Yet Jesse Jackson's Rainbow coalition is predominantly black, as is the Black Caucus in Washington DC, the NAACP, etc. He preaches equality, but he can't practice it.
East Indians, Asians and some Middle Eastern people are people of color too.
They make up most of the students in the University of California campuses. Caucasians are a minority in upper education in California.
If Rev. Jackson wants more Blacks in high tech companies, then he will need to change Black culture in America. He needs to tell Black families to emphasize education. This is currently not done. He needs to tell Black men to parent their children. This is currently not done. He needs to tell Blacks to look the mirror and do what is right for their children.
No one is going to hire you in the high tech industry if you cannot cut it.
I would be willing to wager a winning lottery ticket that you are in fact a White person making what you probably think is a neutral, objective statement about race.
I would also wager that you consider people of differing races (whatever they may be) to be truly different than you in some quality or distinction. Sure, there are cultural differences. There are physical differences. But in terms of their humanity, capability, value, and worth, they are absolutely no different. Scientifically speaking, there is actually greater genetic similarity between people of DIFFERING races than people of the same race!
Which is why it is so problematic that there are so many of one "race" in power over people of another "race."
Don't think CEOs have power, that they knowingly wield over others? I would wager the same lottery ticket I won from my previous bet that there are dozens of posts, articles, and physical evidence could argue otherwise.
So why have CEOs that come from different backgrounds? Why from different races? The question is why NOT? Why AREN'T there people from all backgrounds, racial and ethnic, leading corporations, influencing vast swaths of American consumption? What makes White people so special?
My apologies if this seems like a rant. But I believe veiled or self-excused racism is, in fact, the worst kind.
Apple is hiring the best talent it can get, from across the world, where it can. If African Americans aren't stepping up to the plate, thats their issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrogusto
To me, the surprise isn't that there aren't more African-Americans in top-tier tech positions, it's that there aren't more Indians, Chinese and Russians (although there are some of course, like Nadella at Microsoft). In my experience working in technology in New York, those seem to be the dominant groups. I haven't really seen high percentages of African-Americans in technology in any "tier," and the situation isn't much better for women in general. Career choices have a strong cultural component, and this can certainly change, but I don't think the businesses and industries are primarily responsible in this case. Here in New York, there's so much demand for good developers that competitive businesses can't really afford to discriminate even if they wanted to. Which isn't to say that racism and discrimination aren't completely reprehensible and probably still happening somewhere.
Because it takes a while to work through. It's beginning to happen though, but remember CEOs are in their 50's,
As a person who worked at some large Technologies companies over the years and I can tell most all companies try their best to hire a diversified work force. You may have a few hiring managers who have a particular preference, but in the whole for the last 20 yrs at least I have seen lots of efforts to do what is right which is to hire the best possible people no matter their background.
With that said you can not hire what does not exist, simply put companies can not solve the problem that engineering and technologies fields do not attract a diverse group of people. Yes, not all jobs at technologies companies required a science and technology background, but in order to move up in the ranks you better have the background.
To be more specific in this case, I have meet very few African American Engineers, and I can tell you those who are out there are sought by every company so they can meet their EEOC goals. Also which is not fair is they tend to command a higher pay since companies are desperate to hire them because of people like Jessy making all kind of noise. Because of these initiative you have situation of reverse discrimination, and I have seen it personally.
Over the years I have been fortunate enough to hire or work with a number of minorities in technical positions, a few were great and very qualified but most should have never been hired but no one would admit it since they were hired to meet a corporate goal. Personally the government needs to stay out of it, and companies should only have to prove they hired the best qualified person, anything less than that is discrimination.
If Jessy want more diversity in the technology workforce he should be in the minority neighborhoods convincing young people to go into the field of study which would allow them to get these kinds of jobs. Companies can only hire what is available to them in the market place. People like Jessy are only interested in putting someone in a position to meet a goal of diversification not whether they are qualified or not.
We often disparage others that bring our own inadequacies to light. Look inside yourself before you lambast someone that is holding the mirror so you can see yourself. Some of you do not know you are ignorant but will understand yourself one day.
I would be willing to wager a winning lottery ticket that you are in fact a White person making what you probably think is a neutral, objective statement about race.
I would be willing to bet that you are not self-employed or own a business.
I say hire the best people for the job whatever their color, age, sex etc.
I have a dream that one day people will be hired not for the color of their skin....
I agree that firms should hire the best people for the job without regard to race, age, sex etc.
However, I also think that there are real inequities in society that need to be addressed, and that in far too many cases people who say what you said (and what I agree with) pretend those inequities don't exist or are opposed to every single idea for addressing them.
So I think that if one rejects one idea, then there is some burden on the rejector to suggest an alternative.
The alternative I suggest is to focus on economic inequality rather than racial/gender/etc inequality, and use mildly redistributionist policies to address those inequities. By "mildly redistributionist" I mean taxing the rich at a higher marginal rate than the middle class and poor, and using that money to support things like the earned income tax credit and education and health care for the poor. In other words, I support the types of policies that the mainstream Democratic party supports, and that the Republican party is constantly trying to eliminate.
Putting aside the aroma of a reputed Jessie Jackson shakedown, I mostly agree with both of you.
But, I prefer direct affirmative action -- rather than getting the governments/politicians involved ...
For example, couldn't these companies better address the problems of the middle class and poor by creating jobs in depressed areas -- Detroit, for example.
NY, AZ, TX and others give tax incentives to entice job creation in their states -- Companies that take advantage of these incentives tend to create support jobs (construction, services, etc.) in addition to the direct employment. The fanout benefits the entire community -- not to mention the satisfaction of earning your own way!
I also would rather see investment in direct affirmative action as opposed to token board members.
I’d rather have all white men who can do the best job than “one of each flavor” who can’t.
If that makes me racist, I’m happily so.
You comment 'almost' makes you a racist because it displays such ignorance and unwillingness to understand the issue. Assuming that hiring a person of a different ethnicity ( or of different sexual persuasion or sex for that matter), is tantamount to hiring "one of each flavour" who can't do the job is... wow, words fail me. I don't think that is what you meant but you are kind of implying it.
I say hire the best people for the job whatever their color, age, sex etc.
I have a dream that one day people will be hired not for the color of their skin....
Amen to that. A public companies responsibility is to add value for their shareholder. To do that, you want talented innovative people at the top. The determination of that shouldn't be based on the color of their skin, but what they bring to the table. To publicly force a company to place talent based on the sole goal of being diversified only hurts the company as a whole in the end. Apple should (and I hope does) hire people based solely on their talent and whether or not they will mesh with the corporate culture and philosophy of Apple.
The sad fact is that Jackson is nothing more than a public bully pushing his agenda with little regard to the company itself. He doesn't care about the person that didn't get the job and who is better qualified as long as he can wield his power by painting others as racist.
You comment 'almost' makes you a racist because it displays such ignorance and unwillingness to understand the issue. Assuming that hiring a person of a different ethnicity ( or of different sexual persuasion or sex for that matter), is tantamount to hiring "one of each flavour" who can't do the job is... wow, words fail me. I don't think that is what you meant but you are kind of implying it.
So - ouch!
I believe his point was that hiring based on race IS racism. That is a fact.
You comment 'almost' makes you a racist because it displays such ignorance and unwillingness to understand the issue. Assuming that hiring a person of a different ethnicity ( or of different sexual persuasion or sex for that matter), is tantamount to hiring "one of each flavour" who can't do the job is... wow, words fail me. I don't think that is what you meant but you are kind of implying it.
So - ouch!
All he was saying was that if out a group of people he would pick the best for the job. If they all so happened to be white than so be it.
It's sad that the same people screaming for equality and togetherness are the same ones that like to put people in separate groups.
Putting aside the aroma of a reputed Jessie Jackson shakedown, I mostly agree with both of you.
But, I prefer direct affirmative action -- rather than getting the governments/politicians involved ...
For example, couldn't these companies better address the problems of the middd class and poor by creating jobs in depressed areas -- Detroit, for example.
NY, AZ, TX and others give tax incentives to entice job creation in their states -- Companies that take advantage of these incentives tend to create support jobs (construction, services, etc.) in addition to the direct employment. The fanout benefits the entire community -- not to mention the satisfaction of earning your own way!
I also would rather see investment in direct affirmative action as opposed to token board members.
And I would posit that 'token' is a bad choice of words (or was it?) I think 'Board members who can best represent our global community of owners, employees and customers'
Job creation in the knowledge industry is less about creating 'jobs' in Detroit, than to 'educate for the new economy' in Detroit. That's where the problem lies. Education is based on property values and people with no excess capital for community reinvestment (due to 100's of years of not being allowed to earn/retain wealth, ending... well, it may not have ended just yet [see 'The New Jim Crowe' book];-( ).
It takes a board member block of votes to support a CxO to make a decision to invest in a community. But it also takes a set of middle and director level managers who are capable and comfortable to fight for success of the program, as there will be risks that need to be addressed in execution.
I look at the executive ranks at Apple and see a bunch of talented people. Jesse Jackson sees a bunch of white men. Who's viewpoint seems more racist? And as bvgk mentioned, where's the racial equality in the NFL or NBA? Or should we not concern ourselves with that inequality, or worse, let a bunch of mediocre white guys play just to "even things out"? Not everyone gets a trophy folks. If we want to talk about equality, let's talk about it fairly and for everyone, not just cherry pick the situations that favor our opinionated agenda.
Amen to that. A public companies responsibility is to add value for their shareholder. To do that, you want talented innovative people at the top. The determination of that shouldn't be based on the color of their skin, but what they bring to the table. To publicly force a company to place talent based on the sole goal of being diversified only hurts the company as a whole in the end. Apple should (and I hope does) hire people based solely on their talent and whether or not they will mesh with the corporate culture and philosophy of Apple.
The sad fact is that Jackson is nothing more than a public bully pushing his agenda with little regard to the company itself. He doesn't care about the person that didn't get the job and who is better qualified as long as he can wield his power by painting others as racist.
I certainly hope Cook takes a page from Steve Jobs' book on this matter. Yielding to this kind of strong arm tactic would be a bad precedent.
Comments
The simple fact that an article pointing out an obvious fact managed to draw out such blatant racism on this thread speaks volumes.
Rule of thumb... if you start a sentence with "I'm not a racist, but..." then you're probably about to say something stupid and racist.
I think I spotted just about every race-based dog whistle so far.
Good job techies!
They make up most of the students in the University of California campuses. Caucasians are a minority in upper education in California.
If Rev. Jackson wants more Blacks in high tech companies, then he will need to change Black culture in America. He needs to tell Black families to emphasize education. This is currently not done. He needs to tell Black men to parent their children. This is currently not done. He needs to tell Blacks to look the mirror and do what is right for their children.
No one is going to hire you in the high tech industry if you cannot cut it.
I would be willing to wager a winning lottery ticket that you are in fact a White person making what you probably think is a neutral, objective statement about race.
I would also wager that you consider people of differing races (whatever they may be) to be truly different than you in some quality or distinction. Sure, there are cultural differences. There are physical differences. But in terms of their humanity, capability, value, and worth, they are absolutely no different. Scientifically speaking, there is actually greater genetic similarity between people of DIFFERING races than people of the same race!
Which is why it is so problematic that there are so many of one "race" in power over people of another "race."
Don't think CEOs have power, that they knowingly wield over others? I would wager the same lottery ticket I won from my previous bet that there are dozens of posts, articles, and physical evidence could argue otherwise.
So why have CEOs that come from different backgrounds? Why from different races? The question is why NOT? Why AREN'T there people from all backgrounds, racial and ethnic, leading corporations, influencing vast swaths of American consumption? What makes White people so special?
My apologies if this seems like a rant. But I believe veiled or self-excused racism is, in fact, the worst kind.
Apple is hiring the best talent it can get, from across the world, where it can. If African Americans aren't stepping up to the plate, thats their issue
To me, the surprise isn't that there aren't more African-Americans in top-tier tech positions, it's that there aren't more Indians, Chinese and Russians (although there are some of course, like Nadella at Microsoft). In my experience working in technology in New York, those seem to be the dominant groups. I haven't really seen high percentages of African-Americans in technology in any "tier," and the situation isn't much better for women in general. Career choices have a strong cultural component, and this can certainly change, but I don't think the businesses and industries are primarily responsible in this case. Here in New York, there's so much demand for good developers that competitive businesses can't really afford to discriminate even if they wanted to. Which isn't to say that racism and discrimination aren't completely reprehensible and probably still happening somewhere.
Because it takes a while to work through. It's beginning to happen though, but remember CEOs are in their 50's,
As a person who worked at some large Technologies companies over the years and I can tell most all companies try their best to hire a diversified work force. You may have a few hiring managers who have a particular preference, but in the whole for the last 20 yrs at least I have seen lots of efforts to do what is right which is to hire the best possible people no matter their background.
With that said you can not hire what does not exist, simply put companies can not solve the problem that engineering and technologies fields do not attract a diverse group of people. Yes, not all jobs at technologies companies required a science and technology background, but in order to move up in the ranks you better have the background.
To be more specific in this case, I have meet very few African American Engineers, and I can tell you those who are out there are sought by every company so they can meet their EEOC goals. Also which is not fair is they tend to command a higher pay since companies are desperate to hire them because of people like Jessy making all kind of noise. Because of these initiative you have situation of reverse discrimination, and I have seen it personally.
Over the years I have been fortunate enough to hire or work with a number of minorities in technical positions, a few were great and very qualified but most should have never been hired but no one would admit it since they were hired to meet a corporate goal. Personally the government needs to stay out of it, and companies should only have to prove they hired the best qualified person, anything less than that is discrimination.
If Jessy want more diversity in the technology workforce he should be in the minority neighborhoods convincing young people to go into the field of study which would allow them to get these kinds of jobs. Companies can only hire what is available to them in the market place. People like Jessy are only interested in putting someone in a position to meet a goal of diversification not whether they are qualified or not.
We often disparage others that bring our own inadequacies to light. Look inside yourself before you lambast someone that is holding the mirror so you can see yourself. Some of you do not know you are ignorant but will understand yourself one day.
I would be willing to wager a winning lottery ticket that you are in fact a White person making what you probably think is a neutral, objective statement about race.
I would be willing to bet that you are not self-employed or own a business.
I think Jesse Jackson is probably the worst spokesman for racial equality. He can create more in the negative column than he can in the plus.
Like his own son. When given opportunities to represent others (more than his peers would get), J.J. Junior squandered it all.
No it doesn't.
The inclusion of 'rather have all white men... and if that makes me racist, I'm happily so' is a telling turn of a phrase.
I read that as: I don't care about people not like me, as long as I get and keep mine, and I'll do whatever is necessary to do so'
That's prima facie evidence of Racism as I have learned it.
But I may be wrong....What's your definition of Racism?
Putting aside the aroma of a reputed Jessie Jackson shakedown, I mostly agree with both of you.
But, I prefer direct affirmative action -- rather than getting the governments/politicians involved ...
For example, couldn't these companies better address the problems of the middle class and poor by creating jobs in depressed areas -- Detroit, for example.
NY, AZ, TX and others give tax incentives to entice job creation in their states -- Companies that take advantage of these incentives tend to create support jobs (construction, services, etc.) in addition to the direct employment. The fanout benefits the entire community -- not to mention the satisfaction of earning your own way!
I also would rather see investment in direct affirmative action as opposed to token board members.
Like his own son. When given opportunities to represent others (more than his peers would get), J.J. Junior squandered it all.
A lot more White congressmen have done far worse... so what your saying is non-white congressmen are no different than white congressmen?
So they are qualified to sit on boards just like white ex-congressmen?
What is the "obvious fact" that was pointed out?
The inclusion of 'rather have all white men... and if that makes me racist, I'm happily so' is a telling turn of a phrase.
Well, sure, if you take out bits and pieces of his post.
That's prima facie evidence of Racism as I have learned it.
But I may be wrong....What's your definition of Racism?
If he had said. "I’d rather have all white men who can do the best job than “one of each flavor” who can also do as good of a job."
I’d rather have all white men who can do the best job than “one of each flavor” who can’t.
If that makes me racist, I’m happily so.
You comment 'almost' makes you a racist because it displays such ignorance and unwillingness to understand the issue. Assuming that hiring a person of a different ethnicity ( or of different sexual persuasion or sex for that matter), is tantamount to hiring "one of each flavour" who can't do the job is... wow, words fail me. I don't think that is what you meant but you are kind of implying it.
So - ouch!
I say hire the best people for the job whatever their color, age, sex etc.
I have a dream that one day people will be hired not for the color of their skin....
Amen to that. A public companies responsibility is to add value for their shareholder. To do that, you want talented innovative people at the top. The determination of that shouldn't be based on the color of their skin, but what they bring to the table. To publicly force a company to place talent based on the sole goal of being diversified only hurts the company as a whole in the end. Apple should (and I hope does) hire people based solely on their talent and whether or not they will mesh with the corporate culture and philosophy of Apple.
The sad fact is that Jackson is nothing more than a public bully pushing his agenda with little regard to the company itself. He doesn't care about the person that didn't get the job and who is better qualified as long as he can wield his power by painting others as racist.
I believe his point was that hiring based on race IS racism. That is a fact.
You comment 'almost' makes you a racist because it displays such ignorance and unwillingness to understand the issue. Assuming that hiring a person of a different ethnicity ( or of different sexual persuasion or sex for that matter), is tantamount to hiring "one of each flavour" who can't do the job is... wow, words fail me. I don't think that is what you meant but you are kind of implying it.
So - ouch!
All he was saying was that if out a group of people he would pick the best for the job. If they all so happened to be white than so be it.
It's sad that the same people screaming for equality and togetherness are the same ones that like to put people in separate groups.
Putting aside the aroma of a reputed Jessie Jackson shakedown, I mostly agree with both of you.
But, I prefer direct affirmative action -- rather than getting the governments/politicians involved ...
For example, couldn't these companies better address the problems of the middd class and poor by creating jobs in depressed areas -- Detroit, for example.
NY, AZ, TX and others give tax incentives to entice job creation in their states -- Companies that take advantage of these incentives tend to create support jobs (construction, services, etc.) in addition to the direct employment. The fanout benefits the entire community -- not to mention the satisfaction of earning your own way!
I also would rather see investment in direct affirmative action as opposed to token board members.
And I would posit that 'token' is a bad choice of words (or was it?) I think 'Board members who can best represent our global community of owners, employees and customers'
Job creation in the knowledge industry is less about creating 'jobs' in Detroit, than to 'educate for the new economy' in Detroit. That's where the problem lies. Education is based on property values and people with no excess capital for community reinvestment (due to 100's of years of not being allowed to earn/retain wealth, ending... well, it may not have ended just yet [see 'The New Jim Crowe' book];-( ).
It takes a board member block of votes to support a CxO to make a decision to invest in a community. But it also takes a set of middle and director level managers who are capable and comfortable to fight for success of the program, as there will be risks that need to be addressed in execution.
I look at the executive ranks at Apple and see a bunch of talented people. Jesse Jackson sees a bunch of white men. Who's viewpoint seems more racist? And as bvgk mentioned, where's the racial equality in the NFL or NBA? Or should we not concern ourselves with that inequality, or worse, let a bunch of mediocre white guys play just to "even things out"? Not everyone gets a trophy folks. If we want to talk about equality, let's talk about it fairly and for everyone, not just cherry pick the situations that favor our opinionated agenda.
I certainly hope Cook takes a page from Steve Jobs' book on this matter. Yielding to this kind of strong arm tactic would be a bad precedent.