This lawsuit is pointless. As most people are aware, private universities like Harvard don't just admit people based on their high school GPA or their SAT/ACT scores. They also use subjective criteria like the types of extracurricular activities that students participate in etc. You also have the aspect of legacy admissions to consider, where the children of Harvard alums don't have to meet the same admission standards as non-legacy applicants. In addition, you have students that are recruited to play athletics, which also represents a different standard for admission than non-athlete applicants. The idea that there's a single standard to be used for applicants based solely on educational achievements is pure fantasy.
Sorry, but as we have not only seen, but been slapped in the face with: RACISM IS ALIVE AND WELL IN AMERICA!
And, that racism takes many forms: minorities in America tend to grow up in poorer, less educated families, in poorer communities with less opportunities for children to access healthy activities and nutrition and they are educated in lower performing schools. So, the disadvantages they face go far beyond skin color and are ingrained into the society they grow up in.
Affirmative action is and was an attempt to help level that playing field and begin to bring minority children up in a more healthy and productive environment. And, it has had significant success doing that -- but far from enough success and we still have a very long road ahead to create a level playing field.
And, leveling that playing field is not merely a nice, Christian, altruistic thing to do.
As Apple pointed out: it is critical to the success of our country and our economy because: We are competing in a global economy and we need EVERY citizen to perform at their highest level if we are to be competitive.
This country continues to fall behind in global competitiveness. It needs to catch-up and it needs every citizen able to contribute. That's why we need Affirmative Action.
This lawsuit is pointless. As most people are aware, private universities like Harvard don't just admit people based on their high school GPA or their SAT/ACT scores. They also use subjective criteria like the types of extracurricular activities that students participate in etc. You also have the aspect of legacy admissions to consider, where the children of Harvard alums don't have to meet the same admission standards as non-legacy applicants. In addition, you have students that are recruited to play athletics, which also represents a different standard for admission than non-athlete applicants. The idea that there's a single standard to be used for applicants based solely on educational achievements is pure fantasy.
Harvard is a private university but it takes federal funding which means that they have to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which makes racial discrimination illegal. That is what makes the lawsuit different than the other determining factors you are mentioning. Race conscious admissions are legal but the application is fairly strict and the lawsuit claims Harvard falls outside of what is allowed. The U.S. court system is how one would challenge the constitutionality so I wouldn’t say it is pointless so much as the correct avenue to go to determine if the policy needs modification or not.
Sorry, but as we have not only seen, but been slapped in the face with: RACISM IS ALIVE AND WELL IN AMERICA!
And, that racism takes many forms: minorities in America tend to grow up in poorer, less educated families, in poorer communities with less opportunities for children to access healthy activities and nutrition and they are educated in lower performing schools. So, the disadvantages they face go far beyond skin color and are ingrained into the society they grow up in.
Affirmative action is and was an attempt to help level that playing field and begin to bring minority children up in a more healthy and productive environment. And, it has had significant success doing that -- but far from enough success and we still have a very long road ahead to create a level playing field.
And, leveling that playing field is not merely a nice, Christian, altruistic thing to do.
As Apple pointed out: it is critical to the success of our country and our economy because: We are competing in a global economy and we need EVERY citizen to perform at their highest level if we are to be competitive.
This country continues to fall behind in global competitiveness. It needs to catch-up and it needs every citizen able to contribute. That's why we need Affirmative Action.
Thank you for your informed and thoughtful post. So many people here seem to be extremely uninformed about this subject, or they choose to ignore the facts, preferring to believe what they want to believe instead.
Happy_Noodle_Boy said: Harvard is a private university but it takes federal funding which means that they have to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which makes racial discrimination illegal. That is what makes the lawsuit different than the other determining factors you are mentioning. Race conscious admissions are legal but the application is fairly strict and the lawsuit claims Harvard falls outside of what is allowed. The U.S. court system is how one would challenge the constitutionality so I wouldn’t say it is pointless so much as the correct avenue to go to determine if the policy needs modification or not.
The guy bringing the lawsuit is arguing that Asian applicants are being discriminated against because their GPAs and SAT/ACT scores alone mean they should have a higher representation in the student body. As I mentioned though, private universities like Harvard have never admitted students based solely on their academic credentials. That's why the case is pointless: the basis of the lawsuit is a fallacy. Academic achievement has never been the sole basis of admittance, so how can you sue as if it were?
Happy_Noodle_Boy said: Harvard is a private university but it takes federal funding which means that they have to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which makes racial discrimination illegal. That is what makes the lawsuit different than the other determining factors you are mentioning. Race conscious admissions are legal but the application is fairly strict and the lawsuit claims Harvard falls outside of what is allowed. The U.S. court system is how one would challenge the constitutionality so I wouldn’t say it is pointless so much as the correct avenue to go to determine if the policy needs modification or not.
The guy bringing the lawsuit is arguing that Asian applicants are being discriminated against because their GPAs and SAT/ACT scores alone mean they should have a higher representation in the student body. As I mentioned though, private universities like Harvard have never admitted students based solely on their academic credentials. That's why the case is pointless: the basis of the lawsuit is a fallacy. Academic achievement has never been the sole basis of admittance, so how can you sue as if it were?
Harvard has a race conscious admissions process, this isn’t contested by anyone including Harvard. The argument is that the process is ostensibly quota based which has been ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. You clearly disagree with that which is fine but I suspect that you, like me, don’t have the legal expertise to know how accurate the claim is. So, I’ll maintain what I said before. The court system is the correct venue to resolve the question.
Apple is on the right side of this argument as qualified by their statement quoted in the article:
"In lieu of "workable race-neutral alternatives," the companies wrote, affirmative action was still the best possible option."
What Apple and these other companies understand, and something that is lost on many of those who live on the privileged side of the chasm, is the full meaning and impact of the words "systemic" and "institutionalized."
When one compares affirmative action to reverse discrimination they are assuming that a level playing field exists. It doesn't. A reduction in privilege of the dominant race in a society whose operating system is biased against other races, one which is backed by hundreds of years of treating other races as sub-human, is not equivalent to reverse discrimination. It's a small gesture of corrective and remedial action to address a huge inequity.
When one references the Supreme Court, or conflates it to be akin to a "Divine Court" of absolute justice, they fail to see that the court is also part of the same institution that codified and protected, due to constitutionally enacted tenets, the unequal and inhumane treatment of one race by another. What is accepted by many as the binding fabric of our republic was deeply flawed and far from being a divine inspiration. It was created by man, had race inequality baked into it, and was subject to all of the flaws and biases that are part of the human condition. Yes there have been amendments, corrections, rulings made, words spoken, and actions taken over the years to scrub the most abhorrent stains from the founding documents and laws that define the fabric of our society. But a lot of what was baked into US society and culture from its earliest days persists to this day, both the good parts and the bad parts, regardless of what exists in the documents.
Change comes easy on paper, but it comes much harder in the hearts of man. This is especially true when the signals that trigger the systemic and institutionalized social mechanisms of discrimination cannot be hidden from view or kept to oneself. Race neutrality is an abstract notion that does not exist in human minds or in society or culture as a whole. Top-down laws and edicts haven't moved the needle, at least not fast or far enough. Change must come from the bottom-up and it must be tangible, implementable, and measurable. Even a cursory or narrowly focused blinder perspective of where we are today as a society and culture tells an unflattering story. The data doesn't lie.
The long standing, entrenched systems and institutions that are dominating the status quo of institutionalized inequity are very resistant to change. Those in-charge are overwhelmingly those who are privileged by the status quo. They are the ones who must change and take action. Harvard University recognizes this reality and has decided that now is the time for action and is applying what they, and Apple and other companies, feel is their best possible option. If we were even remotely close to having a level playing field we could ruminate over philosophical subtleties and notions like race neutrality. What Apple and these companies are saying is that we no longer have time for philosophical musings. The suffering must end. Action is needed. Now. I agree with Harvard and Apple.
Happy_Noodle_Boy said: Harvard is a private university but it takes federal funding which means that they have to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which makes racial discrimination illegal. That is what makes the lawsuit different than the other determining factors you are mentioning. Race conscious admissions are legal but the application is fairly strict and the lawsuit claims Harvard falls outside of what is allowed. The U.S. court system is how one would challenge the constitutionality so I wouldn’t say it is pointless so much as the correct avenue to go to determine if the policy needs modification or not.
The guy bringing the lawsuit is arguing that Asian applicants are being discriminated against because their GPAs and SAT/ACT scores alone mean they should have a higher representation in the student body. As I mentioned though, private universities like Harvard have never admitted students based solely on their academic credentials. That's why the case is pointless: the basis of the lawsuit is a fallacy. Academic achievement has never been the sole basis of admittance, so how can you sue as if it were?
Harvard has a race conscious admissions process, this isn’t contested by anyone including Harvard. The argument is that the process is ostensibly quota based which has been ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. You clearly disagree with that which is fine but I suspect that you, like me, don’t have the legal expertise to know how accurate the claim is. So, I’ll maintain what I said before. The court system is the correct venue to resolve the question.
Unfortunately, our court system in the U.S., particularly at the Supreme Court level is now, just an extension of the far right Republican Party.
Don't expect to see much respect for law, ethics, democracy or the Constitution there!
Will Tim (and much of his senior management) offer to step aside — should they — for underrepresented minority candidates? In fact, will — should — they petition Apple’s board to do so?
If not, why not?
Tim Cook is and under represented minority.
White Southern Wasp?
It seems to me, as someone from outside the US, that while the US owes black people some reparations it doesn't really owe anybody else anything. If Asians would be over represented in Harvard relative to numbers, and Hispanics less so, so be it. Many countries have exams which are in fact blind to colour and race, and individual status.
The situation is even worse with the children of alumni, or the wealthy being preferred as well. Many of these are white ( for historical reasons) thus reducing the white quota for working class or middle class whites.
Apple is on the right side of this argument as qualified by their statement quoted in the article:
"In lieu of "workable race-neutral alternatives," the companies wrote, affirmative action was still the best possible option."
What Apple and these other companies understand, and something that is lost on many of those who live on the privileged side of the chasm, is the full meaning and impact of the words "systemic" and "institutionalized."
When one compares affirmative action to reverse discrimination they are assuming that a level playing field exists. It doesn't. A reduction in privilege of the dominant race in a society whose operating system is biased against other races, one which is backed by hundreds of years of treating other races as sub-human, is not equivalent to reverse discrimination. It's a small gesture of corrective and remedial action to address a huge inequity.
When one references the Supreme Court, or conflates it to be akin to a "Divine Court" of absolute justice, they fail to see that the court is also part of the same institution that codified and protected, due to constitutionally enacted tenets, the unequal and inhumane treatment of one race by another. What is accepted by many as the binding fabric of our republic was deeply flawed and far from being a divine inspiration. It was created by man, had race inequality baked into it, and was subject to all of the flaws and biases that are part of the human condition. Yes there have been amendments, corrections, rulings made, words spoken, and actions taken over the years to scrub the most abhorrent stains from the founding documents and laws that define the fabric of our society. But a lot of what was baked into US society and culture from its earliest days persists to this day, both the good parts and the bad parts, regardless of what exists in the documents.
Change comes easy on paper, but it comes much harder in the hearts of man. This is especially true when the signals that trigger the systemic and institutionalized social mechanisms of discrimination cannot be hidden from view or kept to oneself. Race neutrality is an abstract notion that does not exist in human minds or in society or culture as a whole. Top-down laws and edicts haven't moved the needle, at least not fast or far enough. Change must come from the bottom-up and it must be tangible, implementable, and measurable. Even a cursory or narrowly focused blinder perspective of where we are today as a society and culture tells an unflattering story. The data doesn't lie.
The long standing, entrenched systems and institutions that are dominating the status quo of institutionalized inequity are very resistant to change. Those in-charge are overwhelmingly those who are privileged by the status quo. They are the ones who must change and take action. Harvard University recognizes this reality and has decided that now is the time for action and is applying what they, and Apple and other companies, feel is their best possible option. If we were even remotely close to having a level playing field we could ruminate over philosophical subtleties and notions like race neutrality. What Apple and these companies are saying is that we no longer have time for philosophical musings. The suffering must end. Action is needed. Now. I agree with Harvard and Apple.
You say racism is build-in for the dominant race. I think that’s a pretty discriminatoir statement. Certainly considering the fact that it is a human trait, equally shared among all genetic very slightly different groups. Your statements lack recognition of the fact that there are a lot of people having no notion at all of unfair treatment of others because of whatever external feature. Blaming individuals for things institutions did (or do) wrong while having noting to do with it, is incredibly wrong. You also seem to fail to see that the whole racism and discrimination argument is hijacked by people and institutions to make them feel better while still being completely hypocritical and inherently inclined to discrimination themselves.
Happy_Noodle_Boy said: Harvard is a private university but it takes federal funding which means that they have to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which makes racial discrimination illegal. That is what makes the lawsuit different than the other determining factors you are mentioning. Race conscious admissions are legal but the application is fairly strict and the lawsuit claims Harvard falls outside of what is allowed. The U.S. court system is how one would challenge the constitutionality so I wouldn’t say it is pointless so much as the correct avenue to go to determine if the policy needs modification or not.
The guy bringing the lawsuit is arguing that Asian applicants are being discriminated against because their GPAs and SAT/ACT scores alone mean they should have a higher representation in the student body. As I mentioned though, private universities like Harvard have never admitted students based solely on their academic credentials. That's why the case is pointless: the basis of the lawsuit is a fallacy. Academic achievement has never been the sole basis of admittance, so how can you sue as if it were?
Harvard has a race conscious admissions process, this isn’t contested by anyone including Harvard. The argument is that the process is ostensibly quota based which has been ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. You clearly disagree with that which is fine but I suspect that you, like me, don’t have the legal expertise to know how accurate the claim is. So, I’ll maintain what I said before. The court system is the correct venue to resolve the question.
Unfortunately, our court system in the U.S., particularly at the Supreme Court level is now, just an extension of the far right Republican Party.
Don't expect to see much respect for law, ethics, democracy or the Constitution there!
I don’t disagree with at least part of your assessment but it doesn’t have much to do with what I said. My point is that the judiciary is the venue to decide constitutional matters. It’s also worth noting that Harvard has been backed by the courts.
When one compares affirmative action to reverse discrimination they are assuming that a level playing field exists. It doesn't. A reduction in privilege of the dominant race in a society whose operating system is biased against other races, one which is backed by hundreds of years of treating other races as sub-human, is not equivalent to reverse discrimination. It's a small gesture of corrective and remedial action to address a huge inequity.
When one references the Supreme Court, or conflates it to be akin to a "Divine Court" of absolute justice, they fail to see that the court is also part of the same institution that codified and protected, due to constitutionally enacted tenets, the unequal and inhumane treatment of one race by another. What is accepted by many as the binding fabric of our republic was deeply flawed and far from being a divine inspiration. It was created by man, had race inequality baked into it, and was subject to all of the flaws and biases that are part of the human condition. Yes there have been amendments, corrections, rulings made, words spoken, and actions taken over the years to scrub the most abhorrent stains from the founding documents and laws that define the fabric of our society. But a lot of what was baked into US society and culture from its earliest days persists to this day, both the good parts and the bad parts, regardless of what exists in the documents.
Change comes easy on paper, but it comes much harder in the hearts of man. This is especially true when the signals that trigger the systemic and institutionalized social mechanisms of discrimination cannot be hidden from view or kept to oneself. Race neutrality is an abstract notion that does not exist in human minds or in society or culture as a whole. Top-down laws and edicts haven't moved the needle, at least not fast or far enough. Change must come from the bottom-up and it must be tangible, implementable, and measurable. Even a cursory or narrowly focused blinder perspective of where we are today as a society and culture tells an unflattering story. The data doesn't lie.
The long standing, entrenched systems and institutions that are dominating the status quo of institutionalized inequity are very resistant to change. Those in-charge are overwhelmingly those who are privileged by the status quo. They are the ones who must change and take action. Harvard University recognizes this reality and has decided that now is the time for action and is applying what they, and Apple and other companies, feel is their best possible option. If we were even remotely close to having a level playing field we could ruminate over philosophical subtleties and notions like race neutrality. What Apple and these companies are saying is that we no longer have time for philosophical musings. The suffering must end. Action is needed. Now. I agree with Harvard and Apple.
As an outsider I still am uncertain as to how this would be used to justify discrimination against Asian-Americans, which seems to be the claim here, or justify the fact that these institutions still have alumni programs if the aim is to remove entrenched privilege, which is hardly all race based in a highly unequal society.
Surely the class and race privilege of easier admission, for the wealthy and alumni, would be the first thing to go in a supposedly more egalitarian admissions system.
As it stands there are probably the descendants of slave owners who can get in to Harvard quite easily, and the descendants of Vietnamese boat people, or Sicilian serfs, who can't - even though their grades alone would get them in.
( The other criteria, like extracurricular activities are also designed to allow in the trustafarian with time on his or her hands, rather than the working class guy forced to get a job through school.)
Will Tim (and much of his senior management) offer to step aside — should they — for underrepresented minority candidates? In fact, will — should — they petition Apple’s board to do so?
If not, why not?
Tim Cook is and under represented minority.
White Southern Wasp?
It seems to me, as someone from outside the US, that while the US owes black people some reparations it doesn't really owe anybody else anything. If Asians would be over represented in Harvard relative to numbers, and Hispanics less so, so be it. Many countries have exams which are in fact blind to colour and race, and individual status.
The situation is even worse with the children of alumni, or the wealthy being preferred as well. Many of these are white ( for historical reasons) thus reducing the white quota for working class or middle class whites.
As I stated elsewhere in the comment section Tim Cook is gay. Race is not the only criteria for being a minority. Also a white WASP is redundant as there aren’t Asian, Black Latinx people that are White Anglo Saxon Protestant.
When one compares affirmative action to reverse discrimination they are assuming that a level playing field exists. It doesn't. A reduction in privilege of the dominant race in a society whose operating system is biased against other races, one which is backed by hundreds of years of treating other races as sub-human, is not equivalent to reverse discrimination. It's a small gesture of corrective and remedial action to address a huge inequity.
When one references the Supreme Court, or conflates it to be akin to a "Divine Court" of absolute justice, they fail to see that the court is also part of the same institution that codified and protected, due to constitutionally enacted tenets, the unequal and inhumane treatment of one race by another. What is accepted by many as the binding fabric of our republic was deeply flawed and far from being a divine inspiration. It was created by man, had race inequality baked into it, and was subject to all of the flaws and biases that are part of the human condition. Yes there have been amendments, corrections, rulings made, words spoken, and actions taken over the years to scrub the most abhorrent stains from the founding documents and laws that define the fabric of our society. But a lot of what was baked into US society and culture from its earliest days persists to this day, both the good parts and the bad parts, regardless of what exists in the documents.
Change comes easy on paper, but it comes much harder in the hearts of man. This is especially true when the signals that trigger the systemic and institutionalized social mechanisms of discrimination cannot be hidden from view or kept to oneself. Race neutrality is an abstract notion that does not exist in human minds or in society or culture as a whole. Top-down laws and edicts haven't moved the needle, at least not fast or far enough. Change must come from the bottom-up and it must be tangible, implementable, and measurable. Even a cursory or narrowly focused blinder perspective of where we are today as a society and culture tells an unflattering story. The data doesn't lie.
The long standing, entrenched systems and institutions that are dominating the status quo of institutionalized inequity are very resistant to change. Those in-charge are overwhelmingly those who are privileged by the status quo. They are the ones who must change and take action. Harvard University recognizes this reality and has decided that now is the time for action and is applying what they, and Apple and other companies, feel is their best possible option. If we were even remotely close to having a level playing field we could ruminate over philosophical subtleties and notions like race neutrality. What Apple and these companies are saying is that we no longer have time for philosophical musings. The suffering must end. Action is needed. Now. I agree with Harvard and Apple.
As an outsider I still am uncertain as to how this would be used to justify discrimination against Asian-Americans, which seems to be the claim here, or justify the fact that these institutions still have alumni programs if the aim is to remove entrenched privilege, which is hardly all race based in a highly unequal society.
Surely the class and race privilege of easier admission, for the wealthy and alumni, would be the first thing to go in a supposedly more egalitarian admissions system.
As it stands there are probably the descendants of slave owners who can get in to Harvard quite easily, and the descendants of Vietnamese boat people, or Sicilian serfs, who can't - even though their grades alone would get them in.
( The other criteria, like extracurricular activities are also designed to allow in the trustafarian with time on his or her hands, rather than the working class guy forced to get a job through school.)
If you read the referenced article you’ll see that Apple’s and the other tech companies who’ve weighed in on this have done so in support of affirmative action, the necessity for which is driven by the rationale behind my supporting points, i.e., systemic and institutionalized discrimination, oppression, and inequity.
Yeah, this is a controversial topic for AppleInsider to open up for comments. I appreciate everyone’s civility so far.
When one compares affirmative action to reverse discrimination they are assuming that a level playing field exists. It doesn't. A reduction in privilege of the dominant race in a society whose operating system is biased against other races, one which is backed by hundreds of years of treating other races as sub-human, is not equivalent to reverse discrimination. It's a small gesture of corrective and remedial action to address a huge inequity.
When one references the Supreme Court, or conflates it to be akin to a "Divine Court" of absolute justice, they fail to see that the court is also part of the same institution that codified and protected, due to constitutionally enacted tenets, the unequal and inhumane treatment of one race by another. What is accepted by many as the binding fabric of our republic was deeply flawed and far from being a divine inspiration. It was created by man, had race inequality baked into it, and was subject to all of the flaws and biases that are part of the human condition. Yes there have been amendments, corrections, rulings made, words spoken, and actions taken over the years to scrub the most abhorrent stains from the founding documents and laws that define the fabric of our society. But a lot of what was baked into US society and culture from its earliest days persists to this day, both the good parts and the bad parts, regardless of what exists in the documents.
Change comes easy on paper, but it comes much harder in the hearts of man. This is especially true when the signals that trigger the systemic and institutionalized social mechanisms of discrimination cannot be hidden from view or kept to oneself. Race neutrality is an abstract notion that does not exist in human minds or in society or culture as a whole. Top-down laws and edicts haven't moved the needle, at least not fast or far enough. Change must come from the bottom-up and it must be tangible, implementable, and measurable. Even a cursory or narrowly focused blinder perspective of where we are today as a society and culture tells an unflattering story. The data doesn't lie.
The long standing, entrenched systems and institutions that are dominating the status quo of institutionalized inequity are very resistant to change. Those in-charge are overwhelmingly those who are privileged by the status quo. They are the ones who must change and take action. Harvard University recognizes this reality and has decided that now is the time for action and is applying what they, and Apple and other companies, feel is their best possible option. If we were even remotely close to having a level playing field we could ruminate over philosophical subtleties and notions like race neutrality. What Apple and these companies are saying is that we no longer have time for philosophical musings. The suffering must end. Action is needed. Now. I agree with Harvard and Apple.
As an outsider I still am uncertain as to how this would be used to justify discrimination against Asian-Americans, which seems to be the claim here, or justify the fact that these institutions still have alumni programs if the aim is to remove entrenched privilege, which is hardly all race based in a highly unequal society.
Surely the class and race privilege of easier admission, for the wealthy and alumni, would be the first thing to go in a supposedly more egalitarian admissions system.
As it stands there are probably the descendants of slave owners who can get in to Harvard quite easily, and the descendants of Vietnamese boat people, or Sicilian serfs, who can't - even though their grades alone would get them in.
( The other criteria, like extracurricular activities are also designed to allow in the trustafarian with time on his or her hands, rather than the working class guy forced to get a job through school.)
If you read the referenced article you’ll see that Apple’s and the other tech companies who’ve weighed in on this have done so in support of affirmative action, the necessity for which is driven by the rationale behind my supporting points, i.e., systemic and institutionalized discrimination, oppression, and inequity.
Yeah, this is a controversial topic for AppleInsider to open up for comments. I appreciate everyone’s civility so far.
You didn't answer my points but referred me back to your previous statement and a statement by Apple. To re-iterate:
1) If there is a history of White American discrimination against blacks or native americans then I fail to see how the kind of affirmative action that works against Asian Americans is pay back for that. 2) If Harvard wanted to use admission policy to promote equality then removing the benefit of being related to alumni or the rich would be the first thing on the agenda. Given that the alumni would have been the (white) elite going back generations in many cases, it is likely that the actual descendants of the whites who benefited directly from slavery or Jim Crow, or previous discriminatory Harvard admission policies towards WASPS are benefitting from this policy.
Will Tim (and much of his senior management) offer to step aside — should they — for underrepresented minority candidates? In fact, will — should — they petition Apple’s board to do so?
If not, why not?
Tim Cook is and under represented minority.
Read up on what the Harvard admissions lawsuit by SFA is all about, before making flippant (and frankly, irrelevant) comments.
Also, independently of that, you have no data to back up your assertion. If you do, please provide it, with a cite/source.
I am well aware of lawsuit. How is my comment irrelevant, you are the person that brought up that Tim Cook should offer to step and make room for an underrepresented minority. I was responding directly to what you said, that hardly irrelevant. It also wasn’t flippant. It was a statement of fact. You were trying to take a cheap shot at Tim Cook and it belly flopped.
If you're "well aware" of the lawsuit you'd know that the SFA lawsuit was fundamentally about underrepresented racial minorities (Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans) at the seeming expense of overrepresented racial minorities (Asians, primarily). There is zero claim in the lawsuit that Harvard discriminates against applicants on account of their sexual orientation, gender, or gender orientation. To bring up any of those is a non sequitur in this context.
Also, AFAIK, there is no empirical evidence on employment discrimination against people on account of sexual orientation in Fortune 500 companies (relative to population share), certainly not in Silicon Valley and tech (which is what the article is talking about). If you kow of such evidence, please share it.
There is, however, PLENTY of evidence that racial minorities are severely underrepresented in corporate suites, most especially in Silicon Valley and tech companies.
It would be helpful to the discussion if you could stick to the facts under discussion in the case.
Will Tim (and much of his senior management) offer to step aside — should they — for underrepresented minority candidates? In fact, will — should — they petition Apple’s board to do so?
If not, why not?
Tim Cook is and under represented minority.
White Southern Wasp?
It seems to me, as someone from outside the US, that while the US owes black people some reparations it doesn't really owe anybody else anything. If Asians would be over represented in Harvard relative to numbers, and Hispanics less so, so be it. Many countries have exams which are in fact blind to colour and race, and individual status.
The situation is even worse with the children of alumni, or the wealthy being preferred as well. Many of these are white ( for historical reasons) thus reducing the white quota for working class or middle class whites.
As I stated elsewhere in the comment section Tim Cook is gay. Race is not the only criteria for being a minority. Also a white WASP is redundant as there aren’t Asian, Black Latinx people that are White Anglo Saxon Protestant.
Bringing up attributes other than race that define to minority status have nothing whatsoever to do with this case, or the Silicon Valley and tech company response to it the article talking about. It's a total distraction.
It sounds to me like these companies are pushing off to places like Harvard to solve some of their own failings and inadequacies.
Will Tim (and much of his senior management) offer to step aside — should they — for underrepresented minority candidates? In fact, will — should — they petition Apple’s board to do so?
If not, why not?
Tim Cook is and under represented minority.
Read up on what the Harvard admissions lawsuit by SFA is all about, before making flippant (and frankly, irrelevant) comments.
Also, independently of that, you have no data to back up your assertion. If you do, please provide it, with a cite/source.
I am well aware of lawsuit. How is my comment irrelevant, you are the person that brought up that Tim Cook should offer to step and make room for an underrepresented minority. I was responding directly to what you said, that hardly irrelevant. It also wasn’t flippant. It was a statement of fact. You were trying to take a cheap shot at Tim Cook and it belly flopped.
If you're "well aware" of the lawsuit you'd know that the SFA lawsuit was fundamentally about underrepresented racial minorities (Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans) at the seeming expense of overrepresented racial minorities (Asians, primarily). There is zero claim in the lawsuit that Harvard discriminates against applicants on account of their sexual orientation, gender, or gender orientation. To bring up any of those is a non sequitur in this context.
Also, AFAIK, there is no empirical evidence on employment discrimination against people on account of sexual orientation in Fortune 500 companies (relative to population share), certainly not in Silicon Valley and tech (which is what the article is talking about). If you kow of such evidence, please share it.
There is, however, PLENTY of evidence that racial minorities are severely underrepresented in corporate suites, most especially in Silicon Valley and tech companies.
It would be helpful to the discussion if you could stick to the facts under discussion in the case.
Your statement was an attempt to make Tim Cook look like a hypocrite which in itself is nothing more than an ad hominem attack and not relevant. In addition to being poor critical thought it was factually incorrect. For whatever reason you decided to double down with the whole thing by attacking me and demanding I cite a well know fact. You went for a cheap rhetorical shot rather than address the actual the substance of the case, sorry you didn’t think that one through.
Will Tim (and much of his senior management) offer to step aside — should they — for underrepresented minority candidates? In fact, will — should — they petition Apple’s board to do so?
If not, why not?
Tim Cook is and under represented minority.
White Southern Wasp?
It seems to me, as someone from outside the US, that while the US owes black people some reparations it doesn't really owe anybody else anything. If Asians would be over represented in Harvard relative to numbers, and Hispanics less so, so be it. Many countries have exams which are in fact blind to colour and race, and individual status.
The situation is even worse with the children of alumni, or the wealthy being preferred as well. Many of these are white ( for historical reasons) thus reducing the white quota for working class or middle class whites.
As I stated elsewhere in the comment section Tim Cook is gay. Race is not the only criteria for being a minority. Also a white WASP is redundant as there aren’t Asian, Black Latinx people that are White Anglo Saxon Protestant.
Bringing up attributes other than race that define to minority status have nothing whatsoever to do with this case, or the Silicon Valley and tech company response to it the article talking about. It's a total distraction.
It sounds to me like these companies are pushing off to places like Harvard to solve some of their own failings and inadequacies.
Again, you brought up Apple’s executive team and underrepresented minorities not me and that has nothing to do with the case whatsoever. You are correct it is a distraction.
Comments
"In lieu of "workable race-neutral alternatives," the companies wrote, affirmative action was still the best possible option."
What Apple and these other companies understand, and something that is lost on many of those who live on the privileged side of the chasm, is the full meaning and impact of the words "systemic" and "institutionalized."
When one compares affirmative action to reverse discrimination they are assuming that a level playing field exists. It doesn't. A reduction in privilege of the dominant race in a society whose operating system is biased against other races, one which is backed by hundreds of years of treating other races as sub-human, is not equivalent to reverse discrimination. It's a small gesture of corrective and remedial action to address a huge inequity.
When one references the Supreme Court, or conflates it to be akin to a "Divine Court" of absolute justice, they fail to see that the court is also part of the same institution that codified and protected, due to constitutionally enacted tenets, the unequal and inhumane treatment of one race by another. What is accepted by many as the binding fabric of our republic was deeply flawed and far from being a divine inspiration. It was created by man, had race inequality baked into it, and was subject to all of the flaws and biases that are part of the human condition. Yes there have been amendments, corrections, rulings made, words spoken, and actions taken over the years to scrub the most abhorrent stains from the founding documents and laws that define the fabric of our society. But a lot of what was baked into US society and culture from its earliest days persists to this day, both the good parts and the bad parts, regardless of what exists in the documents.
Change comes easy on paper, but it comes much harder in the hearts of man. This is especially true when the signals that trigger the systemic and institutionalized social mechanisms of discrimination cannot be hidden from view or kept to oneself. Race neutrality is an abstract notion that does not exist in human minds or in society or culture as a whole. Top-down laws and edicts haven't moved the needle, at least not fast or far enough. Change must come from the bottom-up and it must be tangible, implementable, and measurable. Even a cursory or narrowly focused blinder perspective of where we are today as a society and culture tells an unflattering story. The data doesn't lie.
The long standing, entrenched systems and institutions that are dominating the status quo of institutionalized inequity are very resistant to change. Those in-charge are overwhelmingly those who are privileged by the status quo. They are the ones who must change and take action. Harvard University recognizes this reality and has decided that now is the time for action and is applying what they, and Apple and other companies, feel is their best possible option. If we were even remotely close to having a level playing field we could ruminate over philosophical subtleties and notions like race neutrality. What Apple and these companies are saying is that we no longer have time for philosophical musings. The suffering must end. Action is needed. Now. I agree with Harvard and Apple.
It seems to me, as someone from outside the US, that while the US owes black people some reparations it doesn't really owe anybody else anything. If Asians would be over represented in Harvard relative to numbers, and Hispanics less so, so be it. Many countries have exams which are in fact blind to colour and race, and individual status.
The situation is even worse with the children of alumni, or the wealthy being preferred as well. Many of these are white ( for historical reasons) thus reducing the white quota for working class or middle class whites.
Certainly considering the fact that it is a human trait, equally shared among all genetic very slightly different groups.
Your statements lack recognition of the fact that there are a lot of people having no notion at all of unfair treatment of others because of whatever external feature.
Blaming individuals for things institutions did (or do) wrong while having noting to do with it, is incredibly wrong.
You also seem to fail to see that the whole racism and discrimination argument is hijacked by people and institutions to make them feel better while still being completely hypocritical and inherently inclined to discrimination themselves.
I don’t disagree with at least part of your assessment but it doesn’t have much to do with what I said. My point is that the judiciary is the venue to decide constitutional matters. It’s also worth noting that Harvard has been backed by the courts.
Surely the class and race privilege of easier admission, for the wealthy and alumni, would be the first thing to go in a supposedly more egalitarian admissions system.
As it stands there are probably the descendants of slave owners who can get in to Harvard quite easily, and the descendants of Vietnamese boat people, or Sicilian serfs, who can't - even though their grades alone would get them in.
( The other criteria, like extracurricular activities are also designed to allow in the trustafarian with time on his or her hands, rather than the working class guy forced to get a job through school.)
Yeah, this is a controversial topic for AppleInsider to open up for comments. I appreciate everyone’s civility so far.
You didn't answer my points but referred me back to your previous statement and a statement by Apple. To re-iterate:
1) If there is a history of White American discrimination against blacks or native americans then I fail to see how the kind of affirmative action that works against Asian Americans is pay back for that.
2) If Harvard wanted to use admission policy to promote equality then removing the benefit of being related to alumni or the rich would be the first thing on the agenda. Given that the alumni would have been the (white) elite going back generations in many cases, it is likely that the actual descendants of the whites who benefited directly from slavery or Jim Crow, or previous discriminatory Harvard admission policies towards WASPS are benefitting from this policy.
Also, AFAIK, there is no empirical evidence on employment discrimination against people on account of sexual orientation in Fortune 500 companies (relative to population share), certainly not in Silicon Valley and tech (which is what the article is talking about). If you kow of such evidence, please share it.
There is, however, PLENTY of evidence that racial minorities are severely underrepresented in corporate suites, most especially in Silicon Valley and tech companies.
It would be helpful to the discussion if you could stick to the facts under discussion in the case.
It sounds to me like these companies are pushing off to places like Harvard to solve some of their own failings and inadequacies.
Again, you brought up Apple’s executive team and underrepresented minorities not me and that has nothing to do with the case whatsoever. You are correct it is a distraction.