organs were dyed different colors.
We had frog legs for dinner. (Not the dissected one.)
Anyway, Best regards!
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!
Stop frothing. Sensible people here are simply pointing out that the two sets of attributes are not mutually exclusive.
In all likelihood, what’s happening is that this not an issue that Apple has thought a lot about, and they’re now beginning to. It’s not like they’re being venal or anything. It probably didn’t occur to them that it could be a big deal, that’s all.
And short people, and people with speech impediments, and lactose intolerant people, and people with peculiar surnames, and left handed people and people who use Wintel computers, and children, oh the children....
Good God, people, grow up.
You forgot ATHEIST and you just discriminated against ATHEIST not one but twice, once by excluding them from your list and second by by saying GOOD GOD.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Really? Two things you missed about my post, first I wasn't addressing people on this forum, I was addressing the so called "critics." Second I think you're right, apple didn't think about that because they could careless about anything other than talent, as they should.
You know there's a difference between mom &pop shops and multi-national corporations, right?
Ok. Replace 'people on this forum' with 'critics' in my comment.
As to 'talent,' please. Apple has had a fair number of white male duds. Papermaster, Rubin, Forstall, and Browett come to mind right away.
I am sure I could easily add another half dozen if I thought about it for a couple of more minutes.
No, it's just smart business.
For instance, given that China has become Apple's most substantial market after the US -- and could even overtake the US some day -- I would, as an Apple shareholder, like Apple to get a solid Chinese corporate leader on board. I'd take someone like that any day over the Intuit guy, the J Crew guy, the Avon lady, or the has-been politician. .
Heh heh. Good point, especially considering Cook's recent speech at Auburn: http://bit.ly/19O232l