1 and 2 person hiring is different. I'm not arguing for quotas but if you're white and you hire three white people over the other qualified candidates who happen to be a minority, all else being equal, because you feel more comfortable, then that's racist.
Well sure if you change the rules of the game by adding in "because you feel more comfortable" then yes I'd qualify that as racist. But if we get to change the wording, then I could say "if you hired 3 white people out of a pool of 3 and 3 based solely on their resume and nothing on their resume would suggest their races then you're not racist." The answer is "it depends."
"His net worth makes us queasy he can't dedicate the time to the position"
"She has a 14 yo child"
You don't have to say it... you just have to have enough people to 'think it'.
Right because anyone giving preference to Harvard grad is clearly really thinking about race. We all know that a Cal State Fullerton grad is just as smart and well-prepared as an ivy league grad.
…your assumption and yours alone, based in absolutely nothing said or implied by me. So try again.
Yes, implied by omission. By oversimplification and only stating one very narrow pov you are implying. You will deny this but your comment was frivolous and silly. Nobody is arguing that one should not employ the best candidate but that is hardly the issue, is it? So, I don't have to try again. You know it.
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.
Which policy response is best really depends on what the source of the problem is. If there are a lot of productive people out there who are poor just because of some irrational prejudice on the part of firm managers, then affirmative action makes sense (though that would definitely require government involvement). But I don't think that's the main problem we face today. I think the main problem is significant inequality in access to resources, starting at birth. This unequal access may affect people from some races more than others, but the people affected definitely span all races, genders, etc.
I do not believe that it is a major issue for these tech companies. I as a user, would like to have the best products abd services regardless of the color abd race of the employes. This is all political shit, all these companies have offices all around the world with many races on payroll. If a white man is better then a blak man that means he is better and that is it. In Europe we do not have this situation due to a different sociaty but that is wrong only when you are good and they do no hire you. There are laws for that. Stop moping and study to be great at something.
I do not believe that it is a major issue for these tech companies.
I as a user, would like to have the best products abd services regardless of the color abd race of the employes.
This is all political shit, all these companies have offices all around the world with many races on payroll.
If a white man is better then a blak man that means he is better and that is it.
In Europe we do not have this situation due to a different sociaty but that is wrong only when you are good and they do no hire you. There are laws for that. Stop moping and study to be great at something.
Right... no racism in Europe. Congratulations. Oh wait, has their ever been a person of color as the president or prime minister of a Western European country?
Silicon Valley is one of the purest meritocracies we have; in fact, aside from sports, practically the only one left. There is nothing preventing the next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg being non-white/non-male, so if Jesse Jackson wants to help, it's the self-image and self-respect of young under-represented kids that need the help. Not artificially stuffing the boards of already successful companies will 'representation' from under-prepared people.
I deplore bigotry and exclusion, it's completely unacceptable, but the answer is not a back door to the top, it's an even playing field at the start.
This is another case of someone preaching that black people should be included because they are black, regardless how smart they are.
Satya Nadella is Indian and he's CEO of Microsoft.
sigh.
what he's saying is people of color are people, and given the same education, experience, and opportunities, succeed at the same rate Western European people do. But they are not given the same education, experience, or opportunities.
India is one of the most racist/discriminatory/misogynist cultures in the world. Should I infer the head of Microsoft is Racist. No. My point being, you didn't make a point... you provided data. It's like saying we're post-racial because the leader of the free world is Part African (and part American, but by definition not 'African-American' [family heritage begins in the slave era]). We're Post Racial and Anti-Racist when it's an engrained part of our peopleness, whether a community or corporation.
Well sure if you change the rules of the game by adding in "because you feel more comfortable" then yes I'd qualify that as racist. But if we get to change the wording, then I could say "if you hired 3 white people out of a pool of 3 and 3 based solely on their resume and nothing on their resume would suggest their races then you're not racist." The answer is "it depends."
Yes but it's implied that people hire those they are comfortable with.
Yeah some people are born stupid, you don't expect them to get promoted or work their way up the corporate ladder. As to African Americans , how many are in the tech industry to begin with, especially the computing related areas? Not many from what I can see. I've meet a few mechanical and electrical engineers but few focused on this industry.
As to inequalities I really think you blow things out of proportion. I've meant many African Americans working in the trenches so to speak just like me. Like me many don't want to involve themselves in the corporate ladder climbing community.
The alternative is simple, get off your dead ass and work for it. That is if you really want it.
This is exactly what is wrong with the country right now and why I reject this non sense. Frankly I'm not even a republican but do believe I have enough social experience that handouts solve nothing. In fact they create more problems than they eliminate. The worst result of such policies is the placement of idiots in positions they can't handle.
I think you are living in a 1978-era Reagan fantasy if you think that the only variation (or even the primary variation) in income and wealth is due to how hard people work.
I'm not arguing that how hard people work is totally unrelated to income and wealth, but the relationship is not as strong as I think you would like to imagine.
I'd say the primary sources of variation in income and wealth are due to (in decreasing order of importance):
1. How smart you work, not how hard
2. Random chance
3. Inherited wealth
4. How hard you work
If income and wealth were driven only by numbers 1 and 4, I'd be mostly opposed to redistribution.
But I think #2 and #3 are a big deal, and that #3 is gaining in importance to a level that is becoming really troubling.
I really don't know what Jackson has to say (didn't read it) but if his goal is to get "minorities" at higher levels in these companies to make them look racially diverse like a Disney Kids TV shows or Gap commercial then I disagree with that myopic, not seeing the forest-for-the-trees solution. But if his goal is to get better education for "minorities," which tend to have additional hurdles in the States due to cultural and economic differences, so there is a larger pool of people with the aptitude, training and experience to lead these companies into the future then I am all for it.
Yeah some people are born stupid, you don't expect them to get promoted or work their way up the corporate ladder. As to African Americans , how many are in the tech industry to begin with, especially the computing related areas? Not many from what I can see.
It also isn't enough for them to join the tech industry - most good programmers start at age 12, the one that start in college are the ones doing it because it is easy money. African Americans probably need a cultural change that gets age 12 kids to start programming if they want to generate a bunch of good programmers - and before somebody says that they can't afford that, microcontroller kits are very cheap.
It also isn't enough for them to join the tech industry - most good programmers start at age 12, the one that start in college are the ones doing it because it is easy money. African Americans probably need a cultural change that gets age 12 kids to start programming if they want to generate a bunch of good programmers - and before somebody says that they can't afford that, microcontroller kits are very cheap.
First, I doubt that "most good programmers" start at age 12. And kids who are programming at age 12 are almost certainly on the very high end of the intellectual bell curve (who were also lucky enough to have the parental resources to explore their interests). Throwing a microcontroller kit to your average 12 year old won't get you very far.
Right because anyone giving preference to Harvard grad is clearly really thinking about race. We all know that a Cal State Fullerton grad is just as smart and well-prepared as an ivy league grad.
bias takes many forms... and American Racism at the elite level is highly refined, because, it's the root of it [racism is a variation on 'devine right'... the powers of the universe ordain me and 'people like me' to control everything I want to control. The trick is, to convince others they have a chance to 'be like me' and use whatever form of bigotry that works for them to align with my goals.
Again, the key item is discrimination. A lot of white guys are discriminated against too. I'm saying that exclusivity ('we're the best and the brightest, based on external attributes) and privilege (the ether by which white male supremacy permeates all it wishes to control) are part and parcel of classism and it's most destructive offspring: racism.
I really don't what Jackson has to say but if his goal is to get "minorities" at higher levels in these companies to make them look racially diverse like a Disney Kids TV shows or Gap commercial then I disagree with that myopic, not seeing the forest-for-the-trees solution, but if his goal is to get better education for "minorities," which tend to have additional hurdles in the States do to cultural and economic differences, so there is a larger pool of people with the potential, aptitude, training and experience to lead these companies into the future then I am all for it.
Bingo, this exactly. Companies (and individuals) should focus on enablement - and by the way, African Americans are not the only group under-represented at the top.
A couple of posts referred to Obama (indirectly) - the irony being is that he had to be 10x better (eductationally) than the white guy he was running against, and 100x better than his predecessor, to even get a chance. The barrier to entry should not be 10x higher, but it also shouldn't be lower either. Get the the schools, get to the poorer neighborhoods, and help there.
Oh, and while this is semi-political, Jackson's own party should probably stop crapping all over Charter Schools (which are the best thing to have ever happened to poorer African American kids) and stop yakking on about teacher tenure (which is probably the biggest barrier to educational reform). Ban me now...
Comments
Wouldn’t that be more due to the fact that ~30% of the country is out of work than anything else?
not to his stats, and out of work means still means in the workforce pool.... just drowning.
1 and 2 person hiring is different. I'm not arguing for quotas but if you're white and you hire three white people over the other qualified candidates who happen to be a minority, all else being equal, because you feel more comfortable, then that's racist.
Well sure if you change the rules of the game by adding in "because you feel more comfortable" then yes I'd qualify that as racist. But if we get to change the wording, then I could say "if you hired 3 white people out of a pool of 3 and 3 based solely on their resume and nothing on their resume would suggest their races then you're not racist." The answer is "it depends."
That’s great; I’ll have to use that.
Racism is more refined that that.
"He didn't go to Harvard.... like this guy"
"His net worth makes us queasy he can't dedicate the time to the position"
"She has a 14 yo child"
You don't have to say it... you just have to have enough people to 'think it'.
Right because anyone giving preference to Harvard grad is clearly really thinking about race. We all know that a Cal State Fullerton grad is just as smart and well-prepared as an ivy league grad.
…your assumption and yours alone, based in absolutely nothing said or implied by me. So try again.
Yes, implied by omission. By oversimplification and only stating one very narrow pov you are implying. You will deny this but your comment was frivolous and silly. Nobody is arguing that one should not employ the best candidate but that is hardly the issue, is it? So, I don't have to try again. You know it.
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.
Which policy response is best really depends on what the source of the problem is. If there are a lot of productive people out there who are poor just because of some irrational prejudice on the part of firm managers, then affirmative action makes sense (though that would definitely require government involvement). But I don't think that's the main problem we face today. I think the main problem is significant inequality in access to resources, starting at birth. This unequal access may affect people from some races more than others, but the people affected definitely span all races, genders, etc.
I do not believe that it is a major issue for these tech companies.
I as a user, would like to have the best products abd services regardless of the color abd race of the employes.
This is all political shit, all these companies have offices all around the world with many races on payroll.
If a white man is better then a blak man that means he is better and that is it.
In Europe we do not have this situation due to a different sociaty but that is wrong only when you are good and they do no hire you. There are laws for that. Stop moping and study to be great at something.
Hi,
I do not believe that it is a major issue for these tech companies.
I as a user, would like to have the best products abd services regardless of the color abd race of the employes.
This is all political shit, all these companies have offices all around the world with many races on payroll.
If a white man is better then a blak man that means he is better and that is it.
In Europe we do not have this situation due to a different sociaty but that is wrong only when you are good and they do no hire you. There are laws for that. Stop moping and study to be great at something.
Right... no racism in Europe. Congratulations. Oh wait, has their ever been a person of color as the president or prime minister of a Western European country?
Silicon Valley is one of the purest meritocracies we have; in fact, aside from sports, practically the only one left. There is nothing preventing the next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg being non-white/non-male, so if Jesse Jackson wants to help, it's the self-image and self-respect of young under-represented kids that need the help. Not artificially stuffing the boards of already successful companies will 'representation' from under-prepared people.
I deplore bigotry and exclusion, it's completely unacceptable, but the answer is not a back door to the top, it's an even playing field at the start.
This is another case of someone preaching that black people should be included because they are black, regardless how smart they are.
Satya Nadella is Indian and he's CEO of Microsoft.
sigh.
what he's saying is people of color are people, and given the same education, experience, and opportunities, succeed at the same rate Western European people do. But they are not given the same education, experience, or opportunities.
India is one of the most racist/discriminatory/misogynist cultures in the world. Should I infer the head of Microsoft is Racist. No. My point being, you didn't make a point... you provided data. It's like saying we're post-racial because the leader of the free world is Part African (and part American, but by definition not 'African-American' [family heritage begins in the slave era]). We're Post Racial and Anti-Racist when it's an engrained part of our peopleness, whether a community or corporation.
this guy will always be "martin l. king" wanna be. just an idiot.
Yes but it's implied that people hire those they are comfortable with.
Which is what I suspect Apple does.
Yeah some people are born stupid, you don't expect them to get promoted or work their way up the corporate ladder. As to African Americans , how many are in the tech industry to begin with, especially the computing related areas? Not many from what I can see. I've meet a few mechanical and electrical engineers but few focused on this industry.
As to inequalities I really think you blow things out of proportion. I've meant many African Americans working in the trenches so to speak just like me. Like me many don't want to involve themselves in the corporate ladder climbing community.
The alternative is simple, get off your dead ass and work for it. That is if you really want it.
This is exactly what is wrong with the country right now and why I reject this non sense. Frankly I'm not even a republican but do believe I have enough social experience that handouts solve nothing. In fact they create more problems than they eliminate. The worst result of such policies is the placement of idiots in positions they can't handle.
I think you are living in a 1978-era Reagan fantasy if you think that the only variation (or even the primary variation) in income and wealth is due to how hard people work.
I'm not arguing that how hard people work is totally unrelated to income and wealth, but the relationship is not as strong as I think you would like to imagine.
I'd say the primary sources of variation in income and wealth are due to (in decreasing order of importance):
1. How smart you work, not how hard
2. Random chance
3. Inherited wealth
4. How hard you work
If income and wealth were driven only by numbers 1 and 4, I'd be mostly opposed to redistribution.
But I think #2 and #3 are a big deal, and that #3 is gaining in importance to a level that is becoming really troubling.
Yes, implied by omission.
Yes, you omitted what I said and substituted your own reality.
Sounds like it’s exactly the issue. The best candidates are already being hired.
Which is what I suspect Apple does.
Yeah some people are born stupid, you don't expect them to get promoted or work their way up the corporate ladder. As to African Americans , how many are in the tech industry to begin with, especially the computing related areas? Not many from what I can see.
It also isn't enough for them to join the tech industry - most good programmers start at age 12, the one that start in college are the ones doing it because it is easy money. African Americans probably need a cultural change that gets age 12 kids to start programming if they want to generate a bunch of good programmers - and before somebody says that they can't afford that, microcontroller kits are very cheap.
It also isn't enough for them to join the tech industry - most good programmers start at age 12, the one that start in college are the ones doing it because it is easy money. African Americans probably need a cultural change that gets age 12 kids to start programming if they want to generate a bunch of good programmers - and before somebody says that they can't afford that, microcontroller kits are very cheap.
First, I doubt that "most good programmers" start at age 12. And kids who are programming at age 12 are almost certainly on the very high end of the intellectual bell curve (who were also lucky enough to have the parental resources to explore their interests). Throwing a microcontroller kit to your average 12 year old won't get you very far.
Right because anyone giving preference to Harvard grad is clearly really thinking about race. We all know that a Cal State Fullerton grad is just as smart and well-prepared as an ivy league grad.
bias takes many forms... and American Racism at the elite level is highly refined, because, it's the root of it [racism is a variation on 'devine right'... the powers of the universe ordain me and 'people like me' to control everything I want to control. The trick is, to convince others they have a chance to 'be like me' and use whatever form of bigotry that works for them to align with my goals.
Again, the key item is discrimination. A lot of white guys are discriminated against too. I'm saying that exclusivity ('we're the best and the brightest, based on external attributes) and privilege (the ether by which white male supremacy permeates all it wishes to control) are part and parcel of classism and it's most destructive offspring: racism.
I really don't what Jackson has to say but if his goal is to get "minorities" at higher levels in these companies to make them look racially diverse like a Disney Kids TV shows or Gap commercial then I disagree with that myopic, not seeing the forest-for-the-trees solution, but if his goal is to get better education for "minorities," which tend to have additional hurdles in the States do to cultural and economic differences, so there is a larger pool of people with the potential, aptitude, training and experience to lead these companies into the future then I am all for it.
Bingo, this exactly. Companies (and individuals) should focus on enablement - and by the way, African Americans are not the only group under-represented at the top.
A couple of posts referred to Obama (indirectly) - the irony being is that he had to be 10x better (eductationally) than the white guy he was running against, and 100x better than his predecessor, to even get a chance. The barrier to entry should not be 10x higher, but it also shouldn't be lower either. Get the the schools, get to the poorer neighborhoods, and help there.
Oh, and while this is semi-political, Jackson's own party should probably stop crapping all over Charter Schools (which are the best thing to have ever happened to poorer African American kids) and stop yakking on about teacher tenure (which is probably the biggest barrier to educational reform). Ban me now...