Latest Apple Diversity Report

Apple's Tim Cook announced today that the company has hired more chicks. Who knows what jobs they will be filling but the company wanted you to know that.

We promised to improve those numbers and we’re happy to report that we have made progress. In the past year we hired over 11,000 women globally, which is 65 percent more than in the previous year. In the United States, we hired more than 2,200 Black employees — a 50 percent increase over last year — and 2,700 Hispanic employees, a 66 percent increase. In total, this represents the largest group of employees we’ve ever hired from underrepresented groups in a single year.

Oh man, I guess the _____ will be really _____ now!

And no new innovative products after jobs death besides a crappy over priced watch. Glad they got their priorities straight.

remember: just dont hire white people!

Hey Apple: Hire the best people available for the positions you need filled. Race and gender shouldn't matter.

Used to be you'd just hire qualified people. Now you have to worry about some posse coming in threatening you if you don't hire enough **diverse** staff.

Laughable.

lol

No word on any gay employees being killed yet at the Apple Store in Saudi Arabia, one of the three countries Apple does business with that consider homosexuality to be a capital crime. So I guess that counts as a win for tolerance and diversity? It's hard for me to keep track. Won't bake a cake: hatey H8! Outright murder: business opportunity. Does Tim Cook publish a newsletter so I can stay current?

I for one am glad to see Apple continue it's downward spiral. As a business they have always large ups and downs. I'm just surprised they managed to hold it together this long. Usually the higher the peak the harder the fall, so considering how high Apple has risen this time.....

You don't stay on the cutting edge by hiring to a quota to show how diverse your are, you need to go out and hire the best people. The very fact that they are bragging about how they have increased their diversity shows that they are placing diversity ahead of everything else.

The world has a brain eating amoeba infection.

If they are hiring women over men, isn't that discrimination?

I wish companies would all publish their diversity reports on the same day so that there wouldn't be this trickle of news that lets old white guys (who ironically make droolface over every Asian girl they see) sit around being armchair offended over the injustice of it all. I mean really, between diversity and having to pay extra to their cable company to watch fat guys chase an oblong ball around a 300 foot wide field, there's just no fairness in the world. Even the central air conditioning and the ice dispenser on the fridge have the audacity to be manufactured in China. How horrible! What's next? Taking away his ability to go into massive debt to buy a house and a car so some darned woman has the ability to be fat, lazy, and under a mountain of debt too? The insanity!

chenw said:

If they are hiring women over men, isn't that discrimination?

Click to expand...

You can't discriminate against men, especially white ones.

chenw said:

If they are hiring women over men, isn't that discrimination?

Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA0aKjY8K50

nutzo said:

I for one am glad to see Apple continue it's downward spiral. As a business they have always large ups and downs. I'm just surprised they managed to hold it together this long. Usually the higher the peak the harder the fall, so considering how high Apple has risen this time.....

You don't stay on the cutting edge by hiring to a quota to show how diverse your are, you need to go out and hire the best people. The very fact that they are bragging about how they have increased their diversity shows that they are placing diversity ahead of everything else.

Click to expand...

I can understand why people might prefer one brand or another but why extend that to the whole company failing ... do you really love Lenovo, HP, and Dell that much (the three top PC producers) or Samsung (the only other mobile phone maker who has a profitable business) ... or do you expect some hypothetical company to step up and replace Apple if they ceased to exist

CreepyUncleGoogle said:

I wish companies would all publish their diversity reports on the same day so that there wouldn't be this trickle of news that lets old white guys (who ironically make droolface over every Asian girl they see) sit around being armchair offended over the injustice of it all. I mean really, between diversity and having to pay extra to their cable company to watch fat guys chase an oblong ball around a 300 foot wide field, there's just no fairness in the world. Even the central air conditioning and the ice dispenser on the fridge have the audacity to be manufactured in China. How horrible! What's next? Taking away his ability to go into massive debt to buy a house and a car so some darned woman has the ability to be fat, lazy, and under a mountain of debt too? The insanity!

Click to expand...

The need for Waaahmbulances would be so great that day that most of the whiners would die on the way to the Old White Guys retirement home (and then we would have to grind them into Soylent Whine or something)

Maybe we should dedicate certain days to particular types of whining:

Monday - Misogynists unite to whine about gender subjugation of the poor male worker
Tuesday - Social issue Tuesday (whine about Gay Marriage, Poor People, etc)
Wednesday - Corporate Overlord Wednesday (whine about how corporations are abusing the average worker, CEOs are overpaid, etc)
Thursday - I hate Company X Thursday (whine about Apple, Intel, Microsoft ... whichever company killed your dog and pissed on your hush puppies)
Friday - The Man Friday (whine about government abuse of power, police abuse, government spying, etc)
Saturday - Product X bites Saturday (whine about whichever product is the spawn of Satan and must be sacrificed to appease your personal notion of perfection)
Sunday - Religious War Sunday (atheists vs deists, other groups vs each other, let your personal notion of the great spirit of the universe guide you in overwhelming and destroying all opposing viewpoints)

Then we would know which days to avoid the Internet

I hear they're giving every mid-level manager a secretary. It's going to be just like the 1950's again.

Despotes said:

The world has a brain eating amoeba infection.

Click to expand...

So zombie amoeba?

OldandCrusty said:

Hey Apple: Hire the best people available for the positions you need filled. Race and gender shouldn't matter.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I also have to ask to which positions? I'm sure middle and upper management are still status quo.

nutzo said:

I for one am glad to see Apple continue it's downward spiral. As a business they have always large ups and downs. I'm just surprised they managed to hold it together this long. Usually the higher the peak the harder the fall, so considering how high Apple has risen this time.....

You don't stay on the cutting edge by hiring to a quota to show how diverse your are, you need to go out and hire the best people. The very fact that they are bragging about how they have increased their diversity shows that they are placing diversity ahead of everything else.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that the companies that are bothering with diversity are the ones that are already at the top and are flush with cash. I doubt hiring a few thousand people for good p.r. affects even 0.1% of their bottom line.

Now they'll get the tax breaks they've been seeking.

Hiring based on race & sex is racism & sexism openly practiced, but it's called "diversity hiring" these days. It's much like the racist propaganda in the mainstream press that tells us that only white people can be racists--that's racist, too (aside from being false.) As human beings we sure love deceiving ourselves, don't we? But I guess Cook knows an awful about that sort of thing himself.

kbrickley said:

The need for Waaahmbulances would be so great that day that most of the whiners would die on the way to the Old White Guys retirement home (and then we would have to grind them into Soylent Whine or something)

Maybe we should dedicate certain days to particular types of whining:

Monday - Misogynists unite to whine about gender subjugation of the poor male worker
Tuesday - Social issue Tuesday (whine about Gay Marriage, Poor People, etc)
Wednesday - Corporate Overlord Wednesday (whine about how corporations are abusing the average worker, CEOs are overpaid, etc)
Thursday - I hate Company X Thursday (whine about Apple, Intel, Microsoft ... whichever company killed your dog and pissed on your hush puppies)
Friday - The Man Friday (whine about government abuse of power, police abuse, government spying, etc)
Saturday - Product X bites Saturday (whine about whichever product is the spawn of Satan and must be sacrificed to appease your personal notion of perfection)
Sunday - Religious War Sunday (atheists vs deists, other groups vs each other, let your personal notion of the great spirit of the universe guide you in overwhelming and destroying all opposing viewpoints)

Then we would know which days to avoid the Internet

Click to expand...

The loudest voices belong to those that are complaining, therefore we hear a lot from those people. The problems with removing barriers in the way that we as a society currently go about doing it is that we are not moving toward a utopian idea of fairness, but rather switching which group of people is exiled to the back of the bus.

If group A complains loudly enough, we make new rules just for them, even if this is done at the expense of group B. Some people say this is perfectly fair, since previously group A had the advantage and now that advantage will belong to group B until group C starts whining enough. We are not really developing a fairer society in this manner, we are just shuffling the deck.

When there are legitimate cases of discrimination, those issues should be addressed. Not hiring a qualified candidate simply because of their ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, etc. is a legitimate act of discrimination and perpetrators should be punished accordingly. Elevating a protected class of individuals above another group of people based on one of those characteristics is still discrimination, just in another form.

I'm not arguing that that is the case with Apple's diversity agenda. I'm sure there are plenty of qualified individuals that have applied for these positions and I will continue to assume that unless there is evidence of discrimination presented. Asking the question should not be off-limits however, and I think it is appropriate to have the discussion as to exactly what the end goal of any company's diversity agenda is, as well as examining their practices in enhancing diversity.

As a hypothetical, imagine the following scenarios:

1) An minority individual applies for a job with a company. They are less qualified than a white person that also applies for the same job. The company chooses the minority individual out of fear of reprisal for assumed racial discrimination, whether or not it exists, and now has a sub-optimal employee working for them (based entirely on qualifications - nothing else). This is a negative outcome for the company and the white applicant, but satisfies the crowd clamoring for diversity.

2) A company hosts a job fair in a minority community. They receive applications from a number of qualified minority individuals who would otherwise probably not have applied for a job with said company. Several of those applicants are given jobs because of their qualifications. This is a positive outcome from the company's perspective and satisfies the diversity crowd without directly discriminating against non-minority individuals.

The ends may or may not justify the means, but the way in which you conduct yourself in any activity is important. Minority communities have a responsibility to develop the necessary job skills in their citizens that will make them marketable to prospective employers. These things can be accomplished without legislating affirmative action style rules that simply place the needs of one group of people ahead of the needs of another group without addressing issues in the underlying foundation (educational, economic, cultural, etc).

kbrickley said:

The need for Waaahmbulances would be so great that day that most of the whiners would die on the way to the Old White Guys retirement home (and then we would have to grind them into Soylent Whine or something)

Maybe we should dedicate certain days to particular types of whining:

Monday - Misogynists unite to whine about gender subjugation of the poor male worker
Tuesday - Social issue Tuesday (whine about Gay Marriage, Poor People, etc)
Wednesday - Corporate Overlord Wednesday (whine about how corporations are abusing the average worker, CEOs are overpaid, etc)
Thursday - I hate Company X Thursday (whine about Apple, Intel, Microsoft ... whichever company killed your dog and pissed on your hush puppies)
Friday - The Man Friday (whine about government abuse of power, police abuse, government spying, etc)
Saturday - Product X bites Saturday (whine about whichever product is the spawn of Satan and must be sacrificed to appease your personal notion of perfection)
Sunday - Religious War Sunday (atheists vs deists, other groups vs each other, let your personal notion of the great spirit of the universe guide you in overwhelming and destroying all opposing viewpoints)

Then we would know which days to avoid the Internet

Click to expand...

You win the internetz! Seriosuly, though after reading all the systemically racist "Wait, I don't understand why the white boys club is "discriminating" against us poor white boys" comments, this at least made my day. People on here need to look into the term white privilege, recognize that no solution is perfect, and stop taking attempts to fix the system so personally.

What ever happened to judging people based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin or the combination of their sex chromosomes? I fail to see how discriminating against white and Asian males in the name of "diversity" is doing anything to end discrimination.

i like women

I'm a little put off by the assumption that the people hired are less qualified - there's no evidence of that, and often when people *do* try to put forward such evidence, it's usually evidence that they are having a hard time in a work environment that treats them poorly because it's one black woman in an all white staff that just doesn't get how racist they are unintentionally being.

I do very much appreciate your idea for recruitment, though. I think that this kind of recruitment could start even earlier (ie, companies, teachers, and parents showing minority children that they have the option to become STEM people), since media stereotypes of minorities in STEM tend to shut them down to the option before they even get a chance to start.

As far as the idea that white men are being put at the back of the bus, the idea is absurd. White men basically run everything, and culturally, their management styles are more easily accepted. (Strong women leaders are percieved as "bitches" for example.) White men are doing the recruiting and hiring in tech, for the most part, which means that without diversity training and very self conscious monitoring of their instincts and their cultural assumptions, they will tend towards hiring the white men that they more immediately feel comfortable with. (Interestingly, you often see the opposite in female dominated things like social work, early education, massage therapy, and non-profits, for example.) Simply putting people on "equal opportunity" grounds isn't going to change anything, but rather making a conscious effort to get a little out of their comfort zone and bringing in qualified people who are different and have different perspective is the only way to see change.

Finally, I wish white men would stop taking this crap so personally. It's not a statement about you, personally, being a bad person. It's about groups, and finally giving another group a chance that your group has already had for decades.

MrCaffeineX said:

The loudest voices belong to those that are complaining, therefore we hear a lot from those people. The problems with removing barriers in the way that we as a society currently go about doing it is that we are not moving toward a utopian idea of fairness, but rather switching which group of people is exiled to the back of the bus.

If group A complains loudly enough, we make new rules just for them, even if this is done at the expense of group B. Some people say this is perfectly fair, since previously group A had the advantage and now that advantage will belong to group B until group C starts whining enough. We are not really developing a fairer society in this manner, we are just shuffling the deck.

When there are legitimate cases of discrimination, those issues should be addressed. Not hiring a qualified candidate simply because of their ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, etc. is a legitimate act of discrimination and perpetrators should be punished accordingly. Elevating a protected class of individuals above another group of people based on one of those characteristics is still discrimination, just in another form.

I'm not arguing that that is the case with Apple's diversity agenda. I'm sure there are plenty of qualified individuals that have applied for these positions and I will continue to assume that unless there is evidence of discrimination presented. Asking the question should not be off-limits however, and I think it is appropriate to have the discussion as to exactly what the end goal of any company's diversity agenda is, as well as examining their practices in enhancing diversity.

As a hypothetical, imagine the following scenarios:

1) An minority individual applies for a job with a company. They are less qualified than a white person that also applies for the same job. The company chooses the minority individual out of fear of reprisal for assumed racial discrimination, whether or not it exists, and now has a sub-optimal employee working for them (based entirely on qualifications - nothing else). This is a negative outcome for the company and the white applicant, but satisfies the crowd clamoring for diversity.

2) A company hosts a job fair in a minority community. They receive applications from a number of qualified minority individuals who would otherwise probably not have applied for a job with said company. Several of those applicants are given jobs because of their qualifications. This is a positive outcome from the company's perspective and satisfies the diversity crowd without directly discriminating against non-minority individuals.

The ends may or may not justify the means, but the way in which you conduct yourself in any activity is important. Minority communities have a responsibility to develop the necessary job skills in their citizens that will make them marketable to prospective employers. These things can be accomplished without legislating affirmative action style rules that simply place the needs of one group of people ahead of the needs of another group without addressing issues in the underlying foundation (educational, economic, cultural, etc).

Click to expand...

tempertantrum said:

I'm a little put off by the assumption that the people hired are less qualified - there's no evidence of that, and often when people *do* try to put forward such evidence, it's usually evidence that they are having a hard time in a work environment that treats them poorly because it's one black woman in an all white staff that just doesn't get how racist they are unintentionally being.

I do very much appreciate your idea for recruitment, though. I think that this kind of recruitment could start even earlier (ie, companies, teachers, and parents showing minority children that they have the option to become STEM people), since media stereotypes of minorities in STEM tend to shut them down to the option before they even get a chance to start.

As far as the idea that white men are being put at the back of the bus, the idea is absurd. White men basically run everything, and culturally, their management styles are more easily accepted. (Strong women leaders are percieved as "bitches" for example.) White men are doing the recruiting and hiring in tech, for the most part, which means that without diversity training and very self conscious monitoring of their instincts and their cultural assumptions, they will tend towards hiring the white men that they more immediately feel comfortable with. (Interestingly, you often see the opposite in female dominated things like social work, early education, massage therapy, and non-profits, for example.) Simply putting people on "equal opportunity" grounds isn't going to change anything, but rather making a conscious effort to get a little out of their comfort zone and bringing in qualified people who are different and have different perspective is the only way to see change.

Finally, I wish white men would stop taking this crap so personally. It's not a statement about you, personally, being a bad person. It's about groups, and finally giving another group a chance that your group has already had for decades.

Click to expand...

If you read a little more closely you would have seen that I acknowledged that there was no evidence that the people hired were less qualified. That is simply an assumption that a lot of people make, but not one that I was making. I was asserting that an in-depth analysis of the diversity agenda and/or related practices at Apple, or any company for that matter, should not be off-limits or otherwise assumed to be motivated by racism.

I also stated that my preference is for policy that does not elevate any group of individuals above any other group of individuals simply because they possess the desired characteristics to satisfy some diversity goal.

Yes, there has been white privilege in the past and yes, there continues to be white privilege today. Flipping who is privileged is simply not the best approach, in my opinion. Developing and fostering a society in which people are judged by the content of their character should be the end goal.

I read a phrase on Urban Dictionary the other day that summed it up: "You don't poor my cereal." Judging someone based solely on a physical characteristic like skin color, a head wrap, or perceptible gender is just wrong. I have experienced this first hand because of my long hair and beard. I'm not trying to say that what I have experienced is as bad as what someone else has experienced, nevertheless, I did experience a form of discrimination based solely upon my appearance.

What is wrong with taking the time to get to know someone prior to making superficial judgements about them? Why do we need to make the assumption that because someone belongs to a particular ethnic group that they have somehow been victimized?

There are plenty of "privileged" ethnic communities scattered throughout the United States and some of them even engage in overt discrimination against other minority groups. To some extent it is a fact of life; however, there are steps we can take both legislatively (i.e. anti-discrimination laws), and culturally (i.e. real community outreach) that can alleviate the symptoms without resorting to what I like to call "one-upsmanship".

NukeDukem said:

What ever happened to judging people based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin

Click to expand...

That died out a long time ago. So much for Martin Luther King Jr's dream.

kbrickley said:

I can understand why people might prefer one brand or another but why extend that to the whole company failing ... do you really love Lenovo, HP, and Dell that much (the three top PC producers) or Samsung (the only other mobile phone maker who has a profitable business) ... or do you expect some hypothetical company to step up and replace Apple if they ceased to exist

Click to expand...

No, I just have a problem with evil companies that encourage hipsters

Given some people's penchant to turn everything into a massive conspiracy I am surprised that folks don't key off the true business benefit of diversity ... holding down wage growth ... right now there are not that many STEM workers and there are often shortages in certain fields or regions that drive up wages (which is bad for business) ... using diversity programs to foster greater participation in the STEM marketplace by various minorities and genders that are underrepresented currently will increase the supply of workers (without increasing demand) which helps to keep wage growth down to more reasonable levels ... talk amongst yourselves

kbrickley said:

Given some people's penchant to turn everything into a massive conspiracy I am surprised that folks don't key off the true business benefit of diversity ... holding down wage growth ... right now there are not that many STEM workers and there are often shortages in certain fields or regions that drive up wages (which is bad for business) ... using diversity programs to foster greater participation in the STEM marketplace by various minorities and genders that are underrepresented currently will increase the supply of workers (without increasing demand) which helps to keep wage growth down to more reasonable levels ... talk amongst yourselves

Click to expand...

There are no shortage of STEMs workers.
There are a shortage of STEMs workers who'll accept shit salary for a job.

kbrickley said:

The need for Waaahmbulances would be so great that day that most of the whiners would die on the way to the Old White Guys retirement home (and then we would have to grind them into Soylent Whine or something)

Maybe we should dedicate certain days to particular types of whining:

Monday - Misogynists unite to whine about gender subjugation of the poor male worker
Tuesday - Social issue Tuesday (whine about Gay Marriage, Poor People, etc)
Wednesday - Corporate Overlord Wednesday (whine about how corporations are abusing the average worker, CEOs are overpaid, etc)
Thursday - I hate Company X Thursday (whine about Apple, Intel, Microsoft ... whichever company killed your dog and pissed on your hush puppies)
Friday - The Man Friday (whine about government abuse of power, police abuse, government spying, etc)
Saturday - Product X bites Saturday (whine about whichever product is the spawn of Satan and must be sacrificed to appease your personal notion of perfection)
Sunday - Religious War Sunday (atheists vs deists, other groups vs each other, let your personal notion of the great spirit of the universe guide you in overwhelming and destroying all opposing viewpoints)

Then we would know which days to avoid the Internet

Click to expand...

Hehe, I can't find my Official CreepyUncleGoogle Seal of Approval image that I uploaded to tinypic, but if I could, I'd image link it for your post.

Hypergreatthing said:

There are no shortage of STEMs workers.
There are a shortage of STEMs workers who'll accept shit salary for a job.

Click to expand...

This raises serious questions about the true value of jobs in those fields. It also has the potential to add to the discussion about education, since for many of these jobs, the cost of education exceeds what can reasonably be paid back on the salaries that these jobs provide. Then there are the considerations of shareholders who want to maximize short-term profits irrespective of long-term business health or growth strategies.

Screw all the white men that were more qualified for the position but rejected, as they are the scum of society, after all. We don't tolerate primitive meritocracy here.

MrCaffeineX said:

If you read a little more closely you would have seen that I acknowledged that there was no evidence that the people hired were less qualified. That is simply an assumption that a lot of people make, but not one that I was making. I was asserting that an in-depth analysis of the diversity agenda and/or related practices at Apple, or any company for that matter, should not be off-limits or otherwise assumed to be motivated by racism.

I also stated that my preference is for policy that does not elevate any group of individuals above any other group of individuals simply because they possess the desired characteristics to satisfy some diversity goal.

Yes, there has been white privilege in the past and yes, there continues to be white privilege today. Flipping who is privileged is simply not the best approach, in my opinion. Developing and fostering a society in which people are judged by the content of their character should be the end goal.

I read a phrase on Urban Dictionary the other day that summed it up: "You don't poor my cereal." Judging someone based solely on a physical characteristic like skin color, a head wrap, or perceptible gender is just wrong. I have experienced this first hand because of my long hair and beard. I'm not trying to say that what I have experienced is as bad as what someone else has experienced, nevertheless, I did experience a form of discrimination based solely upon my appearance.

What is wrong with taking the time to get to know someone prior to making superficial judgements about them? Why do we need to make the assumption that because someone belongs to a particular ethnic group that they have somehow been victimized?

There are plenty of "privileged" ethnic communities scattered throughout the United States and some of them even engage in overt discrimination against other minority groups. To some extent it is a fact of life; however, there are steps we can take both legislatively (i.e. anti-discrimination laws), and culturally (i.e. real community outreach) that can alleviate the symptoms without resorting to what I like to call "one-upsmanship".

Click to expand...

You are correct about the assumption part, my apologies. You seem to be an ally, in many regards, which I appreciate!

However, I do think you are confused about what systematic discrimination looks like. You seem to be suggesting that going out of your way to fix an imbalance is not discrimination. There's a great quote by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was asked about how many women on the Supreme Court is enough: "People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine." Why? "For most of the country’s history, there were nine and they were all men. Nobody thought that was strange." White people (I hate using that term, but that's the reality) don't have any problem with being over represented (which they are) but get upset when efforts are taken to change that. As I said before, no effort is perfect, but to claim discrimination is to claim that you somehow have the right, as a group, to push out another group. The threat of "minorities taking over" (or pushing whites to the back of the bus, as you asserted) is preposterous.

I agree, that the ultimate goal is "true" fairness and equality, but simply being "color blind" or "gender blind," which we claim now, simply allows for continued systematic discrimination that people don't even consciously realize they are doing. Indeed, it does take a while to learn who a person is... but that's not the point. The point is, a manager might not feel comfortable with a person, even after getting to know them as much as they can in a hiring process, because of ethnic/cultural differences. They need to take a chance, move outside of their comfort zone.

Also, please don't compare something like hair style to skin color. Hair style is a choice - skin color and ethnicity is not. On top of that, remember that there is an entire extra layer of discrimination for hair for blacks than there is for whites. An afro, for example, a fairly traditional black hair style, is often far more unacceptable than a pony tail, because a pony tail is more traditionally a "white" style. (Trust me on this, I wear both of these styles with my hair and I see how people react.) You can cut your hair and move on. I cut my hair, and I'm still black. As much as people complain about hearing about racism once in a while, imagine having to live it... all the time, every day, 24/7. It's not the same.

As far as privileged "ethnic" communities goes, this doesn't make any sense. Who are they privileged over, exactly?

tempertantrum said:

You win the internetz! Seriosuly, though after reading all the systemically racist "Wait, I don't understand why the white boys club is "discriminating" against us poor white boys" comments, this at least made my day. People on here need to look into the term white privilege, recognize that no solution is perfect, and stop taking attempts to fix the system so personally.

Click to expand...

tempertantrum said:

On top of that, remember that there is an entire extra layer of discrimination for hair for blacks than there is for whites. An afro, for example, a fairly traditional black hair style, is often far more unacceptable than a pony tail, because a pony tail is more traditionally a "white" style.

Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUvADbpqGlQ

tempertantrum said:

You are correct about the assumption part, my apologies. You seem to be an ally, in many regards, which I appreciate!

However, I do think you are confused about what systematic discrimination looks like. You seem to be suggesting that going out of your way to fix an imbalance is not discrimination. There's a great quote by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was asked about how many women on the Supreme Court is enough: "People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine." Why? "For most of the country’s history, there were nine and they were all men. Nobody thought that was strange." White people (I hate using that term, but that's the reality) don't have any problem with being over represented (which they are) but get upset when efforts are taken to change that. As I said before, no effort is perfect, but to claim discrimination is to claim that you somehow have the right, as a group, to push out another group. The threat of "minorities taking over" (or pushing whites to the back of the bus, as you asserted) is preposterous.

I agree, that the ultimate goal is "true" fairness and equality, but simply being "color blind" or "gender blind," which we claim now, simply allows for continued systematic discrimination that people don't even consciously realize they are doing. Indeed, it does take a while to learn who a person is... but that's not the point. The point is, a manager might not feel comfortable with a person, even after getting to know them as much as they can in a hiring process, because of ethnic/cultural differences. They need to take a chance, move outside of their comfort zone.

Also, please don't compare something like hair style to skin color. Hair style is a choice - skin color and ethnicity is not. On top of that, remember that there is an entire extra layer of discrimination for hair for blacks than there is for whites. An afro, for example, a fairly traditional black hair style, is often far more unacceptable than a pony tail, because a pony tail is more traditionally a "white" style. (Trust me on this, I wear both of these styles with my hair and I see how people react.) You can cut your hair and move on. I cut my hair, and I'm still black. As much as people complain about hearing about racism once in a while, imagine having to live it... all the time, every day, 24/7. It's not the same.

As far as privileged "ethnic" communities goes, this doesn't make any sense. Who are they privileged over, exactly?

Click to expand...

There has been a claim, specifically on the west coast, that Asian-Americans are over-represented in colleges and universities, sometimes making up 100% of the student body for a given course of study. There was a piece on this subject on NPR not that long ago. They effectively represent a privileged minority community to many, partially because they are the oft used example by white Americans of what a proper minority community should look like.

A suggested solution was that the colleges should adopt an affirmative action style policy of only allowing a specific percentage of minority students from each ethnic group. There was some back and forth over whether to use a local demographic or statewide demographic to set the allowable percentages.

Personally, I find neither to be an acceptable solution and the suggestion borders on the preposterous. Obviously, as part of their cultural values, many Asian immigrants and the descendants of Asian immigrants, place a lot of emphasis on doing well in school, which opens up a series of opportunities for them when it comes time to select a college or university to attend. Denying them the rewards of their dedication by saying that only a certain percentage of Asian-American applicants should be accepted is in itself unfair.

One area where efforts could be focused is in determining ways in which we can encourage and nurture the same value for educational attainment in other minority communities. It is no secret that a significant number of Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans live in poverty in this country. The interesting part is that many of these Asian-Americans came from similarly impoverished backgrounds, but they have been finding a way to overcome the obstacles placed in their way, including discrimination based upon skin color/physical appearance.

I attempted to preface my remarks about my own experiences by stating that I was not trying to compare the severity or imply the degree to which a particular act of discrimination was better or worse than another, but I guess I failed to succinctly get that point across. To address your points on the matter: hair styles and facial hair are certainly a choice; I could get a shave and a haircut, but I shouldn't have to in order to be taken seriously (I actually put a considerable amount of effort into making sure that my hair is tied back neatly and that my beard is not a disaster of Zakk Wylde proportions); and lastly, while I do theoretically have my skin color to fall back on, I live in a predominantly white, rural area of the state where it doesn't really afford me an advantage over the next guy.

The moral of this is that I fully support policies of community outreach, explorations of diversity in education, enactment of anti-discrimination legislation, and even the incentivizing of quality educators who take jobs in minority communities. As far as a true improvement of the conditions of groups of people that have not been "privileged" in the past, I think that economics play a very important role. I would love to see a future where there really is no privilege in race or class status, I just don't think that policies that replace discrimination against one group with discrimination against another are the way to get there.

MrCaffeineX said:

This raises serious questions about the true value of jobs in those fields. It also has the potential to add to the discussion about education, since for many of these jobs, the cost of education exceeds what can reasonably be paid back on the salaries that these jobs provide. Then there are the considerations of shareholders who want to maximize short-term profits irrespective of long-term business health or growth strategies.

Click to expand...

The true value of the job is the mean that job offers in the area in which it's being offered.
If you're trying to hire software developers at 25% less than the mean in the area in which it's being offered, don't be surprised when hardly anyone but the bottom of the barrel apply for the job.
Of course companies routinely do this, then hire h1b candidates at 25-50% less what the average pay is and then use these figures to say there's a shortage and we need more h1bs.
I don't understand your education issue with cost. Unless you make lots of bad life choices, one can still get an education in stems and pay it all off in the first or second year of employment.