Apple's new diversity exec hails from Bank of America

Posted:
in General Discussion

Cynthia Bowman is Apple's latest Vice President of Inclusion and Diversity after a 17-year career at Bank of America.

An overhead view of Apple Park, Apple's circular campus in California
Apple Park



Apple has seen some changes around how it manages diversity and inclusion in recent years. The top executive job Chief People Officer was introduced in 2023 after splitting the role away from Deirdre O'Brien, who now focuses solely on retail.

The reporting executive to the Chief People Officer is the Vice President of Inclusion and Diversity. According to a report from Bloomberg, Cynthia Bowman has stepped into the role.

"We are excited that Cynthia Bowman will serve as Apple's next Vice President of Inclusion and Diversity," an Apple spokesperson said in a statement. "Cynthia is an accomplished leader in her field and is deeply committed to the work we're doing to advance inclusion and diversity at Apple."

Bowman served as chief diversity, inclusion, and social responsibility officer during her tenure at Bank of America. Her career there spanned 17 years before leaving earlier in 2024.

Apple's push for diversity and inclusion is one of the company's core tenants. It has a dedicated website to showcase the effort, though it hasn't been updated with new data since 2022.



Read on AppleInsider

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    mikethemartianmikethemartian Posts: 1,408member
    Banks are required to undergo regular Compliance exams (in addition to the financial safety and soundness exams).
  • Reply 2 of 22
    Dead_PoolDead_Pool Posts: 125member
    Now that the George Floyd hysteria has died down, DEI is waning, and under legal attack in many circles. Many DEI offices and positions are being reduced or even eliminated. DEI is an ideological, political viewpoint that is often just a euphemism for discrimination against whites. 
    40domiJapheygrandact73timpetuswilliamlondon9secondkox2argonautkdupuis77
  • Reply 3 of 22
    drdeadedrdeade Posts: 7member
    DEI positions are political tool to curtail the behavior of the masses and set one against the other!  Their jobs entail Rheems of anti white rhetoric and then training on how not to be white!  People who work these jobs produce nothing and in fact most often contribute to the same political elites that established this ridiculous position.  It’s the closest thing to a communist party political officer the US has ever had!  It’s the Race Czar!  Don’t believe me?  Then let’s post some of the rhetoric that they email their employees?  Let’s put up the stuff from IBM, and Google, Facebook and Apple!  Any takers? 
    40domitimpetus9secondkox2argonautDead_Poolkdupuis77
  • Reply 4 of 22
    red oakred oak Posts: 1,096member
    DEI is a cancer in an organization.   Shut that crap down 
    40domitimpetuswilliamlondon9secondkox2argonautDead_Poolkdupuis77
  • Reply 5 of 22
    40domi40domi Posts: 135member
    Apple needs to stay away from this DEI nonsense and start employing people on merit, because as far as innovation and marketing is concerned, they are falling way down on the standards set by Steve Jobs!!!
    timpetuswilliamlondon9secondkox2argonautkdupuis77
  • Reply 6 of 22
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,725member
    red oak said:
    DEI is a cancer in an organization.   Shut that crap down 
    DEI = Didn't Earn It
    40domitimpetuswilliamlondon9secondkox2argonautkdupuis77
  • Reply 7 of 22
    JinTechJinTech Posts: 1,038member
    40domi said:
    Apple needs to stay away from this DEI nonsense and start employing people on merit, because as far as innovation and marketing is concerned, they are falling way down on the standards set by Steve Jobs!!!
    While I have no doubts she will have a legitimate job, I am sure this is more of a marketing ploy than anything. When Apple gets accused of not having enough diversity, they can point to her and she can say some scripted hyperbole nonsense. 
    timpetuswilliamlondon9secondkox2argonaut
  • Reply 8 of 22
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,067member
    Came here to see the knee-jerk semi-racist and pretty-much-racist responses to anything ever posted here related to this subject. I was unsurprised to find it stacking up as expected.

    It's funny when people object to intentional efforts for diversity and inclusion as a pearl-clutching affront to "merit-based" hiring, as if merit based hiring has ever been a thing. When non-male, non-white people are excluded and steered away from a field like coding or engineering at every turn starting with early childhood, the resultant competition among the folks who make it to the point where they can even apply for the job cannot then be called winners in a merit-based system. If your competition has been repeatedly kneecapped before they ever make it to the starting line, getting to the finish line first does not make you a merit-based winner. If half your competition has never had a chance to get to the race, even as you "win," you should know that you've never actually been tested in a merit-based system.
    edited May 22 VictorMortimerwilliamlondonJustSomeGuy1dewmemuthuk_vanalingamAlex_V9secondkox2
  • Reply 9 of 22
    40domi40domi Posts: 135member
    AppleZulu said:
    Came here to see the knee-jerk semi-racist and pretty-much-racist responses to anything ever posted here related to this subject. I was unsurprised to find it stacking up as expected.

    It's funny when people object to intentional efforts for diversity and inclusion as a pearl-clutching affront to "merit-based" hiring, as if merit based hiring has ever been a thing. When non-male, non-white people are excluded and steered away from a field like coding or engineering at every turn starting with early childhood, the resultant competition among the folks who make it to the point where they can even apply for the job cannot then be called winners in a merit-based system. If your competition has been repeatedly kneecapped before they ever make it to the starting line, getting to the finish line first does not make you a merit-based winner. If half your competition has never had a chance to get to the race, even as you "win," you should know that you've never actually been tested in a merit-based system.
    Typical racist response, full of unsubstantiated dribble!

    9secondkox2argonautwilliamlondonkdupuis77
  • Reply 10 of 22
    AppleZulu said:
    Came here to see the knee-jerk semi-racist and pretty-much-racist responses to anything ever posted here related to this subject. I was unsurprised to find it stacking up as expected.

    It's funny when people object to intentional efforts for diversity and inclusion as a pearl-clutching affront to "merit-based" hiring, as if merit based hiring has ever been a thing. When non-male, non-white people are excluded and steered away from a field like coding or engineering at every turn starting with early childhood, the resultant competition among the folks who make it to the point where they can even apply for the job cannot then be called winners in a merit-based system. If your competition has been repeatedly kneecapped before they ever make it to the starting line, getting to the finish line first does not make you a merit-based winner. If half your competition has never had a chance to get to the race, even as you "win," you should know that you've never actually been tested in a merit-based system.
    I was afraid I'd see nothing but racism in this thread.  Thank you for being the voice of sanity.
    JustSomeGuy1dewmeAlex_V9secondkox2argonaut
  • Reply 11 of 22
    williamlondonwilliamlondon Posts: 1,353member
    What a bunch of fucking bigots in this forum, so disgusting.
    JustSomeGuy1dewmeAlex_V9secondkox2argonaut
  • Reply 12 of 22
    40domi said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Came here to see the knee-jerk semi-racist and pretty-much-racist responses to anything ever posted here related to this subject. I was unsurprised to find it stacking up as expected.

    It's funny when people object to intentional efforts for diversity and inclusion as a pearl-clutching affront to "merit-based" hiring, as if merit based hiring has ever been a thing. When non-male, non-white people are excluded and steered away from a field like coding or engineering at every turn starting with early childhood, the resultant competition among the folks who make it to the point where they can even apply for the job cannot then be called winners in a merit-based system. If your competition has been repeatedly kneecapped before they ever make it to the starting line, getting to the finish line first does not make you a merit-based winner. If half your competition has never had a chance to get to the race, even as you "win," you should know that you've never actually been tested in a merit-based system.
    Typical racist response, full of unsubstantiated dribble!

    Systemic racism is overwhelmingly well documented. Unfortunately, evidence ("substantiation") is not actually of interest to people who foam at the mouth the moment the topic comes up.

    However, for the benefit of those who are not in that group, here are a couple of examples pulled at random from a quick google search. I'm sure someone who works in this field can easily provide better examples.

    It's easy to mess with data, or the analysis of it, to produce confusing or deceptive results. For example, this article contains lots of data, much of which supports the concepts of systemic and institutional racism, but it's consistently presented badly, with correct but deceptive charts that overstate the problem by, for example, using a nonzero baseline. This is a peculiar choice by the authors, since you don't need to be deceptive to support their position. Of course, many people who have a political stance against those concepts (like the posters here, but less obviously frothing) engage in the same behavior, when they bother to look at the data at all - which they mostly don't, since it's blindingly clear they're wrong.

    If you are curious about why and how things got so bad, one of the best examples, and best documented, is probably the history of redlining in this country. This practice alone shifted vast amounts of wealth out of the hands of minorities, blacks especially. Googling "redlining in the US" will probably give you a decent start.
    dewmemuthuk_vanalingamAlex_V9secondkox2argonautwilliamlondon
  • Reply 13 of 22
    I'll add that calling people racists when they are attempting to provide some minimal redress for centuries of wrongdoing are following a time-honored playbook. By labeling others with descriptions that apply to themselves, they (often successfully) seek to confuse the issue and avoid the blame they deserve.

    "When everyone's a nazi, nobody's a nazi!"

    It can be hard to distinguish the truth in such cases. And it's getting harder by the hour.
    dewmemuthuk_vanalingam9secondkox2Alex_Vargonautwilliamlondonkdupuis77fastasleep
  • Reply 14 of 22
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 2,835member
    DEI is a sham and waste of money. 

    Hire the most qualified applicants and reap the rewards. 

    It’s really that simple. 
    argonautkdupuis77
  • Reply 15 of 22
    DEI is a sham and waste of money. 

    Hire the most qualified applicants and reap the rewards. 

    It’s really that simple. 
    And yet a lot of smart and successful people think that it's not. They think that having a diversity of viewpoints and life experiences among their employees is a strength.
    Alex_V9secondkox2argonautwilliamlondonfastasleep
  • Reply 16 of 22
    Alex_VAlex_V Posts: 225member
    Dead_Pool said:
    Now that the George Floyd hysteria has died down… 
    How to say “I’m a psychopath,” without actually saying “I’m a psychopath.”
    9secondkox2argonautwilliamlondonJustSomeGuy1
  • Reply 17 of 22
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 2,835member
    DEI is a sham and waste of money. 

    Hire the most qualified applicants and reap the rewards. 

    It’s really that simple. 
    And yet a lot of smart and successful people think that it's not. They think that having a diversity of viewpoints and life experiences among their employees is a strength.
    Diversity is great. But so is Unity. That’s strength. 

    Humans are by nature diverse in appearance and viewpoints. You don’t need a DEI department to create the talent pool. It’s already there. All you do is hire the best out of interested humans. It’s really that simple. Real life 101. If that means the more qualified person is not the preferred skin color, so be it. 

    Heck, some of these dei department heads are blatantly racist, posting crazy anti-white garbage all over social media. They think DEI means “not white” when white people contribute to diversity, deserve equity, and should be included as well. 

    I’ve worked at hewlett-packard, ATT, Verizon, and a number of enterprises and diversity was never lacking. No one needs a  DEI department. It’s literally a waste of money. Affirmative action was ruled illegal. DEI is the exact same thing. Just wearing different clothes. 
    edited May 23 argonautkdupuis77
  • Reply 18 of 22
    DEI is a sham and waste of money. 

    Hire the most qualified applicants and reap the rewards. 

    It’s really that simple. 
    And yet a lot of smart and successful people think that it's not. They think that having a diversity of viewpoints and life experiences among their employees is a strength.
    Diversity is great. But so is Unity. That’s strength. 

    Humans are by nature diverse in appearance and viewpoints. You don’t need a DEI department to create the talent pool. It’s already there. All you do is hire the best out of interested humans. It’s really that simple. Real life 101. If that means the more qualified person is not the preferred skin color, so be it. 

    Heck, some of these dei department heads are blatantly racist, posting crazy anti-white garbage all over social media. They think DEI means “not white” when white people contribute to diversity, deserve equity, and should be included as well. 

    I’ve worked at hewlett-packard, ATT, Verizon, and a number of enterprises and diversity was never lacking. No one needs a  DEI department. It’s literally a waste of money. Affirmative action was ruled illegal. DEI is the exact same thing. Just wearing different clothes. 
    It would have been easier to say "I don't know what DEI is." rather than just make things up and dig in on your initial comment. 
    Alex_Vargonautmuthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondonJustSomeGuy1
  • Reply 19 of 22

    AppleZulu said:
    Came here to see the knee-jerk semi-racist and pretty-much-racist responses to anything ever posted here related to this subject. I was unsurprised to find it stacking up as expected.

    It's funny when people object to intentional efforts for diversity and inclusion as a pearl-clutching affront to "merit-based" hiring, as if merit based hiring has ever been a thing. When non-male, non-white people are excluded and steered away from a field like coding or engineering at every turn starting with early childhood, the resultant competition among the folks who make it to the point where they can even apply for the job cannot then be called winners in a merit-based system. If your competition has been repeatedly kneecapped before they ever make it to the starting line, getting to the finish line first does not make you a merit-based winner. If half your competition has never had a chance to get to the race, even as you "win," you should know that you've never actually been tested in a merit-based system.
    Thank you. 
    Alex_Vmuthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondon
  • Reply 20 of 22
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,067member
    DEI is a sham and waste of money. 

    Hire the most qualified applicants and reap the rewards. 

    It’s really that simple. 
    And yet a lot of smart and successful people think that it's not. They think that having a diversity of viewpoints and life experiences among their employees is a strength.
    Diversity is great. But so is Unity. That’s strength. 

    Humans are by nature diverse in appearance and viewpoints. You don’t need a DEI department to create the talent pool. It’s already there. All you do is hire the best out of interested humans. It’s really that simple. Real life 101. If that means , so be it. 

    Heck, some of these dei department heads are blatantly racist, posting crazy anti-white garbage all over social media. They think DEI means “not white” when white people contribute to diversity, deserve equity, and should be included as well. 

    I’ve worked at hewlett-packard, ATT, Verizon, and a number of enterprises and diversity was never lacking. No one needs a  DEI department. It’s literally a waste of money. Affirmative action was ruled illegal. DEI is the exact same thing. Just wearing different clothes. 
    It's not just about diversity of viewpoints. It's about the actual life experiences of people who are not white men, that either prevent or make vastly more difficult their path to, say, employment at a tech firm. You are apparently oblivious to all that. I don't know you, but I'll assume you're well-intentioned. I'll assume you envision yourself as 'color blind' and 'gender blind' with regard to these things. As such, you think, "All you do is hire the best out of interested humans. It’s really that simple. Real life 101. If that means the more qualified person is not the preferred skin color, so be it."

    That's where you've lost the thread. How do you "hire the best out of interested humans" when many are told that they shouldn't be or are not allowed to be interested? Up until laws were passed to force the issue, the overtly preferred skin color was 'white,' and that skin enclosed the person a man. There was no "so be it" attitude if "the more qualified person is not the preferred skin color." If you weren't the preferred skin color, you need not apply. Try watching the movie Hidden Figures. It's all over cable TV these days, so it should be easy to find. It dramatizes, among other things, Katherine Johnson's experience as the actual most-qualified mathematician in a room full of white male engineers in NASA's early days. She was tentatively brought in because, as a clerical "computer" (a human calculator), it was noticed that she was really good at math, and these folks were on a deadline to beat the Russians into space, so they made an exception to the all-white rule.

    Once there, Johnson was nearly fired at one point because she "took long breaks," which were necessitated because the "colored" bathrooms were in a different building. You can't take a quick pee break when it takes twenty minutes just to get there and back. The male engineers resented Johnson's mere presence and loathed the idea that a negro woman would check their math.

    The fact is that up until that point, none of those men ever had to compete against Katherine Johnson or anyone else who looked like her means that they literally were not employed just based on merit. They were first selected because they were white men, and only then did they compete against each other. Before that moment, they hadn't competed against the meritoriously better mathematician because she hadn't even been allowed in the room.

    You'll probably say, "That was sixty years ago. It's different, now."

    Is it really? Hint: not so much. Without civil rights laws making it illegal to overtly exclude women and racial minorities, it would be exactly the same now as it was then. 

    What about with civil rights laws? Look around with your eyes open. That didn't end racism or sexism. Not by a long-shot. Ask any woman or any racial minority who's trying to compete in your "merit-based' world when the last time was that they experienced sexism or racism, and it will be recent. Quite possibly today. It's still true that, before they even get into the building, from early childhood to now, they've experienced large and small indignities, roadblocks and hurdles that you did not face, for no other reason than their gender or ethnicity, just to get into the same room as you.

    Now we have civil rights laws that disallow overt exclusion, and we have diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives designed to recognize that the civil rights laws aren't that old, and are not expansive enough to assure that many people still haven't had a much harder time just getting into the room for no reason other than their ethnicity or gender, and what do we get?

    Resentment! Ignoring the fact that the previous status quo was never merit-based, the assumption now is that anyone who is not white and male didn't get here on merit, so they are all suspect, and probably don't deserve to be here. 

    The reality is that until the issue is forced, and forced for long enough that racial and gender diversity starts to feel normal, there can be no straight-up merit based system. You should also read MLK's I Have a Dream speech - all of it. King did help us envision a world where we judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, but he also said that we have to do the hard work first before we get there. You can't have a fair result at the finish line until you've assured there is equality in getting to the starting line. 
    williamlondonJustSomeGuy1Alex_Vmuthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.