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.
The "PC hyperfocus" is really on inclusion and equal rights for everyone. It's not just about racism — it's about sexism, ableism, ageism, religion, culture, language, the whole gamut, and understanding what those issues are and how to deal with them in a behemoth of a company. Nobody is blindly filling quotas at Apple. Everyone here is also ignoring the huge number of countries that Apple operates in and the complexity and cultural issues that brings with it.
Where people have problem with those kinds of policies usually says a lot more about them than those supporting it, to me.
The fact that this thread has a high probability of being locked is proof of why society needs pro-diversity leaders.
The exact opposite is the case, but whatever you want to believe.
Intentionally increasing diversity at successful, well-paying companies means those employees' families and children have a better chance to succeed too.
Why does it mean that? It doesn’t. You seem to have no conception of cause and effect.
It makes the future better…
Keep your retarded buzzwords and platitudes to yourself. We don’t care.
affirmative action is unfair because racism was officially supposed to be over at some time in the past.
1. It’s definitionally unfair. 2. You have no concept of what racism is. 3. Stop talking now.
There is a reason why gender, ethnic and even equality in class and for people with disabilities is so hard to get.
It’s… not.
There is a crapload of sexist, misogynist, racist, xenophobic anti anything that's not them all around, that includes people at every level in most companies.
Yes, they’re called liberals.
StrangeDays said: …you have two final candidates of equal skill but one is an asian woman, you’d do well to hire the asian woman
Is there peer-reviewed science that proves men like tech and women like biology
1. Learn what “peer review” actually is in the modern world. 2. Yes.
Gender roles, while often thought of as societal constructs, are biological pre-dispositions. The majority of men (approximately 15% deviance) have a natural interest in object-oriented tasks. The majority of women (again, approximately 15% deviance) have a natural interest in people-oriented tasks. Society didn’t create gender roles–society merely grew accustomed to them. That’s what society does–it grows accustomed to the way things are and holds it in place. Biological predisposition is what set the trend, and society grew accustomed to those predispositions. Society is not active, it is passive.
Like shoving a stick through a bucket of molasses, it doesn’t actually push back or move the stick around itself–it simply holds onto wherever the stick is, or has been moved to. Individuals cause change, society keeps it there and keeps change as a slow progression. Ask yourself why, in Norway, for example, 85% of nurses are female, and 85% of engineers are male, regardless of how hard the education system has tried to reverse the roles. The answer is quite innocent. It comes in the form of the most common response from school children, “That sounds boring.”
Most men don’t want to be nurses, because it would bore them. Most women don’t want to be engineers, because it would bore them. Out of free will–a free choice to decide what we want for ourselves–we reenforce gender roles. To create a perfect 50/50 split in all fields of study would require the elimination of free choice, to force women into engineering, and men into nursing, because the quota demands it. And as for feminists… which fields are they studying? Sociology, Women’s Studies, etc. And what are those? People-oriented tasks. Yep, you read that right. Out of free will, feminists have chosen gender roles.
…wilfully blind to the state of race advantages and prejudice.
I don’t see you screaming for China to hire more non-Chinese. Where are your calls for the African nations to hire whites? Get a goddamn clue about the world before you wind up being killed by it.
Decades of research by organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists and demographers show that socially diverse groups (that is, those with a diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation) are more innovative than homogeneous groups.
It seems obvious that a group of people with diverse individual expertise would be better than a homogeneous group at solving complex, nonroutine problems. It is less obvious that social diversity should work in the same way—yet the science shows that it does.
Decades of research by organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists and demographers show that socially diverse groups (that is, those with a diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation) are more innovative than homogeneous groups.
It seems obvious that a group of people with diverse individual expertise would be better than a homogeneous group at solving complex, nonroutine problems. It is less obvious that social diversity should work in the same way—yet the science shows that it does.
I don't disagree that a variety of opinions and perspectives is important, however it should be noted that China, Japan, various Scandanavian countries among others are largely homogeneous and are still what may be considered successful.
In my opinion, Steve would have hired whoever he thought suited the job. He couldn't be bothered about any other criteria. Tim is trying to do the same thing in a more organised manner, given how large the company now is.
I think the idea and intent is good. However, why do some people feel they need to apologise for being Caucasian? There is no guilt in being White.
Truth be told, I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I can appreciate the arguments put by either side.
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.
Right back at you buddy.
Anyone who has an issue with diversity has an issue with people who aren't like them mixing with people who are like them. Anyone who has an issue with inclusiveness has an issue with people who aren't like them having the same opportunities as people like them.
Textbook stuff.
If you want to talk about effectiveness of specific policies then that's another thing entirely, but this thread is specifically about the appointment of a person to head up diversity and inclusiveness, and that in itself seems to need a trigger warning for some snowflakes who can't handle a world where they aren't number 1.
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.
"instead of overlaying your bigotry on top a very well thought out policy."
Where in my original comment is there a scintilla of bigotry? Bigotry against Progressives? Is there such a thing? Would that be a vice?
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.
Hey Patchy, read my comment again because you got the opposite idea from the first reading. Every time there is an article about Apple promoting or hiring a person of color on AI the usually trolls are out attacking Apple's policy and often worse attacking the person related to the article. I can only surmise that these racists comments come from AI commenters who hold racists views on people that they see as different from themselves non-white and or male. My statement which I am certain is the new Apple hire is better educated and talented than these sad sacks saying things like "how many white people work at Essence Magazine" which suggest that Apple is a business for whites only.
I do find that channel raciest!!! What if there was a WET channel? White Entertainment Television. Talking about people going crazy and calling it Raciest. How can one be perfectly fine and the other Raciest? You can't be fair and equal with this crap going on. All you do is continue to propagate racism. To me, things like BET does that.
All in the name of fairness, we've had Fire and Police departments lower testing standards, both written tests and physical tests all in the name of inclusion, Get more Women in and Blacks. Because those tests are White Tests? I've heard that crap more then a few times. Whatever that means. So what if the woman can't drag a man out of a burning house, at least we have more women.
I do find that channel raciest!!! What if there was a WET channel? White Entertainment Television. Talking about people going crazy and calling it Raciest. How can one be perfectly fine and the other Raciest? You can't be fair and equal with this crap going on. All you do is continue to propagate racism. To me, things like BET does that.
Have you watched American TV in the last 50 years? For a very long time there was only 'White Entertainment Television.' Even now, look at the mainstream networks. What is the common ethnicity of almost all of the lead roles? Sidekicks don't count. You only get half credit for ensemble casts with no definite lead. How many shows are there with an Asian person playing the lead? You only get half credit for ensemble casts with no definite lead. Sidekicks don't count.
If Apple wants a diverse customer base, it needs a diverse team.
These conversations tend to get into binary ways of describing things like is/isn't diverse, is there/isn't there discrimination. What is really being considered is the proportion i.e whether a team is diverse enough. In your example, if you had a team of 100 people working on a health tracker and only 1 person was female, they could easily push for specific health features but the group wouldn't be considered diverse enough.
Even if you had a team of 3 people and 2 were men, having only 33% female would be under-representing women as they make up 45%+ of the workforce. However, if you had a team of 3 people and 2 were women, that wouldn't be considered under-representing men. Assuming that some groups are under-represented in certain areas, if you assume they are all in employment somewhere then they have to be over-represented somewhere else.
The question really becomes what proportion of diversity is the aim. Companies can only match the population proportions in an ideal outcome and when you look at tech company hiring, they are under-hiring Caucasian workers compared to the population and vastly over-hiring Asian workers relative to the population. Apple's own diversity page shows this:
These are US stats, not global and their new hires are 24% Asian despite being 5.6% of the population, they'd have to stop doing that in order for the percentage of other minorities to improve:
Promoting inclusion and diversity for race, gender, sexuality, disabilities is important because it gives people confidence that they won't be excluded due to their identity. The idea that all companies and professions need to have the same proportions of all these attributes is misguided because there are too many variables to ensure that outcome. Tech companies usually require college/university degrees as a minimum requirement and the graduation rates mirror their hiring rates:
"After six years, about a quarter of Asian students and a fifth of white students had finished their degrees, compared to about a tenth of Hispanic students and one in 12 black students."
There are different solutions to this. They can try fixing it at the education level but the results of this won't show up for another decade or more. Companies are trying to find quick fixes to make the numbers look better year-on-year so a quicker way to do this is to create jobs that better suit the skills or interests of the under-represented groups. Having more work in services or content creation can help here but everybody needs jobs and having an aim to fix numbers by giving special interest to certain groups is always going to create friction.
It's not good to get into the mindset that these outcomes of hiring rates, pay inequity etc have been purposefully done to discriminate against certain groups. This creates unnecessary divisions and an aim to discriminate more. This showed up in the 2016 Oscars where Chris Rock was talking about no black nominations:
That's a liberal audience and you can hear they felt attacked a number of times as if they had done something wrong on purpose. One point he made at the end was not thinking that everything is racist or sexist and used the example of how they weren't supposed to ask women what they were wearing at the Oscars and instead they should ask women about their work like they do for men and he said this is partly because men all wear the same outfit. "If George Clooney showed up with a lime green tux on and a swan coming out his ass, somebody would go 'what you wearin' George?'".
At the same time, it highlights that there are conventions that aren't done intentionally to discriminate but that's the result in some cases. Populations always have a majority of one race so leading roles in most movies will go to them. Indian and Asian movie companies are obviously going to primarily hire much more of the majority race that makes up their population. This naturally creates a lack of opportunity as it creates a convention.
Companies using numbers and percentages undermines the cause because it suggests that the numbers they have are too low and they never say where the goal is, they just say the aim is for 'more diversity'. You can only get so much diversity before you start getting less diverse so there is a well-defined goal. When they start to show percentage improvements, it looks suspicious as if they just found a previously untapped pool of talent that just happens to be under-represented groups. In general, it's just a bad idea to suggest that lower proportions of certain groups implies there's a problem, especially when it's not done with every group in every industry. Companies should absolutely put out the welcome mat to everyone but they shouldn't expect everyone to show up and start thinking there's a problem if they don't.
If Apple wants a diverse customer base, it needs a diverse team.
That's simply not true. Apple got to where they were under Jobs without this political correctness.
"Apple celebrates diverse experiences and backgrounds. By introducing new and innovative people to the company, we incorporate their different perspectives and skills and achieve our goal of making the best products on the market." - Apple website, 2008, when Steve Jobs was still very much alive and kicking.
Here's a nice article, "Steve Jobs' Passion for Diversity," by Andrew Williams, a Spelman College professor hired by Steve Jobs to help increase diversity in hiring at Apple.
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.
The "PC hyperfocus" is really on inclusion and equal rights for everyone. It's not just about racism — it's about sexism, ableism, ageism, religion, culture, language, the whole gamut, and understanding what those issues are and how to deal with them in a behemoth of a company. Nobody is blindly filling quotas at Apple. Everyone here is also ignoring the huge number of countries that Apple operates in and the complexity and cultural issues that brings with it.
Where people have problem with those kinds of policies usually says a lot more about them than those supporting it, to me.
I'm thinking about what you said, what the discrepancy is between our views, as of course no reasonable person would feel that equal rights aren't important, or that diversity is not a positive thing (ethically or practically). I think the thing that bothers me (and others) is the "hyperfocus" part, and that this "hyperfocus" indirectly presumes there is active racism going on, when that's not consistent with the vast majority of peoples' experience. For example, the disproportionately higher asian representation in Apple kind of (but not fully) contradicts the notion that there is a diversity problem to be solved, and also suggests that any other diversity discrepancies are not due to racism/ageism/etc.
Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how multiculturalism affects social trust. He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that–when the data were adjusted for class income and other factors–the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities “don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” writes Putnam. In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that “…we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us. Even Halyard knows this is all a pile of “feel good” shit. Like a religion, it relies on persecuting those who don’t agree to keep itself mainstream thought. After the study was released, Putnam was intimidated and harassed because he was accused of helping racists. He later came out and gave a very vague statement saying diversity “had problems but was worth it in the long run” to keep these morons appeased. This statement gives no indication of the “long run” and, in fact, is not quantified by anything.
According to conflict theory, distrust between ethnic groups rises with diversity, but not within a group. Putnam describes people of all races and socioeconomic statuses, ages, and both sexes as “hunkering down,” avoiding engagement with their local community–both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates–two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining interethnic group trust–more diversity is still associated with less communal trust. Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:
Lower confidence in local government, local leaders, and the local news media
Lower political efficacy–that is, confidence in one’s own influence
Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result
Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g. voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage)
Less likelihood of working on a community project
Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering
Fewer close friends and confidants
Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life
More time spent watching television and more agreement that “television is my most important form of entertainment”
Putnam’s study was published in 2001. Genetic cluster analysis of the micro satellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3636 subjects, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622 Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence Alex Rutherford, Dion Harmon, Justin Werfel, Shlomiya Bar-Yam, Alexander Gard-Murray, Andreas Gros, Yaneer Bar-Yam We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model’s success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability, and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well-defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups. Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups.
Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution either guarantee sufficient separation or sufficient mixing to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence, existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but the peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world. Report #: NECSI 2011-10-01 Cite as: arXiv:1110.1409v1 http://necsi.edu/research/social/scienceofpeace.pdf
Ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
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...
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.
Right back at you buddy.
Anyone who has an issue with diversity has an issue with people who aren't like them mixing with people who are like them. Anyone who has an issue with inclusiveness has an issue with people who aren't like them having the same opportunities as people like them.
Textbook stuff.
If you want to talk about effectiveness of specific policies then that's another thing entirely, but this thread is specifically about the appointment of a person to head up diversity and inclusiveness, and that in itself seems to need a trigger warning for some snowflakes who can't handle a world where they aren't number 1.
Lol, you can't just make proclamations and just assume that we should assume you're right. That's a pretty arrogant way to go about having a discussion. What dos not compute, exactly? Since it seems like you may get into semantics, I'll try to add more clarity: by above and beyond I mean that Apple is doing more than most with their substantial contribution to HBCU, and that this contribution is maximized by the fact that it is exponentially more helpful than having a "diversity team," which is as far a most companies go. By saying partly I'm acknowledging that this is only a small part of addressing this complex issue that also involves many different groups.
"Right back at you?" What does that mean lol. How about coming up with an actual argument instead of making vapid proclamations.
When did I say I had an issue with diversity. If you bothered to read any of my posts you'd see that I view diversity as a positive thing.
Then you go on making wild, completely illogical assumptions that are false on their face. "anyone.. anyone.."??? If that wasn't ridiculous enough, you back it up by saying your patently false statements are "textbook stuff".
You're making this about the person for some reason. It seems to me that everyone else's argument is with the position itself.
Lastly, you end with more strange statements and assumptions.
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.
Hey Patchy, read my comment again because you got the opposite idea from the first reading. Every time there is an article about Apple promoting or hiring a person of color on AI the usually trolls are out attacking Apple's policy and often worse attacking the person related to the article. I can only surmise that these racists comments come from AI commenters who hold racists views on people that they see as different from themselves non-white and or male. My statement which I am certain is the new Apple hire is better educated and talented than these sad sacks saying things like "how many white people work at Essence Magazine" which suggest that Apple is a business for whites only.
Hey spice-boy. You point out several things that you claim are racist, but you don't explain why they're racist. I haven't seen any racism, unless you make a completely unsubstantiated assumption that being against a position that happens to be filled by a person of color is inherently racist. I have no doubt that if there was no name or picture attached to this article, the complaints/disagreements with the position would be the same.
In the example you just included, I think it's a reach to assume that a person making that type of statement is making a 1:1 comparison to Apple. I think a more likely explanation for saying something like that is to point out that there are other racial discrepancies and incongruities in society, and they don't necessarily mean that they are due to 'racism.'
Comments
Where people have problem with those kinds of policies usually says a lot more about them than those supporting it, to me.
Why does it mean that? It doesn’t. You seem to have no conception of cause and effect.
Keep your retarded buzzwords and platitudes to yourself. We don’t care.
1. It’s definitionally unfair.
2. You have no concept of what racism is.
3. Stop talking now.
I highly doubt that.
Not according to any study ever done on the subject.
It’s… not.
Yes, they’re called liberals.
Hi, racist. 1. Learn what “peer review” actually is in the modern world.
2. Yes.
Gender roles, while often thought of as societal constructs, are biological pre-dispositions. The majority of men (approximately 15% deviance) have a natural interest in object-oriented tasks. The majority of women (again, approximately 15% deviance) have a natural interest in people-oriented tasks. Society didn’t create gender roles–society merely grew accustomed to them. That’s what society does–it grows accustomed to the way things are and holds it in place. Biological predisposition is what set the trend, and society grew accustomed to those predispositions. Society is not active, it is passive.
Like shoving a stick through a bucket of molasses, it doesn’t actually push back or move the stick around itself–it simply holds onto wherever the stick is, or has been moved to. Individuals cause change, society keeps it there and keeps change as a slow progression. Ask yourself why, in Norway, for example, 85% of nurses are female, and 85% of engineers are male, regardless of how hard the education system has tried to reverse the roles. The answer is quite innocent. It comes in the form of the most common response from school children, “That sounds boring.”
Most men don’t want to be nurses, because it would bore them. Most women don’t want to be engineers, because it would bore them. Out of free will–a free choice to decide what we want for ourselves–we reenforce gender roles. To create a perfect 50/50 split in all fields of study would require the elimination of free choice, to force women into engineering, and men into nursing, because the quota demands it. And as for feminists… which fields are they studying? Sociology, Women’s Studies, etc. And what are those? People-oriented tasks. Yep, you read that right. Out of free will, feminists have chosen gender roles.
Where is your proof of this? All studies have shown otherwise.
Irony.
White is a color. Stop being racist.
I don’t see you screaming for China to hire more non-Chinese. Where are your calls for the African nations to hire whites? Get a goddamn clue about the world before you wind up being killed by it.
I know you’re joking, but did you ever stop to think about who first told you that? Did you ever question its veracity? Food for thought.
The entire article is online at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/
In my opinion, Steve would have hired whoever he thought suited the job. He couldn't be bothered about any other criteria. Tim is trying to do the same thing in a more organised manner, given how large the company now is.
I think the idea and intent is good. However, why do some people feel they need to apologise for being Caucasian? There is no guilt in being White.
Truth be told, I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I can appreciate the arguments put by either side.
Right back at you buddy.
Anyone who has an issue with diversity has an issue with people who aren't like them mixing with people who are like them.
Anyone who has an issue with inclusiveness has an issue with people who aren't like them having the same opportunities as people like them.
Textbook stuff.
If you want to talk about effectiveness of specific policies then that's another thing entirely, but this thread is specifically about the appointment of a person to head up diversity and inclusiveness, and that in itself seems to need a trigger warning for some snowflakes who can't handle a world where they aren't number 1.
If Apple wants a diverse customer base, it needs a diverse team.
Hey Patchy, read my comment again because you got the opposite idea from the first reading. Every time there is an article about Apple promoting or hiring a person of color on AI the usually trolls are out attacking Apple's policy and often worse attacking the person related to the article. I can only surmise that these racists comments come from AI commenters who hold racists views on people that they see as different from themselves non-white and or male. My statement which I am certain is the new Apple hire is better educated and talented than these sad sacks saying things like "how many white people work at Essence Magazine" which suggest that Apple is a business for whites only.
Why do you date women? Stick to men who needs diversity.
All in the name of fairness, we've had Fire and Police departments lower testing standards, both written tests and physical tests all in the name of inclusion, Get more Women in and Blacks. Because those tests are White Tests? I've heard that crap more then a few times. Whatever that means. So what if the woman can't drag a man out of a burning house, at least we have more women.
Even if you had a team of 3 people and 2 were men, having only 33% female would be under-representing women as they make up 45%+ of the workforce. However, if you had a team of 3 people and 2 were women, that wouldn't be considered under-representing men. Assuming that some groups are under-represented in certain areas, if you assume they are all in employment somewhere then they have to be over-represented somewhere else.
The question really becomes what proportion of diversity is the aim. Companies can only match the population proportions in an ideal outcome and when you look at tech company hiring, they are under-hiring Caucasian workers compared to the population and vastly over-hiring Asian workers relative to the population. Apple's own diversity page shows this:
https://www.apple.com/diversity/
These are US stats, not global and their new hires are 24% Asian despite being 5.6% of the population, they'd have to stop doing that in order for the percentage of other minorities to improve:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/00
Promoting inclusion and diversity for race, gender, sexuality, disabilities is important because it gives people confidence that they won't be excluded due to their identity. The idea that all companies and professions need to have the same proportions of all these attributes is misguided because there are too many variables to ensure that outcome. Tech companies usually require college/university degrees as a minimum requirement and the graduation rates mirror their hiring rates:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/04/26/college-completion-rates-vary-race-and-ethnicity-report-finds
"After six years, about a quarter of Asian students and a fifth of white students had finished their degrees, compared to about a tenth of Hispanic students and one in 12 black students."
There are different solutions to this. They can try fixing it at the education level but the results of this won't show up for another decade or more. Companies are trying to find quick fixes to make the numbers look better year-on-year so a quicker way to do this is to create jobs that better suit the skills or interests of the under-represented groups. Having more work in services or content creation can help here but everybody needs jobs and having an aim to fix numbers by giving special interest to certain groups is always going to create friction.
It's not good to get into the mindset that these outcomes of hiring rates, pay inequity etc have been purposefully done to discriminate against certain groups. This creates unnecessary divisions and an aim to discriminate more. This showed up in the 2016 Oscars where Chris Rock was talking about no black nominations:
That's a liberal audience and you can hear they felt attacked a number of times as if they had done something wrong on purpose. One point he made at the end was not thinking that everything is racist or sexist and used the example of how they weren't supposed to ask women what they were wearing at the Oscars and instead they should ask women about their work like they do for men and he said this is partly because men all wear the same outfit. "If George Clooney showed up with a lime green tux on and a swan coming out his ass, somebody would go 'what you wearin' George?'".
At the same time, it highlights that there are conventions that aren't done intentionally to discriminate but that's the result in some cases. Populations always have a majority of one race so leading roles in most movies will go to them. Indian and Asian movie companies are obviously going to primarily hire much more of the majority race that makes up their population. This naturally creates a lack of opportunity as it creates a convention.
Companies using numbers and percentages undermines the cause because it suggests that the numbers they have are too low and they never say where the goal is, they just say the aim is for 'more diversity'. You can only get so much diversity before you start getting less diverse so there is a well-defined goal. When they start to show percentage improvements, it looks suspicious as if they just found a previously untapped pool of talent that just happens to be under-represented groups. In general, it's just a bad idea to suggest that lower proportions of certain groups implies there's a problem, especially when it's not done with every group in every industry. Companies should absolutely put out the welcome mat to everyone but they shouldn't expect everyone to show up and start thinking there's a problem if they don't.
Here's a nice article, "Steve Jobs' Passion for Diversity," by Andrew Williams, a Spelman College professor hired by Steve Jobs to help increase diversity in hiring at Apple.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract
According to conflict theory, distrust between ethnic groups rises with diversity, but not within a group. Putnam describes people of all races and socioeconomic statuses, ages, and both sexes as “hunkering down,” avoiding engagement with their local community–both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates–two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining interethnic group trust–more diversity is still associated with less communal trust. Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:
- Lower confidence in local government, local leaders, and the local news media
- Lower political efficacy–that is, confidence in one’s own influence
- Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
- Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result
- Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g. voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage)
- Less likelihood of working on a community project
- Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering
- Fewer close friends and confidants
- Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life
- More time spent watching television and more agreement that “television is my most important form of entertainment”
Putnam’s study was published in 2001. Genetic cluster analysis of the micro satellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3636 subjects, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence Alex Rutherford, Dion Harmon, Justin Werfel, Shlomiya Bar-Yam, Alexander Gard-Murray, Andreas Gros, Yaneer Bar-Yam
We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model’s success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability, and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well-defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups. Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups.
Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution either guarantee sufficient separation or sufficient mixing to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence, existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but the peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world. Report #: NECSI 2011-10-01 Cite as: arXiv:1110.1409v1 http://necsi.edu/research/social/scienceofpeace.pdf
More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/
Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
Diversity increases social adversity.
A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03
Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full
Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract
Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787
Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full
Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf
Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6
Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf
Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf
Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors
Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/
Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091
It is evolutionarily rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html
Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n_2005-1.pdf
Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0095660
The more integrated a neighborhood is, the less socially cohesive it becomes, and vice versa.
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/study-asks-is-a-better-world-possible/
The more ethnically diverse the people we live around, the less we trust them.
http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/benediktsson2013/files/2013/04/Putnam.pdf
Ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution.
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
Diversity experiments in Germany end in disaster
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany-s-immigrants-integration-in-theory-alienation-in-practice-a-433006.html
Immigrants in Norway are a net loss to the economy
http://www.emnbelgium.be/publication/report-norwegian-welfare-and-migration-committee
Immigrants in Sweden are a net loss to the economy
http://www.amid.dk/pub/papers/AMID_48-2006_Jan_Ekberg.pdf
Denmark saved billions by restricting immigration:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/putting-a-price-on-foreigners-strict-immigration-laws-save-denmark-billions-a-759716.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/8492822/Denmarks-immigration-laws-save-country-6-billion.html
Increases in diversity correlate with problems worldwide, and the downsides of diversity effect everyone, it’s a universal human problem:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/the-downside-of-difference/story-e6frgcjx-1111112914289
More diversity in police departments correlates with more abuse, poorer performance and less trust:
http://www.mediafire.com/?1fe8x0egftpbp6f
Decreased community spirit, decreased altruism, and depressed social capital, less ethical behavior, more crime, fear, isolation and depression:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-25jl.html
Also, a nice little study from Cornell University about how segregation creates peace:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409
Multiculturalism doesn’t work:
http://books.google.com/books?id=zqMCc37dW1kC&pg=PA129
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZyAt3T1V4EcC&pg=PT97
http://books.google.com/books?id=TmlGzr4s0uMC&pg=PA16
No shit. And? What’s your fucking problem with someone not wanting genocide to be committed on him?
lol no
Written by marxists, yeah.
Hence the links above which prove “diversity” only harms, so the position is worthless to Apple.
“You’re a racist if you say what racism is.”“You’re racist if you want all races to be treated equally.”
“You’re racist if you don’t want cultures to be destroyed by other peoples.”
Holy shit, get psychiatric help NOW.
Yes, NOW. Your fallacies are only embarrassing you.
McDonald’s runs 365Black. Where is 365White? They also run My InspirAsian. Where is My Europeancouragement?
"Right back at you?" What does that mean lol. How about coming up with an actual argument instead of making vapid proclamations.
When did I say I had an issue with diversity. If you bothered to read any of my posts you'd see that I view diversity as a positive thing.
Then you go on making wild, completely illogical assumptions that are false on their face. "anyone.. anyone.."??? If that wasn't ridiculous enough, you back it up by saying your patently false statements are "textbook stuff".
You're making this about the person for some reason. It seems to me that everyone else's argument is with the position itself.
Lastly, you end with more strange statements and assumptions.
In the example you just included, I think it's a reach to assume that a person making that type of statement is making a 1:1 comparison to Apple. I think a more likely explanation for saying something like that is to point out that there are other racial discrepancies and incongruities in society, and they don't necessarily mean that they are due to 'racism.'