Whatever happened to hiring the best and the brightest regardless of skin color, ethnicity or sexual orientation?
This has always been a utopian dream. There’s no way to quantify talent universally. Neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates were qualified to found Apple and Microsoft respectively.
I thought Smith’s comments about diversity were on point and I’m surprised Apple didn’t defend her more vigorously. The problem with Race begins at the beginning. It simply does not exist beyond the scope of a our own creative forces.
Whatever happened to hiring the best and the brightest regardless of skin color, ethnicity or sexual orientation?
This has always been a utopian dream. There’s no way to quantify talent universally. Neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates were qualified to found Apple and Microsoft respectively.
I thought Smith’s comments about diversity were on point and I’m surprised Apple didn’t defend her more vigorously. The problem with Race begins at the beginning. It simply does not exist beyond the scope of a our own creative forces.
Apple didn’t defend her because she made a comment that failed to reinforce the current PC racial identity politics narrative. Good for her.
I'm not being political or controversial or anything when I sincerly ask...what exactly does a "VP of Inclusion and Diversity" do all day? I mean, I'm sure she had a scrolling banner on her screen with the current count of minority employees, but I'm just racking my brain to understand what activities, projects, etc. she was driving that justifies a Vice President title...
Wow...so, a cult member got eaten alive because she tried to be a little less culty. How...new and how unexpected. I have never seen it happen before.
You’re changing the story. Stop assuming and troll elsewhere.
Trolling? I wish I was. The reality is that someone in the US can get chastised for saying adequate, reasonable things, just like her. She was criticized for that so much, that she had to backtrack and apologize for that. She got on the bandwagon with the same song everyone else in that crowd did (more diversity). And when she decided to get back to being slightly more herself and more reasonable, that backfired. What story did I change? How about you have a look at the reality (aka things that actually happen)?
I really doubt anyone posting an opinion here knows what it is like to work at Apple or any large tech corporation and what motivates a person's career choices. Since all of we posting here are anonymous none of our comments will likely make headlines and be used as evidence by one side or another to promote or discredit us. Meanwhile there are some very high profile people making decisions that will affect our lives who are unable to construct a coherent sentence.
There is a lot of people in the US that can construct a coherent sentence. But, at the same time, more than 50% of US citizens do not pay any income tax, and are broke. In other words, you have the wrong criterion for determining who is capable of making decisions, and who isn't. Just saying.
I hope it wasn’t because of her whites-can-be-diverse comment. If so that’s sad. That comment was brilliant, inclusive and very Apple. ”17-year-old-veteran” It’s good Apple is getting young blood but it’s not fair if she’s replacing Denise because of that brilliant comment.
Actually, if you understand the whole academic kerfuffle regarding race/diversity and such lately (and the ideology behind it... i.e.: intersectionality, etc.), what she said was extremely inappropriate and can't be tolerated. "12 white blue-eyed blonde men" can't possibly be diverse, as no matter their background or experiences, they come from the same place (or are at least assumed to) on power scale.
Whether or not that's why she's leaving, I don't know. But, I was frankly a bit shocked she didn't get into more hot-water than she did over those comments, as they are heresy to the majority of the diversity movement going on in tech, or coming from the political/academic 'left'.
Exactly.. too bad Cali can't really grasp that. I wonder if he is just a troll who knows all too well, that what she said was completely inappropriate (from the "diversity" cult standpoint) or if he is just that naive, to put it mildly.
You know when you've got money to burn when you hire a person who's job it is to hire people not according to their skill level but according to their ethnicity and culture. How about hiring people that can do the job....PERIOD. Doesn't matter if they're white, black, orange, plaid or pocodot. Get the job done.
Whatever happened to hiring the best and the brightest regardless of skin color, ethnicity or sexual orientation?
Racism, sexism, etc. disguised as 'equality' under the cloak of 'diversity.'
SpamSandwich said: Apple didn’t defend her because she made a comment that failed to reinforce the current PC racial identity politics narrative. Good for her.
Bingo. The problem here (this forum) is that I doubt most of the posters are familiar with how this stuff is talked about in academia. The simple explanation of it is that it's about power and control... so you can't be discriminated against, or it isn't being a racist no matter what you do, so long as you can consider yourself a minority or oppressed in some way. And, if you happen to belong to a group that is considered majority or in power, then all you can do is apologize and join the other viewpoint. If you don't then you're complicit. So, what she said was a major, major no-no. I'm guessing (haven't seen it) she's been labeled an Uncle Tom in many circles.
I'm not being political or controversial or anything when I sincerly ask...what exactly does a "VP of Inclusion and Diversity" do all day? I mean, I'm sure she had a scrolling banner on her screen with the current count of minority employees, but I'm just racking my brain to understand what activities, projects, etc. she was driving that justifies a Vice President title...
Well, I think I know what she'd be doing if she hadn't made those statements. (Because her line of thinking doesn't fit that agenda. How did she get that job?)
These companies are hiring people to make sure politically correct representations of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. are hired to hit 'diversity' targets so Apple can keep the SJWs happy. IMO, this is a bit backwards from them being more like a 'VP of Correcting Injustice' where they'd do their best to ensure no one was hiring or not hiring people based on race, gender, etc. But, I suppose just righting the wrongs wouldn't go quickly enough for them.
And, then being in charge of 'inclusivity,' means that you police the thoughts and attitudes of the employees to ensure no views fall outside the politically correct spectrum. If they do, we've seen news stories over the last few years as to what happens.
anton zuykov said: I wonder if he is just a troll who knows all too well, that what she said was completely inappropriate (from the "diversity" cult standpoint) or if he is just that naive, to put it mildly.
If you're inside the 'bubble' it's really easy to be that naive. I'm sure there are some malicious puppet-masters involved at some level, but I think the average 'diversity cult' participant has been raised up in that way of thinking, and probably hasn't ever stopped and put serious thought to it. Plus, as I noted above, they teach this stuff in most academic programs that touch on it.
You know when you've got money to burn when you hire a person who's job it is to hire people not according to their skill level but according to their ethnicity and culture. How about hiring people that can do the job....PERIOD. Doesn't matter if they're white, black, orange, plaid or pocodot. Get the job done.
You have to think of it more from a victim mentality, or reparation (from their point of view). Due to power structures, minorities or the oppressed didn't really have an equal opportunity along the way, so while on paper, they have an equal shot at the job... in reality they didn't. And, they see this not individualistically, but systemically. So, to fix it, you kind of force-correct things by picking the 'diverse' people instead of the 'privileged' ones. Best case, you have equally qualified people, but you pick the 'diverse' ones. Worst case, you're actually picking a lesser talented person, but due to privilege, you're balancing out the system to make things more 'just.'
Unfortunately, in reality, it's actually quite racist, sexist, etc. They just see it as justified to right a wrong since you have to, in order to overcome the systematic oppression. As I was told once in a Twitter debate by a proponent of this thinking, "You can't be racist towards whites and can't be sexist towards males."
If you want to do some reading on the topic, Google 'Intersectionality'
I'm exactly the type of person she was talking about: white, blue eyed, and blonde. When I am hired, there is nothing truly known about ME AS A PERSON and AS AN INDIVIDUAL. It is a shame she stepped down because Denise was one of a very few who were getting back to what Martin Luther King Jr taught. Judge people "BY THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER". Here's my white priviledge: my grand father came to the US from Scotland to work in the garment mills in New England, my father grew up dirt poor in the depression, the door to their shack was cardboard, my dad walked 6 miles to school, he fought in the Korean War, went to university as part of the GI Bill, became a computer systems engineer, and now I am a doctor, first in our family. We didn't have much privilege, and our background is fairly diverse. This reverse racism is going to destroy our country; I hope the next Denise Young Smith doesn't cower when she speaks truth to power. Now Apple is the Big Brother that they portrayed in their famous 1984 commercial. What a tremendous shame, and the leadership at Apple is shamefull.
I'm exactly the type of person she was talking about: white, blue eyed, and blonde. When I am hired, there is nothing truly known about ME AS A PERSON and AS AN INDIVIDUAL. It is a shame she stepped down because Denise was one of a very few who were getting back to what Martin Luther King Jr taught. Judge people "BY THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER". Here's my white priviledge: my grand father came to the US from Scotland to work in the garment mills in New England, my father grew up dirt poor in the depression, the door to their shack was cardboard, my dad walked 6 miles to school, he fought in the Korean War, went to university as part of the GI Bill, became a computer systems engineer, and now I am a doctor, first in our family. We didn't have much privilege, and our background is fairly diverse. This reverse racism is going to destroy our country; I hope the next Denise Young Smith doesn't cower when she speaks truth to power. Now Apple is the Big Brother that they portrayed in their famous 1984 commercial. What a tremendous shame, and the leadership at Apple is shamefull.
Well said, and I agree. The likely response would be that you're thinking too individually, and that just by being part of the people group in power, you 1) are complicit (especially if you aren't groveling) and 2) you have more privilege than you realize as you had a better shot of climbing out of poverty. So, (and they won't say this, just advocate for it) you need to be knocked down a few rungs while those you've oppressed are brought up.
Reverse racism is actually a good term for it, because it is insanely racist. They just feel it's a justified racism (one could say as payback, or equalizing force). It's quite Marxist (in fact if I dug enough, I have a list somewhere of the leaders where the ideologies come from).
And yes, it is absolutely polar-opposite of Martin Luther King Jr, as his principals were based on Christ, not Marx.
Reverse racism is actually a good term for it, because it is insanely racist.
It’s a terrible term. There’s nothing reversed about it. It’s just racism. It’s Marxist both in execution and in linguistics. Don’t fall for newspeak.
...Martin Luther King Jr, as his principals were based on Christ, not Marx.
Well…
I agree, in that yes, it's straight-out racism. They'd not use that term to self-describe that I'm aware, as they don't believe they are being racist at all. I've just heard it used in the sense by people opposing them, that they are mirroring back racism they experienced... so 'reverse' in a sense.
I'm no expert on King, but I just mean he was coming out of a Christian background/viewpoint... though I don't know how much he might have been influenced by Black Theology or Liberation Theology (which have their roots in Marx). The general stuff I'm familiar with in his teaching don't resemble either.... but again, I haven't dug in far enough to know.
I'm exactly the type of person she was talking about: white, blue eyed, and blonde. When I am hired, there is nothing truly known about ME AS A PERSON and AS AN INDIVIDUAL. It is a shame she stepped down because Denise was one of a very few who were getting back to what Martin Luther King Jr taught. Judge people "BY THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER". Here's my white priviledge: my grand father came to the US from Scotland to work in the garment mills in New England, my father grew up dirt poor in the depression, the door to their shack was cardboard, my dad walked 6 miles to school, he fought in the Korean War, went to university as part of the GI Bill, became a computer systems engineer, and now I am a doctor, first in our family. We didn't have much privilege, and our background is fairly diverse. This reverse racism is going to destroy our country; I hope the next Denise Young Smith doesn't cower when she speaks truth to power. Now Apple is the Big Brother that they portrayed in their famous 1984 commercial. What a tremendous shame, and the leadership at Apple is shamefull.
Thank you for sharing this.
My grandfathers came from Italy and the other from Ireland. My mom was a single parent with three boys, one with Down syndrome, and had to support us on a *woman's* salary (talk about discrimination). I had no help as mom was dog tired from working and taking care of a disabled son. She used my college money to buy a ramshackle house that we fixed up ourselves. I worked hard and made it through engineering school against the advice of my HS counselor.
There's this belief that is developed and fostered by liberals that if you're caucasian you're automatically privileged, rich, racist, etc. and should be ashamed of yourself. You should step aside for those less privileged.
Ms. Smith was talking about diversity in general, not "racial diversity". Everyone has a background, everyone has their struggles and their stories. And while the room full of "white blue-eyed blondes" may not be very racially diverse there is diversity nonetheless.
fmalloy said: There's this belief that is developed and fostered by liberals that if you're caucasian you're automatically privileged, rich, racist, etc. and should be ashamed of yourself. You should step aside for those less privileged.
Ms. Smith was talking about diversity in general, not "racial diversity". Everyone has a background, everyone has their struggles and their stories. And while the room full of "white blue-eyed blondes" may not be very racially diverse there is diversity nonetheless.
Yes, this is where it gets really muddy. While *on the whole* white-skinned people (who come from prosperous Western cultures) often have many advantages, it's an assumption to make, just like assuming something about a dark-skinned person. It's making something about skin-pigment, gender, culture, etc. instead of about the person themselves and their actual meaningful qualities (like behavior, ideologies, etc.). I mean, it's pretty much exactly what racism, sexism, bigotry, etc. definitely are!
And, what's really nuts, is that when you say 'white person' do you realize all the backgrounds and ethnicities that might entail? I mean, isn't that just as bad as saying 'colored person' and lumping the majority of the world into one simplistic basket? Wouldn't 'white' people (out of white and non-white actually be a minority group?
Comments
This has always been a utopian dream. There’s no way to quantify talent universally. Neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates were qualified to found Apple and Microsoft respectively.
I thought Smith’s comments about diversity were on point and I’m surprised Apple didn’t defend her more vigorously. The problem with Race begins at the beginning. It simply does not exist beyond the scope of a our own creative forces.
She was criticized for that so much, that she had to backtrack and apologize for that.
She got on the bandwagon with the same song everyone else in that crowd did (more diversity). And when she decided to get back to being slightly more herself and more reasonable, that backfired. What story did I change? How about you have a look at the reality (aka things that actually happen)?
I wonder if he is just a troll who knows all too well, that what she said was completely inappropriate (from the "diversity" cult standpoint) or if he is just that naive, to put it mildly.
Bingo. The problem here (this forum) is that I doubt most of the posters are familiar with how this stuff is talked about in academia. The simple explanation of it is that it's about power and control... so you can't be discriminated against, or it isn't being a racist no matter what you do, so long as you can consider yourself a minority or oppressed in some way. And, if you happen to belong to a group that is considered majority or in power, then all you can do is apologize and join the other viewpoint. If you don't then you're complicit. So, what she said was a major, major no-no. I'm guessing (haven't seen it) she's been labeled an Uncle Tom in many circles.
Well, I think I know what she'd be doing if she hadn't made those statements. (Because her line of thinking doesn't fit that agenda. How did she get that job?)
These companies are hiring people to make sure politically correct representations of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. are hired to hit 'diversity' targets so Apple can keep the SJWs happy. IMO, this is a bit backwards from them being more like a 'VP of Correcting Injustice' where they'd do their best to ensure no one was hiring or not hiring people based on race, gender, etc. But, I suppose just righting the wrongs wouldn't go quickly enough for them.
And, then being in charge of 'inclusivity,' means that you police the thoughts and attitudes of the employees to ensure no views fall outside the politically correct spectrum. If they do, we've seen news stories over the last few years as to what happens.
If you're inside the 'bubble' it's really easy to be that naive. I'm sure there are some malicious puppet-masters involved at some level, but I think the average 'diversity cult' participant has been raised up in that way of thinking, and probably hasn't ever stopped and put serious thought to it. Plus, as I noted above, they teach this stuff in most academic programs that touch on it.
You have to think of it more from a victim mentality, or reparation (from their point of view). Due to power structures, minorities or the oppressed didn't really have an equal opportunity along the way, so while on paper, they have an equal shot at the job... in reality they didn't. And, they see this not individualistically, but systemically. So, to fix it, you kind of force-correct things by picking the 'diverse' people instead of the 'privileged' ones. Best case, you have equally qualified people, but you pick the 'diverse' ones. Worst case, you're actually picking a lesser talented person, but due to privilege, you're balancing out the system to make things more 'just.'
Unfortunately, in reality, it's actually quite racist, sexist, etc. They just see it as justified to right a wrong since you have to, in order to overcome the systematic oppression.
As I was told once in a Twitter debate by a proponent of this thinking, "You can't be racist towards whites and can't be sexist towards males."
If you want to do some reading on the topic, Google 'Intersectionality'
Reverse racism is actually a good term for it, because it is insanely racist. They just feel it's a justified racism (one could say as payback, or equalizing force). It's quite Marxist (in fact if I dug enough, I have a list somewhere of the leaders where the ideologies come from).
And yes, it is absolutely polar-opposite of Martin Luther King Jr, as his principals were based on Christ, not Marx.
Well…
I'm no expert on King, but I just mean he was coming out of a Christian background/viewpoint... though I don't know how much he might have been influenced by Black Theology or Liberation Theology (which have their roots in Marx). The general stuff I'm familiar with in his teaching don't resemble either.... but again, I haven't dug in far enough to know.
My grandfathers came from Italy and the other from Ireland. My mom was a single parent with three boys, one with Down syndrome, and had to support us on a *woman's* salary (talk about discrimination). I had no help as mom was dog tired from working and taking care of a disabled son. She used my college money to buy a ramshackle house that we fixed up ourselves. I worked hard and made it through engineering school against the advice of my HS counselor.
There's this belief that is developed and fostered by liberals that if you're caucasian you're automatically privileged, rich, racist, etc. and should be ashamed of yourself. You should step aside for those less privileged.
Ms. Smith was talking about diversity in general, not "racial diversity". Everyone has a background, everyone has their struggles and their stories. And while the room full of "white blue-eyed blondes" may not be very racially diverse there is diversity nonetheless.
And, what's really nuts, is that when you say 'white person' do you realize all the backgrounds and ethnicities that might entail? I mean, isn't that just as bad as saying 'colored person' and lumping the majority of the world into one simplistic basket? Wouldn't 'white' people (out of white and non-white actually be a minority group?