This is a 14th amendment civil rights violation against white males. You can't hire someone based on their skin color or gender.
Sure you can. The problem with Apple is they are announcing their plans which opens them up to that sort of criticism. If they simply kept quiet, they ought to be able to hire anyone they want and never offer any explanation as to why.
Sure you can. The problem with Apple is they are announcing their plans which opens them up to that sort of criticism. If they simply kept quiet, they ought to be able to hire anyone they want and never offer any explanation as to why.
Apple should be hiring the best person for the job period. Skin color, race and sexual orientation shouldn't matter. I hate when people trot out the "Steve wouldn't have" line but in this case I'm 100% certain he never would have released diversity statistics.
Why is it considered skewed if an employer has say a majority of white employees? I fail to see what the big deal is. You don't see people out there saying there aren't enough white players in the NBA. All these companies that are trying to hire more "minorities" are really basically doing reverse racism. Immigration reform? Why do we need that? We already have laws for immigration, but the issue is this current administration sues states who try to enforce the laws themselves. See Arizona and others. Allowing millions of more uneducated people in this country isn't going to help anything. The overwhelming majority of people flooding across the border don't even have a high school education. There are current programs that allow people in fields such as tech to get visas so they are able to come here to work and live.
The employer, Apple and others, are saying that through their own evaluation, they aren't always hiring the more qualified. They are leaning towards hiring more white males even when someone who isn't a white male is more qualified. There isn't a single company in their right mind that would hire a certain gender or race group purely for PR gains. It will come and bite them in the ass in the long run with poor products, customer service, etc. and that would ultimately be harder to correct.
WRT your NBA analogy...the owners just want to win, regardless of race. Heck - that doesn't even preclude them from being racist. Look at Sterling. Ultimately, if you pay that kind of money, you better be damn sure that the person is the best qualified, regardless of their race. How about the women's world cup? Just the fact that they were forced to play on astroturf, which was causing issues, is indicative of discrimination. How about this - http://www.vox.com/2015/3/11/8189679/serena-williams-indian-wells-racism
The immigration reform that I am talking about has nothing to do with people crossing the borders illegally. The current work visa system isn't working. It is still limited in the number of visas issued, among a lot of other issues. These are people that are highly educated, want a way to move here and contribute to the US economy.
I am still waiting to see how Apple and other companies are going to make minorities who are not intersted in being an Engineer or any kind or sort into an engineer of some kind. You can not hire what does not exist today. What this sounds like is Apple is targeting those few individual who fall into the minority category which also happen to be an engineer and hiring them away from other companies.
But Ive already worked for two of the biggest names in the world....I'm black and there is interest. I'd take Apple up if they offered me a job. I'd even take slightly less salary to work with them. I just want the opportunity. After seeing the new Apple Music and realizing it's potential, I've determined that I would have great interest in working for Apple. Presumably, I'd want to work there until the bitter end.
There is still a lack of candidates, regardless of gender or race. It's actually one of the reason so many tech companies have been lobbying for immigration reform.
This lack of candidates is totally false. We have plenty of candidates and many engineers working at fast food, retail, and many other areas because they could not find a permanent engineering job. Moreover, many US companies have laid off many experienced engineers and forced many to early retirement to work at other disciplines. Unfortunately, engineering has become a per-contract job and engineers are hired by many companies for a short time span and then fired.
It used to be that on a bad economy, companies would analyze their pool of employees. Then keep the best a fire the low performing ones. However, this took too much effort and upper managers did not really understood the technical capabilities of their staff. So now, if you are on the wrong area, the whole team gets cut off, no matter how many good engineers are laid off.
This has been exaggerated by bonus pays that rewards many CEOs and VPs for cutting cost and sending the jobs offshore or hiring non-residents for lower salaries. This is independent of the background and expertise of the offshore pool of engineers or how is this going to affect the company in the future. Basically, US engineers are forced to train Indian or Chinese engineers to take their jobs. As the jobs move offshore, then new projects get started offshore and less opportunities here.
To make matters worse, minorities are the most affected since their hopes for promotion and movement are hampered by glass ceilings. Thus, many minorities tend to concentrate on other disciplines that are not greatly affected by these issues, have less thicker glass ceilings, or have longer term or more secure employment prospects.
Apple should be hiring the best person for the job period. Skin color, race and sexual orientation shouldn't matter.
We don't know why Apple does a lot of things that seem contrary to our logic. Perhaps in the long term this initiative will add directly to the bottom line. Who knows if a more diverse workforce might lead to increased sales into those same populations that are under represented in Apples current customer base.
Apple should be hiring the best person for the job period. Skin color, race and sexual orientation shouldn't matter. I hate when people trot out the "Steve wouldn't have" line but in this case I'm 100% certain he never would have released diversity statistics.
What you think Steve would or wouldn't have done is utterly irrelevant, as if he was alive, the SJ of 2015 would definitely be making different decisions to the Steve of 2010 (or whatever), based on changing contexts and landscape. I strongly believe many of the major decisions that Apple's leadership has made, which went contrary to what SJ might have done, have directly led Apple to more explosive success. I truly believe SJ would have continued to refine and modify his ideologies to eliminate Apple's perceived disadvantages (such as limited functionality and flexibility) which iOS7-8 went a long way to address. Stop pretending the SJ you knew would have stayed frozen in place until today- he would have continued to change and adapt, to make sure Apple remains the best company on the planet, in all respects. Apple has adapted, changed, and expanded significantly in the last few years, shedding away some outdated principles, and almost all for the good.
This lack of candidates is totally false. We have plenty of candidates and many engineers working at fast food, retail, and many other areas because they could not find a permanent engineering job. Moreover, many US companies have laid off many experienced engineers and forced many to early retirement to work at other disciplines. Unfortunately, engineering has become a per-contract job and engineers are hired by many companies for a short time span and then fired.
This is very very true. Companies these day would rather higher what are effectively slaves than to higher experienced and capable individuals. The trend is to higher people on work visa or engineers straight out of school and then lay them off after a project is finished. I've seen this personally and it wasn't in a traditional tech oriented company.
It used to be that on a bad economy, companies would analyze their pool of employees. Then keep the best a fire the low performing ones. However, this took too much effort and upper managers did not really understood the technical capabilities of their staff. So now, if you are on the wrong area, the whole team gets cut off, no matter how many good engineers are laid off.
You hit upon an important point here, too many professional manager have no idea what the people they manage do. They don't understand the importance of skills maintenance, experience and general competence. In many cases they manage by irrationally yelling at people.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">This has been </span>
exaggerated<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> by bonus pays that rewards many CEOs and VPs for cutting cost and sending the jobs offshore or hiring non-residents for lower salaries. This is independent of the </span>
background<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> and expertise of the offshore pool of engineers or how is this going to affect the company in the future. Basically, US engineers are forced to train Indian or Chinese engineers to take their jobs. As the jobs move offshore, then new projects get started offshore and less opportunities here.</span>
The idea that there are shortages with respect to tech worker is pure fantasy. It is a concept promoted by management teams to lower their expenses often at the expense of their products.
To make matters worse, minorities are the most affected since their hopes for promotion and movement are hampered by glass ceilings. Thus, many minorities tend to concentrate on other disciplines that are not greatly affected by these issues, have less thicker glass ceilings, or have longer term or more secure employment prospects.
The fact is that the guy running a lawn maintenance company has better long term prospects than the average programmer. Better yet such a guy is often the boss and ultimately he is directly responsible to his customers. Not that dealing with customers is all that great but if you have enough customers you really never have to worry about a layoff. Especially a layoff due to irrational cost cutting when a company is otherwise a profitable ongoing business.
It used to be that on a bad economy, companies would analyze their pool of employees. Then keep the best a fire the low performing ones. However, this took too much effort and upper managers did not really understood the technical capabilities of their staff. So now, if you are on the wrong area, the whole team gets cut off, no matter how many good engineers are laid off.
Exactly the modus operandi of the company I work for.
And the team is chosen by how good the number of team members fits the numbers of employees to be laid off...
There is discrimination in the corporate world despite what you hear about Asians as programmers. And sometimes you have to right the wrongs of the past
I wish companies would just hire based on QUALIFICATIONS no matter race, sex. If a woman or minority is more qualified than a white male, ok. If not, ok.
I want to think Apple is getting the BEST people they can get to help make their products and not discriminate against ANYONE or give anyone unfair advantages. EVERYTHING is PC paralysis these days.
If there is a skew toward a race or gender for any reason other than qualifications, indeed, that is a problem. But THAT is the problem that needs to be addressed. Not just simply giving FAVOR to a certain race or gender just to 'balance' the crowd.
What if you have people with very similar qualifications but are of a different race or gender. How do you choose then?
Personality, how they carry themselves, how they respond to hypothetical or simulated situations. It's part of the interviewer's skills that I'm sure are taught at Apple as they are at other corporations.
First: The 14th Amendment was created to give basic rights to former slaves. Whites were not in the "protected class". Over time, jurisprudence has evolved so that it has been applied to confer rights to other groups, the latest being Gays seeking the rights to marry.
Second: The 14th Amendment applies to the Government. Specifically, it reads, "no STATE". Apple is a private company and if it recognizes that there is value to having different racial minorities in their workforce and if it believes that their presence will enhance their PRIVATE company and help it make a better company and serve wide swaths of populations worldwide (mind you, people of color are dominant in the world and they buy Apple products too), then that is within their rights.
I wish companies would just hire based on QUALIFICATIONS no matter race, sex. If a woman or minority is more qualified than a white male, ok. If not, ok.
I want to think Apple is getting the BEST people they can get to help make their products and not discriminate against ANYONE or give anyone unfair advantages. EVERYTHING is PC paralysis these days.
If there is a skew toward a race or gender for any reason other than qualifications, indeed, that is a problem. But THAT is the problem that needs to be addressed. Not just simply giving FAVOR to a certain race or gender just to 'balance' the crowd.
The problem here is that whenever there is discussion of hiring more women or minorities, the knee jerk reactions by those who oppose racial diversity in the workplace is to point to qualifications. I doubt highly any company hires anyone who is not qualified.
There is a presumption that minorities and women aren't being hired because they aren't qualified, because why else bring up qualifications?
There is something in the process that leads to the imbalance. Many have researched and determined that unconscious bias contributes to people selecting candidates with Euro sounding names and upon interviewing, who may resemble their own social, work or familial circles. They do this not on purpose. They also let subconscious stereotypes they may have against certain groups influence their decision. Or they may assign a bad work or personal experience they had with another minority of the same race as the candidate and let those perceptions and that history guide their ultimate decision to hire or not.
White males and Asian males walk into interview rooms with an automatic subconscious check mark of being qualified and of "fitting in." It's up to them to erase that unearned benefit based solely on their race and gender. Everyone else do not get that benefit of the doubt and have additional hurdles to climb that a white and Asian male do not have.
Some would say that is a form of Affirmative Action itself, that unconscious bias that benefits those that share the same race and gender as the dominant race and gender in that workplace.
Finally, it is not Political Correctness when the research shows that groups that are more balanced are more successful. That's a business decision to aim to get to that more successful place.
Also, it is not the race or gender alone that is the reason for the success.
Rather, it is the background, experiences, awareness of cultural differences that can be used to enhance product development, for example.
There is no way that a workplace that only has one race and people from the same culture will be able to serve markets that include many other races and cultures. There will be a lot of missed opportunities (and money left on the table) based on that weakness of a monolithic work force.
If you think that white men know what's best for all other races and for both genders in the world then.... *sigh*
In the late 80s Apple was sued big time for so called discrimination, at the Fremont manufacturing plant to be exact. In addition to that there were a crew of Mormon Maintenance Techs who would only hire their own kind. Also there were a few of middle eastern guys who were passed up. Since then there has been a middle eastern guy the same guy who was passed up is now doing the same thing in the corporate head quarters, the guys doing the DFM in manufacturing. I am more then qualified and was passed up my self. The group is made of White, Middle Eastern, and Chinese decent. Not one Latino working in that group. But yet Tim Cook says equality for all. There hasn't been a good woman manager at Apple since Debbie Coleman, she ran manufacturing. Don't believe me check it our for your self Blacks and Latinos most of them are not in tech because they mostly do MBA, or some kind of bean counter position. I my self am a proud Latino Engineer. I think EOE sucks if go to school you get knowledge and when you get a job you acquire experience and wisdom. You can't get hired for what you don't know. But discrimination does exist for all. Its a divisive and it reflects on the person and corporation doing it.
Half of the planet are indian programmers; Google, MS, Oracle etc. have many principals who are indian. I only know Apple employees by the keynotes/presentations they do, and they're mighty WHITE and MALE. Last keynote was the first time I recall seeing females. As a corporate entity, they SEEM not to have many minorities, based on their public face. As for women in tech in general, girls will enter comp sci courses if they find them interesting. In the workplace, women have to deal with the quota of asinine dufuses that inhabit most tech startups like anyone else.
The last time I checked people from India are not on the list of discrimated minorities in the US, actuall no group who willing and legally immigrated to the US are on the list. I have worked in Tech for a long time and it takes a unique person, it is not all about being book smart either, It takes the ability to solve problems and attention to details which most of the populations has no desire to do. I said this before on this subject. I been involved in many attempts by government and companies trying to promote engineering to minorities, and all the efforts so far failed, you can not make someone into an into an engineer if they lack the ability or desire, it is like trying to make someone into a singer not everyone can sing no matter how much they work at it or you want them to be. Considering how much a rock star makes why are we trying to push more people in to being a rock star. No on scream that more minorites are not being hire in the singing industries.
Most times tech companies hire minorities into support roles but those position are few, and you can not hire non engineer minoritors into management roles over engineers, will not work, engineers have to see their boss as good as or better than them as an engineer, otherwise they have no respect for them. Most all management in Tech companies are working managers so if your not a manager with lots of engineering experience, an engineer will not work for them.
Again, the question is how do you take a group of people who have no interest in being an engineer and make them go to school to become and engineer so they can be hired.
This study by Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci from Cornell University found that, in STEM hiring in academia at least, the opposite is true. Women are typically hired 2:1 over men, when normalizing for qualifications and lifestyle.
"The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference."
"National randomized experiments and validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biology, engineering, economics, and psychology at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. In the main experiment, 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships who shared the same lifestyle (e.g., single without children, married with children). Applicants' profiles were systematically varied to disguise identically rated scholarship; profiles were counterbalanced by gender across faculty to enable between-faculty comparisons of hiring preferences for identically qualified women versus men. Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non–math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference."
I wonder what would happen if someone did a similar experiment in industry?
Comments
This is a 14th amendment civil rights violation against white males. You can't hire someone based on their skin color or gender.
Sure you can. The problem with Apple is they are announcing their plans which opens them up to that sort of criticism. If they simply kept quiet, they ought to be able to hire anyone they want and never offer any explanation as to why.
Apple should be hiring the best person for the job period. Skin color, race and sexual orientation shouldn't matter. I hate when people trot out the "Steve wouldn't have" line but in this case I'm 100% certain he never would have released diversity statistics.
Why is it considered skewed if an employer has say a majority of white employees? I fail to see what the big deal is. You don't see people out there saying there aren't enough white players in the NBA. All these companies that are trying to hire more "minorities" are really basically doing reverse racism. Immigration reform? Why do we need that? We already have laws for immigration, but the issue is this current administration sues states who try to enforce the laws themselves. See Arizona and others. Allowing millions of more uneducated people in this country isn't going to help anything. The overwhelming majority of people flooding across the border don't even have a high school education. There are current programs that allow people in fields such as tech to get visas so they are able to come here to work and live.
The employer, Apple and others, are saying that through their own evaluation, they aren't always hiring the more qualified. They are leaning towards hiring more white males even when someone who isn't a white male is more qualified. There isn't a single company in their right mind that would hire a certain gender or race group purely for PR gains. It will come and bite them in the ass in the long run with poor products, customer service, etc. and that would ultimately be harder to correct.
WRT your NBA analogy...the owners just want to win, regardless of race. Heck - that doesn't even preclude them from being racist. Look at Sterling. Ultimately, if you pay that kind of money, you better be damn sure that the person is the best qualified, regardless of their race. How about the women's world cup? Just the fact that they were forced to play on astroturf, which was causing issues, is indicative of discrimination. How about this - http://www.vox.com/2015/3/11/8189679/serena-williams-indian-wells-racism
The immigration reform that I am talking about has nothing to do with people crossing the borders illegally. The current work visa system isn't working. It is still limited in the number of visas issued, among a lot of other issues. These are people that are highly educated, want a way to move here and contribute to the US economy.
I am still waiting to see how Apple and other companies are going to make minorities who are not intersted in being an Engineer or any kind or sort into an engineer of some kind. You can not hire what does not exist today. What this sounds like is Apple is targeting those few individual who fall into the minority category which also happen to be an engineer and hiring them away from other companies.
But Ive already worked for two of the biggest names in the world....I'm black and there is interest. I'd take Apple up if they offered me a job. I'd even take slightly less salary to work with them. I just want the opportunity. After seeing the new Apple Music and realizing it's potential, I've determined that I would have great interest in working for Apple. Presumably, I'd want to work there until the bitter end.
There is still a lack of candidates, regardless of gender or race. It's actually one of the reason so many tech companies have been lobbying for immigration reform.
This lack of candidates is totally false. We have plenty of candidates and many engineers working at fast food, retail, and many other areas because they could not find a permanent engineering job. Moreover, many US companies have laid off many experienced engineers and forced many to early retirement to work at other disciplines. Unfortunately, engineering has become a per-contract job and engineers are hired by many companies for a short time span and then fired.
It used to be that on a bad economy, companies would analyze their pool of employees. Then keep the best a fire the low performing ones. However, this took too much effort and upper managers did not really understood the technical capabilities of their staff. So now, if you are on the wrong area, the whole team gets cut off, no matter how many good engineers are laid off.
This has been exaggerated by bonus pays that rewards many CEOs and VPs for cutting cost and sending the jobs offshore or hiring non-residents for lower salaries. This is independent of the background and expertise of the offshore pool of engineers or how is this going to affect the company in the future. Basically, US engineers are forced to train Indian or Chinese engineers to take their jobs. As the jobs move offshore, then new projects get started offshore and less opportunities here.
To make matters worse, minorities are the most affected since their hopes for promotion and movement are hampered by glass ceilings. Thus, many minorities tend to concentrate on other disciplines that are not greatly affected by these issues, have less thicker glass ceilings, or have longer term or more secure employment prospects.
We don't know why Apple does a lot of things that seem contrary to our logic. Perhaps in the long term this initiative will add directly to the bottom line. Who knows if a more diverse workforce might lead to increased sales into those same populations that are under represented in Apples current customer base.
Apple should be hiring the best person for the job period. Skin color, race and sexual orientation shouldn't matter. I hate when people trot out the "Steve wouldn't have" line but in this case I'm 100% certain he never would have released diversity statistics.
What you think Steve would or wouldn't have done is utterly irrelevant, as if he was alive, the SJ of 2015 would definitely be making different decisions to the Steve of 2010 (or whatever), based on changing contexts and landscape. I strongly believe many of the major decisions that Apple's leadership has made, which went contrary to what SJ might have done, have directly led Apple to more explosive success. I truly believe SJ would have continued to refine and modify his ideologies to eliminate Apple's perceived disadvantages (such as limited functionality and flexibility) which iOS7-8 went a long way to address. Stop pretending the SJ you knew would have stayed frozen in place until today- he would have continued to change and adapt, to make sure Apple remains the best company on the planet, in all respects. Apple has adapted, changed, and expanded significantly in the last few years, shedding away some outdated principles, and almost all for the good.
The fact is that the guy running a lawn maintenance company has better long term prospects than the average programmer. Better yet such a guy is often the boss and ultimately he is directly responsible to his customers. Not that dealing with customers is all that great but if you have enough customers you really never have to worry about a layoff. Especially a layoff due to irrational cost cutting when a company is otherwise a profitable ongoing business.
It used to be that on a bad economy, companies would analyze their pool of employees. Then keep the best a fire the low performing ones. However, this took too much effort and upper managers did not really understood the technical capabilities of their staff. So now, if you are on the wrong area, the whole team gets cut off, no matter how many good engineers are laid off.
Exactly the modus operandi of the company I work for.
And the team is chosen by how good the number of team members fits the numbers of employees to be laid off...
FYI -- this really happened in America:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
What if you have people with very similar qualifications but are of a different race or gender. How do you choose then?
Personality, how they carry themselves, how they respond to hypothetical or simulated situations. It's part of the interviewer's skills that I'm sure are taught at Apple as they are at other corporations.
First: The 14th Amendment was created to give basic rights to former slaves. Whites were not in the "protected class". Over time, jurisprudence has evolved so that it has been applied to confer rights to other groups, the latest being Gays seeking the rights to marry.
Second: The 14th Amendment applies to the Government. Specifically, it reads, "no STATE". Apple is a private company and if it recognizes that there is value to having different racial minorities in their workforce and if it believes that their presence will enhance their PRIVATE company and help it make a better company and serve wide swaths of populations worldwide (mind you, people of color are dominant in the world and they buy Apple products too), then that is within their rights.
I want to think Apple is getting the BEST people they can get to help make their products and not discriminate against ANYONE or give anyone unfair advantages. EVERYTHING is PC paralysis these days.
If there is a skew toward a race or gender for any reason other than qualifications, indeed, that is a problem. But THAT is the problem that needs to be addressed. Not just simply giving FAVOR to a certain race or gender just to 'balance' the crowd.
The problem here is that whenever there is discussion of hiring more women or minorities, the knee jerk reactions by those who oppose racial diversity in the workplace is to point to qualifications. I doubt highly any company hires anyone who is not qualified.
There is a presumption that minorities and women aren't being hired because they aren't qualified, because why else bring up qualifications?
There is something in the process that leads to the imbalance. Many have researched and determined that unconscious bias contributes to people selecting candidates with Euro sounding names and upon interviewing, who may resemble their own social, work or familial circles. They do this not on purpose. They also let subconscious stereotypes they may have against certain groups influence their decision. Or they may assign a bad work or personal experience they had with another minority of the same race as the candidate and let those perceptions and that history guide their ultimate decision to hire or not.
White males and Asian males walk into interview rooms with an automatic subconscious check mark of being qualified and of "fitting in." It's up to them to erase that unearned benefit based solely on their race and gender. Everyone else do not get that benefit of the doubt and have additional hurdles to climb that a white and Asian male do not have.
Some would say that is a form of Affirmative Action itself, that unconscious bias that benefits those that share the same race and gender as the dominant race and gender in that workplace.
Finally, it is not Political Correctness when the research shows that groups that are more balanced are more successful. That's a business decision to aim to get to that more successful place.
Also, it is not the race or gender alone that is the reason for the success.
Rather, it is the background, experiences, awareness of cultural differences that can be used to enhance product development, for example.
There is no way that a workplace that only has one race and people from the same culture will be able to serve markets that include many other races and cultures. There will be a lot of missed opportunities (and money left on the table) based on that weakness of a monolithic work force.
If you think that white men know what's best for all other races and for both genders in the world then.... *sigh*
What if you have people with very similar qualifications but are of a different race or gender. How do you choose then?
You pick the best psychological fit for the team. Apple does this all the time; they look for people who fit Apple culture.
Hiring people to fit quotas will likely destroy this, and soon enough, Apple itself. But hey, "diversity".
The last time I checked people from India are not on the list of discrimated minorities in the US, actuall no group who willing and legally immigrated to the US are on the list. I have worked in Tech for a long time and it takes a unique person, it is not all about being book smart either, It takes the ability to solve problems and attention to details which most of the populations has no desire to do. I said this before on this subject. I been involved in many attempts by government and companies trying to promote engineering to minorities, and all the efforts so far failed, you can not make someone into an into an engineer if they lack the ability or desire, it is like trying to make someone into a singer not everyone can sing no matter how much they work at it or you want them to be. Considering how much a rock star makes why are we trying to push more people in to being a rock star. No on scream that more minorites are not being hire in the singing industries.
Most times tech companies hire minorities into support roles but those position are few, and you can not hire non engineer minoritors into management roles over engineers, will not work, engineers have to see their boss as good as or better than them as an engineer, otherwise they have no respect for them. Most all management in Tech companies are working managers so if your not a manager with lots of engineering experience, an engineer will not work for them.
Again, the question is how do you take a group of people who have no interest in being an engineer and make them go to school to become and engineer so they can be hired.
You pick the best psychological fit for the team. Apple does this all the time; they look for people who fit Apple culture.
Hiring people to fit quotas will likely destroy this, and soon enough, Apple itself. But hey, "diversity".
But Apple's culture is striving for diversity. Were you not paying attention?
This study by Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci from Cornell University found that, in STEM hiring in academia at least, the opposite is true. Women are typically hired 2:1 over men, when normalizing for qualifications and lifestyle.
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.full
"The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference."
"National randomized experiments and validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biology, engineering, economics, and psychology at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. In the main experiment, 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships who shared the same lifestyle (e.g., single without children, married with children). Applicants' profiles were systematically varied to disguise identically rated scholarship; profiles were counterbalanced by gender across faculty to enable between-faculty comparisons of hiring preferences for identically qualified women versus men. Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non–math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference."
I wonder what would happen if someone did a similar experiment in industry?