Also, "diversity" is just pandering. Hire people based on their skills and the absurd focus on skin color and other collectivist talking points becomes irrelevant.
Man I can't believe how badly old white guys cling to that straw man. Diversity doesnt mean *not* hiring based on skills -- but it does mean to go out of your way to hire people of equal skill who aren't all white guys. That's the point. Equal skills, diverse background. It adds value because of experiences outside the same mono-culture.
If you have 50 white guy programmers, and you have two final candidates of equal skill but one is an asian woman, you'd do well to hire the asian woman, since the more diversity you have in your team the more ideas and perspectives will be brought to the product development cycle.
It's too bad you felt the need to exhibit your racism in your first statement, before making a good point in the second.
Also, it's not a straw man in a lot of cases, where affirmative action is a real thing in one way or another.
FWIW, while I don't believe racism plays a huge, active role in today's society, the consequences of past racism are still very present. I see it nearly every day. The solution of this is not to lower standards, but help raise up any group of people that were treated unjustly in the past, which is exactly what Apple is doing in part (e.g. the $40M donation to supporting tech grads from historically black colleges).
Apple walks the walk of diversity (unlike so many, who just superficially address the issue for the good press), I just wish Apple didn't feed the socially divisive rhetoric around race by doing things like this.
Here is a real example of real life diversity. When I studies at my US university, we got about 50-60 people in out class. About ten were asian, and about 30 were black. No african americans,though. I doubt AMs were not there because they were prjudiced against, but because they either did not qualify or they were not interested in STEM. As for the poor economic conditions... If you are able to work for 12 -15 dollars an hr, you are able to pay for your education, if you pay in- state tuition. BS level classes are not that hard, comparing to MS, even though you need a crapload of them to get a degree. And then there AM specific scholarships for minority ( which is either for AM or indian ethnicities), yet almost no one uses those in STEM, because they don't go there. Racism has nothing to do with that, since for example, asians come consistenly on top of any other minority in terms of their income. In fact, they are the highest earning minority in the us. Looks like thy teach their kids right values. What is actually going on when there is an underpresentation of certain ethnicity within a certain field, is that certain mentality that prevails within some ethnic communities, ruins it for all those kids within those communities. That is where so called conditioning happens and precludes them from advancing in life. It is a mental roadblock, and not a financial one. Since it is a mindset that is being created within a ethnic community, outside influence will be rejected. Hence, you will not be able to fix it either with more money being poored into schools ( because going to school is what a white guy does, hence it is not kosher), nor with lowering standards (affirm action) because then you produce less prepared specialists.
(I do not disagree with you, but simply wanted to provide a bit of an example and some thoughts).
Those are certainly important points to consider in this, and it is something that is completely ignored by the racists on the left constantly crying wolf racism to score political points (e.g. an NYT article crying racism that one race is predominant over others in a particular college, and never once mentioning that the predominant race was chinese, not caucasian).
However, it's not quite that simple, and it's very hard to draw the line between injustice and accountability. Part of the "mental roadblock" comes from historical disenfranchisement; contrasting that to chinese/african/etc people that came from an established, healthy culture. That means that there is still some obligation on the part of society as a whole to help a historically disenfranchised group of people.
On top of all that there seems to be cultural factors that maintain the status quo, unfortunately. Both external (e.g. politically exploitative racial division that benefits the left), and internal, within the communities themselves. The latter is a very sensitive, subjective, and complex subject that I don't claim to be an expert in and don't feel comfortable commenting on; although, as a physician I am probably more aware than most about the issues involved.
It should be recognized that true diversity in this area arises from equal opportunity...and equal educational opportunity. The poor and disadvantaged don't have that equal educational opportunity to give them the background they need to become qualified.
If Apple and other big technology companies are truly interested in this situation improving, they should pour money into school funding. Offer scholarships for kids that need it. Develop curriculum and make it accessible to all (which Apple is doing with Swift Playgrounds).
This has already been done, ask colleges and universities why they are not doing their parts to make sure every person has chance to be an engineer if they like.
Instead, we have these institutions run by people who tell us all how we are all racist and discriminate against those less fortunate, but they do everything they can to make sure people are not succeeding at colleges and universities. Most universities run what is known as flunk out programs, they get the first or second year tuition (which include mandatory Room and Board) and then do everything they can to make sure kids drop out or never complete the degree they want. Have you seen anyone at University standing our and asking the people who run the universities and faculty rioting on Campus about the number of students being push out or amount of debt they have take on to stay in school.
University are more interested in bring in the kids from over seas because they pay cash and are not eligible for Student ad and loans, they will take those kids over someone who is less fortunate in this country. If you want to fix this problem of equal opportunity make University responsible for enrolling as many US citizens first and only then once every kid here in the US has their chance can they open the door to people out side the US. The US has enough diversity without universities needing to look elsewhere.
It is not companies jobs to educate people, this is why we have the best university system in the world hold their feet to the first, they need to create the talent that companies can hire.
The issue isn't with white men or black women or anything like that at all. The issue is that companies are being brought down by these "values" that are basically just pandering to the left. If we are basing the hiring practices based on pure ability there probably wouldn't be very many white or black men working for apple. It would probably be very asian and Indian. The fact America has basically turned its education system into a life long mortgage and banks are using these "student loans" to suck even more prosperity from our population is the problem. Even if you manage to get into college your still looking at 60-70K to graduate with a degree in engineering to be able to even get one of these jobs. Unfortunately that has predominately been white men over the past 50 years. That number is changing now and I am happy it is. But the fact is the pool of talent is just not that diverse at this point. So for a company like Apple to come out and say hey were hiring a diversity and inclusion manager is just stupid. If apple wanted to make a big difference they should spend some of that 200 billion in cash on revamping the US education system. Just my .02
Another person who is near incoherent on this subject, putting the fracking conclusion as a premise to their whole argument. Do a god damn course in rhetoric and put some order in your train of thought so it is not 100% self serving bullshit.
It's not just about hiring. It's also about how people are treated once they work at the place.
There is an overwhelming knee-jerk harrumphing about 'meritocracy' and whatnot on tech-related message boards whenever anything related to this subject comes up. It's not the wild-eyed liberals who react instantly as soon as a story like this is posted. It's the (apparently) white-guy establishment that immediately starts protesting just a little too much about how there's no problem here that needs to be addressed in the first place. On the less well-managed boards, those are interspersed with overtly racist and sexist comments that (ironically) are meant to support the protests that there's nothing to see here.
The instant hostility towards the idea of women and minorities getting a better chance to play in this particular sandbox is evidence in itself for the day-to-day headwind women and minorities face, even when they do manage to get hired. The assumption is always that they didn't really earn their spot, even though in many cases they have to work twice as hard to get it, keep it, and grow in it.
Oddly, this is not actually a zero-sum game. When you open the door to over half the population getting the opportunity to do more and be more productive, you're not shutting out the white guys who were already there. You're expanding the opportunity for the company (and country) to do more as well, by adding previously unavailable talent to the pool.
harveyJ said: These "Inclusion and Diversity" positions are about the imposition of an ideology (and virtue signalling). Efforts of this sort are intellectually flaccid bromides intended to placate Progressives.
You should perhaps go to the Apple Diversity page and read what they actually say instead of overlaying your bigotry on top a very well thought out policy.
You do realize Apple has retail stores in more than 20 countries around the globe. I'm pretty sure most of the employees who work in the Chinese stores are Chinese. Likewise the Italian store probably mostly Italians. Same with Japan, United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Brazil and Turkey, etc. It is not just about tech jobs either. It is the entire company philosophy of openness and inclusion. People who claim that diversity excludes acceptable candidates for sake of some theoretical ethnicity/gender quota don't have a clue about the potential employee pool that a company the size of Apple has available to them. They are not going to hire anyone who is not qualified. It is not a one to one racial equation. They just don't want to exclude anyone based on race or gender.
However, it's not quite that simple, and it's very hard to draw the line between injustice and accountability. Part of the "mental roadblock" comes from historical disenfranchisement; contrasting that to chinese/african/etc people that came from an established, healthy culture. That means that there is still some obligation on the part of society as a whole to help a historically disenfranchised group of people.
If only it was so easy to "help". There is a well known historical anecdote captured in Leskov's book (Zagon), when one of the (lets call it a Russian feudal, even though it would be a mistranslation) in Russian Empire circa 1893 decided to help his peasants have slightly better lives. So, he commands to build houses in a better place, with more room and better living conditions, so that one of the villages, where people lived in horrendous conditions, could move. Then several things happened. 1. His peasants started to call him crazy and hate him for that. 2. They absolutely refused to move into new housing and later proceeded building their old style wooden izbas (huts) next to those big stone houses, and then used those stone houses as toilets, as their ancestors did not live in such abominations, so won't they, peasants said. At the end, it was impossible to get through that village because everything smelled like a shit pile, which almost literally it was.
My point is, people need to be 1) receptive of that help and 2) grateful. Only then you will succeed. Any other combination will fail: If they are not receptive, they will refuse. However, they are receptive, but think that you own them something, you yourself will help them get onto your neck/back, where they will sit and dangle their feet, while using you like a horse. That way you would only create a group of whiny and entitled people, who think that everyone owns them something just because they exist. Neither of those cases is what actual help would be.
You do realize what you're saying here. If any company hires a person based on skin color or gender then that is discrimination. So Apple should favor one race of people over the other? Is that what you're saying? I don't think this is what Apple does or believes in this. The outcome here is situational and is not discrimination on Apple's part and certainly not wanting their company to be diverse. Apple hires from the pool of people who are available. It's that simple...
They don't realize it is them, who are being racist. In their minds a racist is a person who's point of view they disagree with. So, if their opponents are racist (or so they think), then how can they themselves be racist, you see? /s Just a bit of double standards does not hurt anyone, right? Sigh...
But if you combine VP with HR you get VR. She must be leading the new VR division... confirmed!
Also, "diversity" is just pandering. Hire people based on their skills and the absurd focus on skin color and other collectivist talking points becomes irrelevant.
I knew I saw a photo of a person of color that the thinly veiled racist comments were coming, when that person was female the racist comments doubled down. She got a better job and is better educated than any of you.
Like clockwork the insecure white males bleat on about how diversity is killing everything good.
If you define everything good as being white and male, of course.
Good to see inclusiveness elevated to SVP level. Maybe that'll also mean less of the cringey dad jokes on stage.
No one here said anything resembling what you tried to portray as an average reader of this blog. Why do you need to make things up
I tried to portray the average reader of this blog? Where? Unless you're saying that the average reader of this blog is an insecure white male, I don't see it.
Are you denying that the first page of this thread had any whining about diversity being a bad thing for Apple? I direct you to posts made by SpamSandwich (a repeat offender in this nonsense), Allmypeople (nice name), and Justme12.
You seem a bit defensive, and it's blinding you; I didn't make anything up.
Like clockwork the insecure white males bleat on about how diversity is killing everything good.
If you define everything good as being white and male, of course.
Good to see inclusiveness elevated to SVP level. Maybe that'll also mean less of the cringey dad jokes on stage.
The only thing that functioned like clockwork was the spinal level reflexive response from leftist idealogues (lets not kid ourselves here) who claim racism while being the only one's saying things that are actually racist.
"insecure white males bleat about how diversity is killing everything good"???
I know you're an intelligent person. It just baffles me how intelligent people can become so compromised by ideology. You're usually careful and thoughtful in what you say, but in your first sentence you have: an overreaching assumption, a racist remark, and a blatantly misleading strawman.
Can we please not cry racism any time you disagree with someone?
Calling it like I see it. If people have a problem with diversity and inclusiveness programmes then they're wilfully blind to the state of race advantages and prejudice. That might not equate to unabashed bigotry, but it sure as hell is racism by way of ignorance.
But if you combine VP with HR you get VR. She must be leading the new VR division... confirmed!
Also, "diversity" is just pandering. Hire people based on their skills and the absurd focus on skin color and other collectivist talking points becomes irrelevant.
I knew I saw a photo of a person of color that the thinly veiled racist comments were coming, when that person was female the racist comments doubled down. She got a better job and is better educated than any of you fools.
Are there racist comments, or is that just your perception, because you yourself are a racist, and thus see the world through that lens?
Why are you calling people fools and assuming they are less educated than the woman filling the new role? What do ad hominem characterizations have to do with the discussion?
Anyway, please point out one of the thinly veiled racist comments. One of us needs to learn something new apparently, maybe it's me and I'm missing something. I'll look forward to your response.
Like clockwork the insecure white males bleat on about how diversity is killing everything good.
If you define everything good as being white and male, of course.
Good to see inclusiveness elevated to SVP level. Maybe that'll also mean less of the cringey dad jokes on stage.
The only thing that functioned like clockwork was the spinal level reflexive response from leftist idealogues (lets not kid ourselves here) who claim racism while being the only one's saying things that are actually racist.
"insecure white males bleat about how diversity is killing everything good"???
I know you're an intelligent person. It just baffles me how intelligent people can become so compromised by ideology. You're usually careful and thoughtful in what you say, but in your first sentence you have: an overreaching assumption, a racist remark, and a blatantly misleading strawman.
Can we please not cry racism any time you disagree with someone?
Calling it like I see it. If people have a problem with diversity and inclusiveness programmes then they're wilfully blind to the state of race advantages and prejudice. That might not equate to unabashed bigotry, but it sure as hell is racism by way of ignorance.
Or, perhaps, maybe they do see the state of race/prejudice but they feel that this type of approach is saccharine and counterproductive (as I've described in my previous posts), and on top of that unnecessary, as Apple is going above and beyond already in this area by partly addressing the root of the issue, rather than sugar coating the issue (e.g. my reference to Apple's donation to HBCU).
By the way, you saying that you're 'calling it like you see it' is a ridiculous cop out for a racist, hypocritical, and counterproductive statement.
It's remarkable how out of touch people remain, as evidenced by a number of folks in this thread. Diversity in and of itself is a boon to Apple, particularly as they continue to serve increasingly diverse customers, cultures, and behavioural groups.
Diverse teams offer a clearer path to insight and innovation, and push previously homogenous groups to grow and accomplish new things by bringing new perspectives, capabilities, and POVs to the table.
This isn't about filling a hiring quota; it's about good business, the by-product of which means being a good corporate citizen in supporting efforts to get more diverse youth into the fields where Apple is missing voices due to a systemic lack of diversity.
Yes, it's a complex issue that begins with kids, and includes efforts at the professional level, and every education and career milestone in between. Simply seeing the word "diversity" and calling actions related to it leftist, PC crap, about skin colour, instead of just hiring the best person, regardless of colour, just points to a lack of knowledge of the topic, a lack of good business sense, and a complete failure to grasp the complexity and benefit of building a diverse team.
It's remarkable how out of touch people remain, as evidenced by a number of folks in this thread. Diversity in and of itself is a boon to Apple, particularly as they continue to serve increasingly diverse customers, cultures, and behavioural groups.
Diverse teams offer a clearer path to insight and innovation, and push previously homogenous groups to grow and accomplish new things by bringing new perspectives, capabilities, and POVs to the table.
This isn't about filling a hiring quota; it's about good business, the by-product of which means being a good corporate citizen in supporting efforts to get more diverse youth into the fields where Apple is missing voices due to a systemic lack of diversity.
Yes, it's a complex issue that begins with kids, and includes efforts at the professional level, and every education and career milestone in between. Simply seeing the word "diversity" and calling actions related to it leftist, PC crap, about skin colour, instead of just hiring the best person, regardless of colour, just points to a lack of knowledge of the topic, a lack of good business sense, and a complete failure to grasp the complexity and benefit of building a diverse team.
Perhaps it's just the way you chose to write that post, but are you daring to suggest that Steve Jobs was "racist" because he never promoted or made a big deal of "diversity"?
Also, "diversity" is just pandering. Hire people based on their skills and the absurd focus on skin color and other collectivist talking points becomes irrelevant.
Man I can't believe how badly old white guys cling to that straw man. Diversity doesnt mean *not* hiring based on skills -- but it does mean to go out of your way to hire people of equal skill who aren't all white guys. That's the point. Equal skills, diverse background. It adds value because of experiences outside the same mono-culture.
If you have 50 white guy programmers, and you have two final candidates of equal skill but one is an asian woman, you'd do well to hire the asian woman, since the more diversity you have in your team the more ideas and perspectives will be brought to the product development cycle.
Actually asians are over represented in Apple.
And whites are not a mono culture either. Hiring an Albanian or a Greek is more diverse than hiring Americans. If you want more diversity increase the h1b program.
It's remarkable how out of touch people remain, as evidenced by a number of folks in this thread. Diversity in and of itself is a boon to Apple, particularly as they continue to serve increasingly diverse customers, cultures, and behavioural groups.
Diverse teams offer a clearer path to insight and innovation, and push previously homogenous groups to grow and accomplish new things by bringing new perspectives, capabilities, and POVs to the table.
This isn't about filling a hiring quota; it's about good business, the by-product of which means being a good corporate citizen in supporting efforts to get more diverse youth into the fields where Apple is missing voices due to a systemic lack of diversity.
Yes, it's a complex issue that begins with kids, and includes efforts at the professional level, and every education and career milestone in between. Simply seeing the word "diversity" and calling actions related to it leftist, PC crap, about skin colour, instead of just hiring the best person, regardless of colour, just points to a lack of knowledge of the topic, a lack of good business sense, and a complete failure to grasp the complexity and benefit of building a diverse team.
If it isn't about hiring a quota, why are racial/gender stats broken down to percentage points and pie graphs. If the pie pieces shift does that equal a win? Who wins? When do they win?
I don't think people (certainly not myself) are arguing that diversity is not important. True diversity is very important. I personally love diversity. I date almost exclusively outside of my race. We are truly richer together, and all that lefty stuff
The argument is against this PC hyeprfocus on race, which seems counterproductive and divisive.
And fwiw, a lot of the "reaction" in the thread is more of a reaction to posters saying ridiculous things than a reaction to the original article.
This is epecially true at the company's highest levels, since Smith is the only non-white senior executive. There are two non-white people on the board of directors, James Bell and Andrea Jung.
WTF? Lisa Jackson is like right above her on that page. She's African American.
Comments
However, it's not quite that simple, and it's very hard to draw the line between injustice and accountability. Part of the "mental roadblock" comes from historical disenfranchisement; contrasting that to chinese/african/etc people that came from an established, healthy culture. That means that there is still some obligation on the part of society as a whole to help a historically disenfranchised group of people.
On top of all that there seems to be cultural factors that maintain the status quo, unfortunately. Both external (e.g. politically exploitative racial division that benefits the left), and internal, within the communities themselves. The latter is a very sensitive, subjective, and complex subject that I don't claim to be an expert in and don't feel comfortable commenting on; although, as a physician I am probably more aware than most about the issues involved.
This has already been done, ask colleges and universities why they are not doing their parts to make sure every person has chance to be an engineer if they like.
Instead, we have these institutions run by people who tell us all how we are all racist and discriminate against those less fortunate, but they do everything they can to make sure people are not succeeding at colleges and universities. Most universities run what is known as flunk out programs, they get the first or second year tuition (which include mandatory Room and Board) and then do everything they can to make sure kids drop out or never complete the degree they want. Have you seen anyone at University standing our and asking the people who run the universities and faculty rioting on Campus about the number of students being push out or amount of debt they have take on to stay in school.
University are more interested in bring in the kids from over seas because they pay cash and are not eligible for Student ad and loans, they will take those kids over someone who is less fortunate in this country. If you want to fix this problem of equal opportunity make University responsible for enrolling as many US citizens first and only then once every kid here in the US has their chance can they open the door to people out side the US. The US has enough diversity without universities needing to look elsewhere.
It is not companies jobs to educate people, this is why we have the best university system in the world hold their feet to the first, they need to create the talent that companies can hire.
Another person who is near incoherent on this subject, putting the fracking conclusion as a premise to their whole argument.
Do a god damn course in rhetoric and put some order in your train of thought so it is not 100% self serving bullshit.
There is an overwhelming knee-jerk harrumphing about 'meritocracy' and whatnot on tech-related message boards whenever anything related to this subject comes up. It's not the wild-eyed liberals who react instantly as soon as a story like this is posted. It's the (apparently) white-guy establishment that immediately starts protesting just a little too much about how there's no problem here that needs to be addressed in the first place. On the less well-managed boards, those are interspersed with overtly racist and sexist comments that (ironically) are meant to support the protests that there's nothing to see here.
The instant hostility towards the idea of women and minorities getting a better chance to play in this particular sandbox is evidence in itself for the day-to-day headwind women and minorities face, even when they do manage to get hired. The assumption is always that they didn't really earn their spot, even though in many cases they have to work twice as hard to get it, keep it, and grow in it.
Oddly, this is not actually a zero-sum game. When you open the door to over half the population getting the opportunity to do more and be more productive, you're not shutting out the white guys who were already there. You're expanding the opportunity for the company (and country) to do more as well, by adding previously unavailable talent to the pool.
https://www.apple.com/diversity/
You do realize Apple has retail stores in more than 20 countries around the globe. I'm pretty sure most of the employees who work in the Chinese stores are Chinese. Likewise the Italian store probably mostly Italians. Same with Japan, United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Brazil and Turkey, etc. It is not just about tech jobs either. It is the entire company philosophy of openness and inclusion. People who claim that diversity excludes acceptable candidates for sake of some theoretical ethnicity/gender quota don't have a clue about the potential employee pool that a company the size of Apple has available to them. They are not going to hire anyone who is not qualified. It is not a one to one racial equation. They just don't want to exclude anyone based on race or gender.
1. His peasants started to call him crazy and hate him for that.
2. They absolutely refused to move into new housing and later proceeded building their old style wooden izbas (huts) next to those big stone houses, and then used those stone houses as toilets, as their ancestors did not live in such abominations, so won't they, peasants said.
At the end, it was impossible to get through that village because everything smelled like a shit pile, which almost literally it was.
My point is, people need to be 1) receptive of that help and 2) grateful. Only then you will succeed.
Any other combination will fail:
If they are not receptive, they will refuse.
However, they are receptive, but think that you own them something, you yourself will help them get onto your neck/back, where they will sit and dangle their feet, while using you like a horse. That way you would only create a group of whiny and entitled people, who think that everyone owns them something just because they exist.
Neither of those cases is what actual help would be.
So, if their opponents are racist (or so they think), then how can they themselves be racist, you see? /s
Just a bit of double standards does not hurt anyone, right?
Sigh...
Really does that keep you up at night?
you mean the Steve that appointed a gay man as his replacement?
how would this work? To hiring mgrs have to have her approve all offers?
I'm all for a diverse workforce but not for filling quotas.
Are you denying that the first page of this thread had any whining about diversity being a bad thing for Apple? I direct you to posts made by SpamSandwich (a repeat offender in this nonsense), Allmypeople (nice name), and Justme12.
You seem a bit defensive, and it's blinding you; I didn't make anything up.
Why are you calling people fools and assuming they are less educated than the woman filling the new role? What do ad hominem characterizations have to do with the discussion?
Anyway, please point out one of the thinly veiled racist comments. One of us needs to learn something new apparently, maybe it's me and I'm missing something. I'll look forward to your response.
By the way, you saying that you're 'calling it like you see it' is a ridiculous cop out for a racist, hypocritical, and counterproductive statement.
Diverse teams offer a clearer path to insight and innovation, and push previously homogenous groups to grow and accomplish new things by bringing new perspectives, capabilities, and POVs to the table.
This isn't about filling a hiring quota; it's about good business, the by-product of which means being a good corporate citizen in supporting efforts to get more diverse youth into the fields where Apple is missing voices due to a systemic lack of diversity.
Yes, it's a complex issue that begins with kids, and includes efforts at the professional level, and every education and career milestone in between. Simply seeing the word "diversity" and calling actions related to it leftist, PC crap, about skin colour, instead of just hiring the best person, regardless of colour, just points to a lack of knowledge of the topic, a lack of good business sense, and a complete failure to grasp the complexity and benefit of building a diverse team.
And whites are not a mono culture either. Hiring an Albanian or a Greek is more diverse than hiring Americans. If you want more diversity increase the h1b program.
I don't think people (certainly not myself) are arguing that diversity is not important. True diversity is very important. I personally love diversity. I date almost exclusively outside of my race. We are truly richer together, and all that lefty stuff
The argument is against this PC hyeprfocus on race, which seems counterproductive and divisive.
And fwiw, a lot of the "reaction" in the thread is more of a reaction to posters saying ridiculous things than a reaction to the original article.
Also, Eddie Cue is Cuban American.
The irony.