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.
So what you're telling me is that they chose to hire "duds" rather than hiring qualified minorities?
Forstall is a talented individual just hard to work with and not a team player. Apple isn't perfect by any means. Listen we can go around with this, and I can certainly get into some history about Apple because I know some history firsthand. But I am going to call it a night, you win. This post isn't going to make a difference in my life past, present or future. You're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. have a great evening.
Of course, because public image and inclusive company culture are meaningless things, right?
That's not what I said. I don't understand what's not clear here? Do you want them to hire incompetent people just because they happen to belong to a particular group? Or should they look for the best and what ever group you belong to is of no consequence. I am color blind, straight, gay, Christian, or whatever doesn't matter to me. I look at people as human beings. Anything otherwise is wrong period. That's what's wrong with our society we seem to have this need to put labels on people, why? Is black better than white? Are men better than women? Is straight better than gay? I hope your answer is no. If it is, then why should this be any consideration in hiring someone unless they deliberately are choosing one group over another? I am saying they're not.
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. .
No one with any intelligence whatsoever gives a flying frick. Apple isn’t going to hire “minorities” to fill some magical quota. They’ll hire who can do the job, whoever that may be.
AI, don’t perpetuate this nonsense.
Apple can't have anyone as bad as that ex CEO of Google he's cost Apple billions, oh and I like Al Gore on the board, but T-Baggin white men have trouble with Gore being on the board.
That's not what I said. I don't understand what's not clear here? Do you want them to hire incompetent people just because they happen to belong to a particular group? Or should they look for the best and what ever group you belong to is of no consequence. I am color blind, straight, gay, Christian, or whatever doesn't matter to me. I look at people as human beings. Anything otherwise is wrong period. That's what's wrong with our society we seem to have this need to put labels on people, why? Is black better than white? Are men better than women? Is straight better than gay? I hope your answer is no. If it is, then why should this be any consideration in hiring someone unless they deliberately are choosing one group over another? I am saying they're not.
The reason it might be a consideration is the obvious one that should be apparent from the criticism being applied, diversity and representation. If Apple doesn't have any women on its exec team then issues affecting women might sail past the male only group. If there are no black men then they may lack an appreciation of what matters to their black employees and customers. And moreover, what message is an an all-white, all-male exec team sending to the thousand of employees that aren't male and white - you'll never reach this level because you're not the right colour and don't have the right equipment. Not great for morale or ambition that, is it not?
Note that I'm not accusing Apple of doing this deliberately, or even consciously, but it is an effect that will likely be promulgating through their power corridors, and ignoring it, and the importance of diversity at all levels is going to damage the company.
In terms of solutions, the straw man being put up is quotas and affirmative action. Why? That hasn't been suggested from the pro diversity side (as far as I can see). I don't think it's the best solution either, far better would be to recognise the state of affairs, provide corporate sponsorship for encouraging diversity schemes, commit to encouraging diversity throughout the ranks by including promoting diversity in goals and person specifications when hiring, and start outreach schemes to schools particularly targeting minorities with low representation. It's not a big extra ask for a company with Apple's resources; they're probably doing some of it already, but could benefit from being more open about it.
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!
I can see what you're saying that it's good to have supporting evidence that the explicit barriers we knew existed have been broken down. However, those people weren't elected/appointed because of their race and gender, their race/gender just didn't stop them.
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.
That's exactly it though, computer science is sitting in front of computers all day. This is what Apple does besides building hardware. If a woman had to choose between being on a board at Burberry or being on a board at Apple and their interests were in fashion, they'd have no reason to be involved with Apple. As it happens, Burberry has just 3/9 female board members, all members are white and the CEO is going to work for Apple soon:
There's 7 men and 1 woman. This is an American company so it's not entirely unnatural that all the men are white. 63% of America is white, Hispanic/Latino 17%, African American 13%, Asian 5%:
Is it necessary for as few as 8 people to reflect diversity? If the stats matched with the population then they'd have 5 white members, 1 Hispanic, 1 African American and 1 Asian. Andrea Jung is of Asian descent and the ratio of women in the tech sector would lead to 1/8 being female. So they're really just short 1 black man and 1 Hispanic man.
I think an interesting point is that the complaint originates from a shareholder group that sounds like the Icahn type:
"For investors seeking ethical and mission-related investing strategies, Trillium is a leader in shareholder advocacy and public policy work. Our goal is to deliver both impact and performance to our private and institutional investors."
Sounds like they are trying to switch the board under the guise of equality to get some leverage. This is what these leeches do all the time:
The reason it might be a consideration is the obvious one that should be apparent from the criticism being applied, diversity and representation. If Apple doesn't have any women on its exec team then issues affecting women might sail past the male only group. If there are no black men then they may lack an appreciation of what matters to their black employees and customers. And moreover, what message is an an all-white, all-male exec team sending to the thousand of employees that aren't male and white - you'll never reach this level because you're not the right colour and don't have the right equipment. Not great for morale or ambition that, is it not?
Note that I'm not accusing Apple of doing this deliberately, or even consciously, but it is an effect that will likely be promulgating through their power corridors, and ignoring it, and the importance of diversity at all levels is going to damage the company.
In terms of solutions, the straw man being put up is quotas and affirmative action. Why? That hasn't been suggested from the pro diversity side (as far as I can see). I don't think it's the best solution either, far better would be to recognise the state of affairs, provide corporate sponsorship for encouraging diversity schemes, commit to encouraging diversity throughout the ranks by including promoting diversity in goals and person specifications when hiring, and start outreach schemes to schools particularly targeting minorities with low representation. It's not a big extra ask for a company with Apple's resources; they're probably doing some of it already, but could benefit from being more open about it.
I don't disagree, as long as they're qualified. I think what you're saying is make it a priority to find qualified minorities right? If so, I can't confirm whether Apple is doing that or not. I believe they are but maybe not at the Director level, I don't know. But I stand firm on hiring competent individuals in order to truly accomplish what you suggest. Otherwise it'll simply be nothing more than pacifying their customers and their critics while providing no value.
The reason it might be a consideration is the obvious one that should be apparent from the criticism being applied, diversity and representation. If Apple doesn't have any women on its exec team then issues affecting women might sail past the male only group. If there are no black men then they may lack an appreciation of what matters to their black employees and customers. And moreover, what message is an an all-white, all-male exec team sending to the thousand of employees that aren't male and white - you'll never reach this level because you're not the right colour and don't have the right equipment. Not great for morale or ambition that, is it not?
Note that I'm not accusing Apple of doing this deliberately, or even consciously, but it is an effect that will likely be promulgating through their power corridors, and ignoring it, and the importance of diversity at all levels is going to damage the company.
In terms of solutions, the straw man being put up is quotas and affirmative action. Why? That hasn't been suggested from the pro diversity side (as far as I can see). I don't think it's the best solution either, far better would be to recognise the state of affairs, provide corporate sponsorship for encouraging diversity schemes, commit to encouraging diversity throughout the ranks by including promoting diversity in goals and person specifications when hiring, and start outreach schemes to schools particularly targeting minorities with low representation. It's not a big extra ask for a company with Apple's resources; they're probably doing some of it already, but could benefit from being more open about it.
I think companies should be free to choose their employees without restriction, slave and child labour notwithstanding. If a company ends up with an all female workforce, sobeit. All male, ditto. If there is unrestricted competition, the cream should rise to the top.
So what you're saying is there are no minorities or other women (aside from Jung) who can do the job.
Thanks for the strawman.
The reality is that “old white boy clubs” feel most comfortable with other "old white boys". So in their heads, they feel those people are the most qualified.
Prove that this is how Apple operates. Otherwise stop the FUD.
That doesn't mean not bringing in the best, but it means being more open to considering different kinds of people.
Thanks for the implication that Apple is not open to considering different kinds of people. When you have any proof of your assertion, please post it. Until then, stop the FUD.
Originally Posted by dragyn427
(right-handed white guy's hand
Whoop de FRICKING do. Had it been black, you would have whined it was a man’s hand. Had it been a left handed woman, you would have whined it was white.
This is the kind of argument on this topic that makes me the most upset, I think. The ones where they get to pretend they’re in the right whatever their opponent does because of… hmm, what is it, false equivalency?
Guess what: they’re not gonna show more than one hand picking up a tablet at once. Get over it.
…affluent…
Oh, just shut up.
Note that, under Steve's watch, this semi-subtle change would *never* have happened.
And go away.
Originally Posted by Crowley
No history? The make up of the board and the exec team suggests that they might.
Of course it does¡
…the makeup of the board and exec team is troubling and worth criticizing.
“It is troubling that the best people for the job available at the company are doing the job,” is your position.
Golly, that’s even worse.
No idea what that’s supposed to mean…
Sure you don’t.
That's their entire HR policy? Pretty lacking.
I’m sure there’s a bit in there about bullying, stealing time from the company, sexual harassment, and sick days, but quite frankly it doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.
It’s a job. It’s not a women’s rights rally, it’s not an anti-racism protest, it’s not a meeting of the Old Boy’s Club. What matters at the job is the job. Whoever does the job that does it best receives the best out of it. Screw your emotions; work isn’t any more complicated than that.
I'm sorry, what? Being Canadian or American doesn't make you less Chinese.
Wait… what?
I, for example, am just about exactly one quarter each Swiss, German, English, and Irish, but all the branches of my family have lived in the United States since before the Revolution (and fought therein). So I’m not American, eh?
Does this also translate to language? In that English isn’t from England, it’s Greek/Latin/French/German because of where it originated?
I'm sorry, what? Being Canadian or American doesn't make you less Chinese.
LOL.
Why, you're totally right. Now that you've set me straight, I realize that Apple had all the diversity it needed even back in Jobs's days, since it had a Lebanese person Syrian on both the board and in top management.
Heck, a Lebanese Syrian even founded the company!
PS: I kid. He was only half-Lebanese Syrian (and a Polish person was a founder too).
Comments
So what you're telling me is that they chose to hire "duds" rather than hiring qualified minorities?
Forstall is a talented individual just hard to work with and not a team player. Apple isn't perfect by any means. Listen we can go around with this, and I can certainly get into some history about Apple because I know some history firsthand. But I am going to call it a night, you win. This post isn't going to make a difference in my life past, present or future. You're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. have a great evening.
That's not what I said. I don't understand what's not clear here? Do you want them to hire incompetent people just because they happen to belong to a particular group? Or should they look for the best and what ever group you belong to is of no consequence. I am color blind, straight, gay, Christian, or whatever doesn't matter to me. I look at people as human beings. Anything otherwise is wrong period. That's what's wrong with our society we seem to have this need to put labels on people, why? Is black better than white? Are men better than women? Is straight better than gay? I hope your answer is no. If it is, then why should this be any consideration in hiring someone unless they deliberately are choosing one group over another? I am saying they're not.
I'm pretty sure Andrea Jung is Chinese.
No one with any intelligence whatsoever gives a flying frick. Apple isn’t going to hire “minorities” to fill some magical quota. They’ll hire who can do the job, whoever that may be.
AI, don’t perpetuate this nonsense.
Apple can't have anyone as bad as that ex CEO of Google he's cost Apple billions, oh and I like Al Gore on the board, but T-Baggin white men have trouble with Gore being on the board.
Who cares!!!
Al Gore's name comes up all the time someone out there cares.
Note that I'm not accusing Apple of doing this deliberately, or even consciously, but it is an effect that will likely be promulgating through their power corridors, and ignoring it, and the importance of diversity at all levels is going to damage the company.
In terms of solutions, the straw man being put up is quotas and affirmative action. Why? That hasn't been suggested from the pro diversity side (as far as I can see). I don't think it's the best solution either, far better would be to recognise the state of affairs, provide corporate sponsorship for encouraging diversity schemes, commit to encouraging diversity throughout the ranks by including promoting diversity in goals and person specifications when hiring, and start outreach schemes to schools particularly targeting minorities with low representation. It's not a big extra ask for a company with Apple's resources; they're probably doing some of it already, but could benefit from being more open about it.
I can see what you're saying that it's good to have supporting evidence that the explicit barriers we knew existed have been broken down. However, those people weren't elected/appointed because of their race and gender, their race/gender just didn't stop them.
That's exactly it though, computer science is sitting in front of computers all day. This is what Apple does besides building hardware. If a woman had to choose between being on a board at Burberry or being on a board at Apple and their interests were in fashion, they'd have no reason to be involved with Apple. As it happens, Burberry has just 3/9 female board members, all members are white and the CEO is going to work for Apple soon:
http://www.burberryplc.com/about_burberry/directors-and-management
What is the change you want to see though? That more women are interested in technology companies?
The board members are listed here:
http://investor.apple.com/faq.cfm?FaqSetID=6
There's 7 men and 1 woman. This is an American company so it's not entirely unnatural that all the men are white. 63% of America is white, Hispanic/Latino 17%, African American 13%, Asian 5%:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Is it necessary for as few as 8 people to reflect diversity? If the stats matched with the population then they'd have 5 white members, 1 Hispanic, 1 African American and 1 Asian. Andrea Jung is of Asian descent and the ratio of women in the tech sector would lead to 1/8 being female. So they're really just short 1 black man and 1 Hispanic man.
I think an interesting point is that the complaint originates from a shareholder group that sounds like the Icahn type:
http://www.trilliuminvest.com
"For investors seeking ethical and mission-related investing strategies, Trillium is a leader in shareholder advocacy and public policy work. Our goal is to deliver both impact and performance to our private and institutional investors."
Sounds like they are trying to switch the board under the guise of equality to get some leverage. This is what these leeches do all the time:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/icahn-seeks-to-replace-clorox-board/?_r=0
cheers christopher126, good points you're making but the larger context IMHO is too fine for some to accept and address.
Thanks, bro. Nice of you to say. And welcome to Ai!
Yep, in future I will stick to topics like whether or not iMacs should have "glass" screens or why non-removable batteries are good!
Best regards!
You know there's a difference between mom &pop shops and multi-national corporations, right?
Very funny! I love it. You've got a great sense of the absurd!
I don't disagree, as long as they're qualified. I think what you're saying is make it a priority to find qualified minorities right? If so, I can't confirm whether Apple is doing that or not. I believe they are but maybe not at the Director level, I don't know. But I stand firm on hiring competent individuals in order to truly accomplish what you suggest. Otherwise it'll simply be nothing more than pacifying their customers and their critics while providing no value.
The reason it might be a consideration is the obvious one that should be apparent from the criticism being applied, diversity and representation. If Apple doesn't have any women on its exec team then issues affecting women might sail past the male only group. If there are no black men then they may lack an appreciation of what matters to their black employees and customers. And moreover, what message is an an all-white, all-male exec team sending to the thousand of employees that aren't male and white - you'll never reach this level because you're not the right colour and don't have the right equipment. Not great for morale or ambition that, is it not?
Note that I'm not accusing Apple of doing this deliberately, or even consciously, but it is an effect that will likely be promulgating through their power corridors, and ignoring it, and the importance of diversity at all levels is going to damage the company.
In terms of solutions, the straw man being put up is quotas and affirmative action. Why? That hasn't been suggested from the pro diversity side (as far as I can see). I don't think it's the best solution either, far better would be to recognise the state of affairs, provide corporate sponsorship for encouraging diversity schemes, commit to encouraging diversity throughout the ranks by including promoting diversity in goals and person specifications when hiring, and start outreach schemes to schools particularly targeting minorities with low representation. It's not a big extra ask for a company with Apple's resources; they're probably doing some of it already, but could benefit from being more open about it.
Man oh man, I wish I had written this! Well done!
This is now my opinion!
Best.
Her parents may be, but she most certainly is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Jung
Um, no.
Jeez, Where is Sammy Davis, Jr. when you need him?
/s
Thanks for the strawman.
Prove that this is how Apple operates. Otherwise stop the FUD.
That doesn't mean not bringing in the best, but it means being more open to considering different kinds of people.
Thanks for the implication that Apple is not open to considering different kinds of people. When you have any proof of your assertion, please post it. Until then, stop the FUD.
Whoop de FRICKING do. Had it been black, you would have whined it was a man’s hand. Had it been a left handed woman, you would have whined it was white.
This is the kind of argument on this topic that makes me the most upset, I think. The ones where they get to pretend they’re in the right whatever their opponent does because of… hmm, what is it, false equivalency?
Guess what: they’re not gonna show more than one hand picking up a tablet at once. Get over it.
Oh, just shut up.
And go away.
Of course it does¡
“It is troubling that the best people for the job available at the company are doing the job,” is your position.
Golly, that’s even worse.
Sure you don’t.
I’m sure there’s a bit in there about bullying, stealing time from the company, sexual harassment, and sick days, but quite frankly it doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.
It’s a job. It’s not a women’s rights rally, it’s not an anti-racism protest, it’s not a meeting of the Old Boy’s Club. What matters at the job is the job. Whoever does the job that does it best receives the best out of it. Screw your emotions; work isn’t any more complicated than that.
Wait… what?
I, for example, am just about exactly one quarter each Swiss, German, English, and Irish, but all the branches of my family have lived in the United States since before the Revolution (and fought therein). So I’m not American, eh?
Does this also translate to language? In that English isn’t from England, it’s Greek/Latin/French/German because of where it originated?
LOL.
Why, you're totally right. Now that you've set me straight, I realize that Apple had all the diversity it needed even back in Jobs's days, since it had a
Lebanese personSyrian on both the board and in top management.Heck, a
LebaneseSyrian even founded the company!PS: I kid. He was only half-
LebaneseSyrian (and a Polish person was a founder too).PPS: Yes, I left the sarcasm tag off.
PPPS: Thanks, TS. ;-)