Criticism About Diversity Causes Apple To Changes Bylaws

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Apparently "think different" hasn't been Apple's policy when it comes to its board of directors. The company has recently vowed to "consider women and minorities as board candidates." I guess being considered as a candidate is better than nothing.

Apple is now adding the following language to the charter: “The nominating committee is committed to actively seeking out highly qualified women and individuals from minority groups to include in the pool from which board nominees are chosen.”
Click to expand...
 
"I guess being considered as a candidate is better than nothing."

Are you suggesting they should do anything more than consider candidates qualifications? What do you want, board members being appointed by race/sex/ethnicity to meet a "diversity" target?

Here's hoping the next surgeon to work on you was appointed by quota and not skill.
 
Steve said:
"think different"
Click to expand...

didn't steve jobs kill off the think different campaign when he rejoined apple like what, 15~ years ago? :p

amazing how effective that marketing campaign was considering it was when apple was in the shitter and people still talk about it
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Are you suggesting they should do anything more than consider candidates qualifications? What do you want, board members being appointed by race/sex/ethnicity to meet a "diversity" target?
Click to expand...

It happens quite a bit in some places. Well, he's not as qualified and he doesn't exactly meet our needs, but he's a transgendered black man. Hire him.
 
Why not just hire qualified people? It doesn't matter gender, race or anything. Hire competent people.
 
If most people didn't realize you were biased to begin with why publicly announce a change to "consider women an minorities" when most didn't have a clue before...you just created your own shit-storm, for what? Can't you just implement it without announcing it?
 
I agree with others ... I don't have a problem that they make sure the pool of candidates being considered has diversity but the actual board selection should be based on merit, not just diversity
 
How about hiring who is best qualified regardless of minority status? Why do libs always focus on color, sex and ethnicity and not one's ability? Why has "Diversity" become so sacred and cherished? It's like an obsession with M&M's.
 
Why doesn't Samsung need to have more "diversity" on their board?
Click to expand...

They put all their "Diversity" points into electing a woman as President.
 
^Ignorant as hell comments from a bunch of people with an angry 'they're-out-to-get-us' mentality....ACTIVATE ROCKET BOOSTERS!!!!%

Yes Steve, how DARE you even mention that women should be considered for board positions! How DARE you!

They took our jobs! Or something! Rabble rabble rabble...
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Are you suggesting they should do anything more than consider candidates qualifications? What do you want, board members being appointed by race/sex/ethnicity to meet a "diversity" target?
Click to expand...

Since you didn't read the article...let me help you.

The article plainly states they are being accused of NOT even considering women / minorities and that is how they ended up with the board make-up they have had forever (old white dudes).

The company was threatened with a shareholder vote in February to address the issue. The company avoided the vote by adding the following language to the charter: "The nominating committee is committed to actively seeking out highly qualified women and individuals from minority groups to include in the pool from which board nominees are chosen." Which is kinda funny considering they didn't say they would add women or minorities, they would just "include them in the pool" from which nominees are chosen.

Twist it any way you want, those are the facts.
 
Steve said:
Since you didn't read the article...let me help you.

The article plainly states they are being accused of NOT even considering women / minorities and that is how they ended up with the board make-up they have had forever (old white dudes).

The company was threatened with a shareholder vote in February to address the issue. The company avoided the vote by adding the following language to the charter: "The nominating committee is committed to actively seeking out highly qualified women and individuals from minority groups to include in the pool from which board nominees are chosen."

Twist it any way you want, those are the facts.
Click to expand...

Stop reading the posted articles! Stop using facts that don't agree with my worldview! Rabble rabble rabble
 
tubular said:
^Ignorant as hell comments from a bunch of people with an angry 'they're-out-to-get-us' mentality....ACTIVATE ROCKET BOOSTERS!!!!%

Yes Steve, how DARE you even mention that women should be considered for board positions! How DARE you!

They took our jobs! Or something! Rabble rabble rabble...
Click to expand...

I think everyone is saying every "group" should be considered. :confused:
 
Despotes said:
How about hiring who is best qualified regardless of minority status? Why do libs always focus on color, sex and ethnicity and not one's ability? Why has "Diversity" become so sacred and cherished? It's like an obsession with M&M's.
Click to expand...

How else could an unqualified minority take/hold onto power?
 
Despotes said:
Why do libs always focus on color, sex and ethnicity and not one's ability?
Click to expand...

For better or for worse, there are groups/classes that have been/are currently being discriminated against for one reason or another. Trying to make up for that with affirmative action was simply a means of saying that all other things being equal, there were/are highly skilled individuals in the aforementioned groups that were/are being denied opportunities through no fault of their own and that was a definable method of allowing some of them the opportunity they were/are being denied.

Is this a perfect solution? Far from it. However the solution of do nothing, or letting people sort it out for themselves would have kept a status quo of people not being allowed to compete for opportunities just because of what they looked like or who they are. If you can't even get your foot in the door, you're highly disadvantaged.

Maybe crApple is just covering their asses, or this is simply a PR reaction. Either way making baseless statements such as the one by Despotes serve no purpose.
 
Women can clearly do the job look at the owner of previous license holder of the Lord of the Rings something Gmb before WB bought it. But seriously the decision of who to hire should be based on what they have done, their ethics but work and social and by how much they value the company and it's ip. Adding a line that women and minorities need to be considered means one of two things. One they are not getting a fair try or two the ones applying for the job simply are not as good as the other candidates and they are simply butt hut. The best way to test this is get something the woman who ran for senator in Cali. or some other female or other group that feels they are not getting a fail try and see what happens.

One of my teachers at Chubb knew a lot more about systems than a lot of other people I have run across and he said he would play the race card just to get the job even when he was better qualified than the other candidates.
 
There are few clearer ways to declare how sexist and racist you are than to make a special rule that requires you to be less sexist and racist.

Par for the course for Apple though. Every time you turn around there is another report of them doing something scummy, yet the public still treats them like they are the greatest company ever. I wonder when people will start to catch on?
 
arentol said:
There are few clearer ways to declare how sexist and racist you are than to make a special rule that requires you to be less sexist and racist./QUOTE]

By all means, let's just sweep all unpleasantness under the rug and assume that nothing is wrong. After all, we got over the whole tribal mentality along time ago, so no one automatically discriminates against another group of people just because they're not from their own group.
Click to expand...
 
drakken said:
Women can clearly do the job look at the owner of previous license holder of the Lord of the Rings something Gmb before WB bought it. But seriously the decision of who to hire should be based on what they have done, their ethics but work and social and by how much they value the company and it's ip. Adding a line that women and minorities need to be considered means one of two things. One they are not getting a fair try or two the ones applying for the job simply are not as good as the other candidates and they are simply butt hut. The best way to test this is get something the woman who ran for senator in Cali. or some other female or other group that feels they are not getting a fail try and see what happens.

One of my teachers at Chubb knew a lot more about systems than a lot of other people I have run across and he said he would play the race card just to get the job even when he was better qualified than the other candidates.
Click to expand...

Your teacher sounds like just the type of black person most of us white people can't stand.

If you intentionally play the race card (I don't care what the reason is) then you automatically fail in terms of being a decent person.

I don't care what color someone is or what someone has between their legs as long as they are able to do the job. One group whining because "they" didn't win is just sad and pathetic.

In 50 years if there is a total reversal of skin color in "power positions" - will I (as a white man) be able to bitch and complain till I get my way?
 
Steve said:
Since you didn't read the article...let me help you.

The article plainly states they are being accused of NOT even considering women / minorities and that is how they ended up with the board make-up they have had forever (old white dudes).

The company was threatened with a shareholder vote in February to address the issue. The company avoided the vote by adding the following language to the charter: "The nominating committee is committed to actively seeking out highly qualified women and individuals from minority groups to include in the pool from which board nominees are chosen." Which is kinda funny considering they didn't say they would add women or minorities, they would just "include them in the pool" from which nominees are chosen.

Twist it any way you want, those are the facts.
Click to expand...

Thank you Steve. I wish more would read the articles and comment rather than showing ignorance. I think that most people are so scared of their workplace "changing" that they'd rather have it look a certain way rather than hire the best person for the job. Sports was the same way at one time until teams decided that they want to win more than fit a certain look.

All people want is a chance to be considered for what they are qualified to do. Those guys suing aren't bringing litigation necessarily because they want women or minorities; it's because they want the best people for the job. Having the best people on your team makes your company the best it can be. Having a diverse workplace brings ideas from all walks of life and cultures to your company. Bringing in the best of those individuals instead of 3rd or 10th best of old white guys makes your company stronger.

To me for Apple to have to come to this shows how backwards thinking and ignorant they are today. Hopefully they can learn from this and hire the best people for the job in the future.
 
collegeboy69us said:
Your teacher sounds like just the type of black person most of us white people can't stand.

If you intentionally play the race card (I don't care what the reason is) then you automatically fail in terms of being a decent person.

I don't care what color someone is or what someone has between their legs as long as they are able to do the job. One group whining because "they" didn't win is just sad and pathetic.

In 50 years if there is a total reversal of skin color in "power positions" - will I (as a white man) be able to bitch and complain till I get my way?
Click to expand...

Assholes who abuse the race card are just keeping racism alive. I'm with you - I don't care what you look like or what's crawling between those skivvies. If you can do the job, can get along well with others on the job and work as a team, then you're qualified.
 
Steve said:
Since you didn't read the article...let me help you.

The article plainly states they are being accused of NOT even considering women / minorities and that is how they ended up with the board make-up they have had forever (old white dudes).

The company was threatened with a shareholder vote in February to address the issue. The company avoided the vote by adding the following language to the charter: "The nominating committee is committed to actively seeking out highly qualified women and individuals from minority groups to include in the pool from which board nominees are chosen." Which is kinda funny considering they didn't say they would add women or minorities, they would just "include them in the pool" from which nominees are chosen.

Twist it any way you want, those are the facts.
Click to expand...

You didn't read my post. I was specifically addressing your ad lib "better than nothing" comment. Since you're lamenting how little they're doing, exactly what more are you suggesting they do, besides consider candidates?
 
What they are doing is working, they are the most valuable and most profitable company.
 
tubular said:
What is descrimination? Lol
Click to expand...

discrimination (dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃən)

— n
1. unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice
2. subtle appreciation in matters of taste
3. the ability to see fine distinctions and differences
4. electronics the selection of a signal having a particular frequency, amplitude, phase, etc, effected by the elimination of other signals by means of a discriminator

Obviously, what he's saying is it would between the talented and the untalented. :D
 
Steve said:
Since you didn't read the article...let me help you.

The article plainly states they are being accused of NOT even considering women / minorities and that is how they ended up with the board make-up they have had forever (old white dudes).

The company was threatened with a shareholder vote in February to address the issue. The company avoided the vote by adding the following language to the charter: "The nominating committee is committed to actively seeking out highly qualified women and individuals from minority groups to include in the pool from which board nominees are chosen." Which is kinda funny considering they didn't say they would add women or minorities, they would just "include them in the pool" from which nominees are chosen.

Twist it any way you want, those are the facts.
Click to expand...

Dude, seriously? Did you notice that one of the eight board members is a woman? That for all the talk that the board is "all white men", there's been a woman on the board since 2008? So how does "not even considering women/minorities" figure into it?
 
collegeboy69us said:
Your teacher sounds like just the type of black person most of us white people can't stand.If you intentionally play the race card (I don't care what the reason is) then you automatically fail in terms of being a decent person.
Click to expand...

Then...

collegeboy69us said:
I don't care what color someone is or what someone has between their legs as long as they are able to do the job. One group whining because "they" didn't win is just sad and pathetic.
Click to expand...

The cognitive dissonance between these two statements is deafening. First you make an obviously racial statement denigrating a particular race and then you say you don't care what color someone is?

collegeboy69us said:
In 50 years if there is a total reversal of skin color in "power positions" - will I (as a white man) be able to bitch and complain till I get my way?
Click to expand...

Sure... when all of the minorities take your property, sell your children, f**k your wife, then force her to breed with other captives or captors, prevent you or your family from owning property, prevent you from voting, and then do the same to all of your future relatives or anyone that looks like you for say oh 200 to 350 years. Oh and anytime you watch a movie anyone that looks like you dies first..no matter what has happened during the plot.

After this point for 50 years we will create your own private version of affirmative action... after we shoot and kill any hero that you have looked up to. Then we'll call it even. After that bit by bit we'll dismantle it through our judicial system made up of judges and juries that look nothing like you.

However, every year since it's inception we will remind you that any crumb gained from this "affirmative action" is really reverse racism. In fact we will urge you stop talking about the past all together so that "we can heal" while your former oppressors dress up in articles of clothing not seen since the Baroque period and haunt your existence by telling you, "We want our country back!" They won't ever be specific as to whom they want it from, but you'll know who the f*ck they mean.

At some point in time in the future, one of your descendants will take a liking to computer science and eventually frequently visit a site geared towards their hobbies and occupation. He or she will stumble upon a person that has psychologically compartmentalized every f*cked up historical milestone or injustice in your family's existence by telling you any mention of race in any way shape or form is "playing the race card." This person will then opine about how things would be if the entire historical time line was redone in a time period where time machines don't exist, and the current scientific climate won't allow.

You will then wonder how could someone possibly be so divorced from history, and well empathy. You will then take 20 to 30 minutes of your life reminding the person on the other side of the argument just how nonsensical their viewpoint is.

So do we have a deal?
 
Yes, because white people living today bear the responsibility of the injustice slavery. Or not.
 
Sounds like too many people in this thread fell asleep during US history class.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Yes, because white people living today bear the responsibility of the injustice slavery. Or not.
Click to expand...

Well, since white people today are being carried by the backs of those that suffered in the past and currently, why not?

What seems unfair about that?
 
Dreaz said:
Well, since white people today are being carried by the backs of those that suffered in the past and currently, why not?

What seems unfair about that?
Click to expand...

You assume that all white people are in the position they are in because of slavery, and you don't appreciate the irony?
 
LeninGHOLA said:
You assume that all white people are in the position they are in because of slavery, and you don't appreciate the irony?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has said all white people are in the position they are in because of slavery. However, to deny that there's a benefit from being in the majority is absurd.
 
kac77 said:
I don't think anyone has said all white people are in the position they are in because of slavery. However, to deny that there's a benefit from being in the majority is absurd.
Click to expand...

The only reason we still have racism/minorities is because people blow it up. Plus, if people see the same type of people acting a certain way, they tend to get judgmental of the entire race.
 
kac77 said:
I don't think anyone has said all white people are in the position they are in because of slavery. However, to deny that there's a benefit from being in the majority is absurd.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's exactly what Dreaz said.

I didn't deny there was a benefit from being in the majority, it's just not a problem that's fixable via legislation. It's something that needs to be fixed at the societal level, through media and community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top