Apple’s Executive Ranks Are Still Overwhelmingly White And Male

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Hey, remember all that stuff Tim Cook said last year about focusing on diversity? It would seem that Apple isn't having much luck with that. Turns out that trying to fix an industry-wide issue by "putting a ton of energy" behind the problem just doesn't seem to be working as well as Cook had planned.

The iPhone maker released new data Monday night showing that the company’s highest ranks remain even more white and male than the company as a whole. Just 20 of Apple’s top 107 executives are women, according to a government filing, while only five are from underrepresented minority groups (defined as black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander). Another 14 executives are Asian, while the remaining 88 are white.
 
Axehandler said:
yea THATS it!!

They should just go pull minority woman from the street and put them into the positions!!
Click to expand...

This is what they do already in some places. Schools with quotas are a good example. You get your quota worth of positions even if you score lower than what's needed.
 
Of Course... watching group after group get fired and forced to train there H1-B replacements from various Countries ... *CLAIMING* because there is no qualified employess in the US (yet they just fired them)... REALLY causes people to rethink working in the Tech field.

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/donald-trump-disney-h-1b-1201723103/

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...n-graduates-fires-300-american-professionals/

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3004501/h1b/proof-that-h-1b-visa-abuse-is-rampant-in-tech.html
 
And why is that a problem unless you're a racist and a misandrist?

When will these idiots looking at these statistics get it in their stupid head that you can't judge equality of opportunity. by looking for equality in outcome. I'm entirely certain that any society that has absolute equality of outcome is by definition must be very unfair by keeping down overachievers and subsidising underachievers.
 
Those numbers are roughly unchanged from a year ago.
Click to expand...
I'm curious how much executive turn over there was from a year ago. Usually execs might want to keep their jobs as long as possible unless there are major issues that they can't deal with. If very few were hired, then yeah numbers won't change. The other side of that is if they start laying off people just to hire minorities and women, then you just hit the nail on the head as to why people who don't benefit from affirmative action type policies hate it so much.

In the next layer of management, women made up 27 percent of the workforce. More than 65 percent of those managers and mid-level executives are white, 23 percent are Asian, with just 11 percent from underrepresented minority groups and 1 percent who define themselves as multiracial.
Click to expand...
So the US has 72% people who are "white" and only 65% working are actually "white", that sounds to me like one racial group is definitely getting the shaft. If anything Asians are over represented since they only make up about 5% of the total population, but that's ok we're not going to count them since they're a minority so it's ok for them to have a large portion of workers.
 
Hires at my company based on race and gender have for the most part turned out to cause problems for the organization despite the governmental incentives.

We should hire based on what people can do not what they are. Want to be fair? Filter new hires based on their credentials and work experience before interviewing them. No names, No pictures, just what they can do. Completely gender and race free scrutiny.
If there is a pattern in the resultant data, it is the onus of the government and it's educational system, or it is representative of actual differences in the population.

Getting really tired of the new social interpretation of equality to mean that a board room should contain representatives of all races and genders. Instead, the board room should represent who was/is available, and is best for the company.
 
While in general I agree that no company should be forced to hire anything less than the best, with this current Apple management, they definitely did not go for the best. Their management has been absolutely terrible all across the board. There is no way these guys are the best that Apple can get. I'm sure you could scoop random people walking down the street, or just by throwing darts at a phone book and they couldn't really do a worse job or be more effective at destroying the company.
 
Start with the Board of Directors of Apple and see if they are interested in diversity. (Interesting, I did not know Al Gore was part of their Board of Directors)
 
M76 said:
And why is that a problem unless you're a racist and a misandrist?

When will these idiots looking at these statistics get it in their stupid head that you can't judge equality of opportunity. by looking for equality in outcome. I'm entirely certain that any society that has absolute equality of outcome is by definition must be very unfair by keeping down overachievers and subsidising underachievers.
Click to expand...

Are diversity and quality mutually exclusive, then?
 
lironmiron said:
While in general I agree that no company should be forced to hire anything less than the best, with this current Apple management, they definitely did not go for the best. Their management has been absolutely terrible all across the board. There is no way these guys are the best that Apple can get. I'm sure you could scoop random people walking down the street, or just by throwing darts at a phone book and they couldn't really do a worse job or be more effective at destroying the company.
Click to expand...

Most people put at least a fair amount of importance on profitability when judging whether a company is successful or not, so I'm curious to know why you think the most profitable company in the world has been destroyed.
 
lironmiron said:
While in general I agree that no company should be forced to hire anything less than the best, with this current Apple management, they definitely did not go for the best. Their management has been absolutely terrible all across the board. There is no way these guys are the best that Apple can get. I'm sure you could scoop random people walking down the street, or just by throwing darts at a phone book and they couldn't really do a worse job or be more effective at destroying the company.
Click to expand...

Nice bait
 
evilsofa said:
Are diversity and quality mutually exclusive, then?
Click to expand...
In most cases yes. But surely there is no correlation between diversity and quality. Diversity for the sake of diversity is detrimental to quality even. If you hire specifically to fulfil diversity quotas, you're narrowing the pool of candidates. And I think we can agree, that you're more likely to find the best candidate if you're not narrowing the choice with arbitrary attributes. Gender and skin color are not representative of ones ability to fill a position. Anyone who thinks it is, is expressing racist and / or sexist views.
 
M76 said:
In most cases yes. But surely there is no correlation between diversity and quality. Diversity for the sake of diversity is detrimental to quality even. If you hire specifically to fulfil diversity quotas, you're narrowing the pool of candidates. And I think we can agree, that you're more likely to find the best candidate if you're not narrowing the choice with arbitrary attributes. Gender and skin color are not representative of ones ability to fill a position. Anyone who thinks it is, is expressing racist and / or sexist views.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Race and gender should be irrelevant to hiring someone(well, for the most part. No one wants dudes hired in place of women at Hooter's). Eliminating candidates that have potential to be quality employees just because you're trying to meet some "diversity" quota is detrimental, since you want to have the best shot at getting quality candidates in the first place.

If women and minorities do not want to enter technology related fields, there is nothing you can do about it since they aren't interested in the work apparently. Now that is different than women and minorities being unable to enter technology related fields due to discrimination or something else, since as long as that person is the best possible candidate for a position I don't care if they have a penis, vagina, sewed something on, are black, brown, blue, green, etc.
 
Most executives are 'white males' doesn't equates to most 'white males' are executives. Think about it, if you belongs to the top 1% of the richest population, will you choose someone with better talent over some fella who you know will keep your family tree in that top 1% on an executive position? I say, those 'white males' don't refers to actual 'white males', but the top 1% that are actually 'white males'.

Yes, it is pointless to ask for a change in that as it is equivalent to ask people to share their wealth to others. While the top 1% keeps making more money, the rest (including 'white males') are making less. In fact, the net worth of the top 1% surpassed the net worth of the rest of the 99% this year, meaning that if you are not at the top 1%, then you are working more for less, regardless of your sex or skin color.

Here is the thing, how many of those executives are there because of their talent/abilities? How did they get there to begin with? Yes, some are white males who work their way up, but how many? Judging by how Apple milk their cows, I say most of them started off high.

My 2 cents
 
serious said:
Most executives are 'white males' doesn't equates to most 'white males' are executives. Think about it, if you belongs to the top 1% of the richest population, will you choose someone with better talent over some fella who you know will keep your family tree in that top 1% on an executive position? I say, those 'white males' don't refers to actual 'white males', but the top 1% that are actually 'white males'.

Yes, it is pointless to ask for a change in that as it is equivalent to ask people to share their wealth to others. While the top 1% keeps making more money, the rest (including 'white males') are making less. In fact, the net worth of the top 1% surpassed the net worth of the rest of the 99% this year, meaning that if you are not at the top 1%, then you are working more for less, regardless of your sex or skin color.

Here is the thing, how many of those executives are there because of their talent/abilities? How did they get there to begin with? Yes, some are white males who work their way up, but how many? Judging by how Apple milk their cows, I say most of them started off high.

My 2 cents
Click to expand...

That's not quite the angle they're going for. Basically they want the demographics of executives to match the demographics of the population. ie, roughly 50% of executives being women, 13% of executives being black, etc.

Sure, there are executives that "start off high" rather than working their way up from the absolute bottom, but it still doesn't change that you want the most qualified people in that position, and considering the importance of such positions it's even more critical than individual employees lower on the totem pole.
 
Merc1138 said:
If women and minorities do not want to enter technology related fields, there is nothing you can do about it since they aren't interested in the work apparently. Now that is different than women and minorities being unable to enter technology related fields due to discrimination or something else, since as long as that person is the best possible candidate for a position I don't care if they have a penis, vagina, sewed something on, are black, brown, blue, green, etc.
Click to expand...
There is one thing you can do. Encourage them to want to. Don't make gender studies classes mandatory. Make technology classes for girls in high school.

They keep saying that tech workplaces ares biased against women. That's total and utter bullshit. I hate the fact that only a few of my co-workers are women, and even less of them are what I'd consider professionals of the field. As I also hated the fact that only every 6th student was female in my high school, and only about every 10th was female at the universities I attended. Yet that ratio is reversed in BA classes. Who is to blame for that? Certainly not the industry.

It all comes down to how parents treat their children. They buy pink meaningless crap for their daughter, and they buy technical games for their son. No wonder one is more likely to become interested in the tech field than the other.
 
Last edited:
I am so distraught right now, I can't stop shaking. I just found out that China's largest company, Sinopec, has only Chinese executives... they have virtually no white employees. Its like they don't even care about diversity. RRRRREeeeeeeeeee!

Oops, sorry, I forgot, diversity only applies to white majority places like N.America and Europe. *whew*
 
M76 said:
As I also hated the fact that only every 6th student was female in my high school, and only about every 10th was female at the universities I attended.
Click to expand...

Where do you see gender inequality like that in high school? That sounds unusual to me.
 
SixFootDuo said:
Who cares if they are mostly white.

Have any of you seen the students that take these courses? They are mostly white ...................

Jesus. Who starts this shit.
Click to expand...
That's why they're having problems filling the diversity quota, 10% of america is black but they want an equal white/black/yellow/brown split. Did these diversity managers(that's a real fucking job now) fail math?
 
SixFootDuo said:
Who cares if they are mostly white.

Have any of you seen the students that take these courses? They are mostly white ...................

Jesus. Who starts this shit.
Click to expand...

people who try to give a voice to people who have no fucking idea what they are on about.
 
The cultural Marxists won't be happy until a majority of white males have no jobs and are unemployable.
 
Probably overwhelmingly the most qualified candidate for the position as well. I mean, god forbid a company hire the right person for the job instead of hiring for bullshit forced equality quota's. That crap is only supported by people in meaningless unskilled positions that are easily replaced and have no concept of how important a skill set is.
 
And the vast majority of H1-B are Indian and male.

Well, why is this never a problem.
 
Even if everything that causes this was "corrected" this second, it doesn't mean that Apple's executive would change immediately either. It would take time for all those appropriately-skilled female tech graduates to move up the industry ladder to executive positions. Are they going to appear magically out of thin air?

Please note that for the purpose of this example the phase "corrected" means forcing female students to enroll in tech programs in the same number as male students. These students would be taken from programs with minimal job prospects like History, Woman's Studies, Classics and Art Appreciation.

I don't seriously think this is a good idea, but the idea of just giving people jobs not based on qualifications, but instead based on gender is even stupider. Every time I read an article like this I can tell the author has never held a job outside of academia/journalism, and doesn't understand that people need specialized skills for many jobs. And even assuming every job could be done by any person, that doesn't mean that person would want to do that job.
 
I am a hiring manager where I work - it's basically IT related. When we have a posting, guess how many non-white, non-male applicants we get? Very few - usually none. We've hired females before - but they rarely apply.
Our HR department is always saying we should have a more diverse work force. Well, if they don't apply, how can we hire them?
I think back to my college days (computer science major). It was mostly white guys, the occasional Indian, maybe a Chinese student. I do remember one class had two girls! I felt bad for them - it was like they were a light, and we were all moths. No one seemed to notice the weird growth on the ones face - it was 2 tits and presumably a vagina. I think she even played Duke Nukem 3D (back in the 90's!)
 
steakman1971 said:
I am a hiring manager where I work - it's basically IT related. When we have a posting, guess how many non-white, non-male applicants we get? Very few - usually none. We've hired females before - but they rarely apply.
Click to expand...
If you have a motivated HR department, they can make it happen by searching the web for names they like... it just takes more time.

We asked for five applicants to interview a while back, and we usually just pick the best one of those five and that's that. Well our HR department, all black females (save for the Hispanic male HR manager), gave us five applicants to choose from... all five were black females, which in IT is pretty damn rare. Suffice to say, we hired the black female, lol! She turned out just fine, but it does make me wonder how many qualified people they tossed the resume away because it was a Connor Miller rather than a Aaliyah Washington. Statistically, I'm thinking there were probably hundreds for every desired resume they found. I give HR the benefit of the doubt though, as they might have been pressured into doing that since virtually every meeting starts with some comment about improving diversity (which doesn't make white guys feel good, since they basically tell us to our face over and over that we need to go and aren't desired).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zuul
like this
evilsofa said:
Where do you see gender inequality like that in high school? That sounds unusual to me.
Click to expand...
What difference the where would make to the point? I went to an IT high school named after Neumann. So it was a tech oriented high school. Girls just don't choose a tech field, therefore it's irrational to expect half of tech leaders to be women.
 
M76 said:
What difference the where would make to the point? I went to an IT high school named after Neumann. So it was a tech oriented high school. Girls just don't choose a tech field, therefore it's irrational to expect half of tech leaders to be women.
Click to expand...

Ah, you got to choose where you went to high school. That sounds like a pretty nice privilege. How much did it cost to go there?
 
evilsofa said:
Ah, you got to choose where you went to high school. That sounds like a pretty nice privilege. How much did it cost to go there?
Click to expand...
Zero. Public education is free here, at least up until 16yrs old. You only have to pass the entrance exam.

Sorry but you can't twist this into some kind of discrimination against women. It's a conscious choice they make. One that is not helped at all by all the feminist propaganda proclaiming that the industry is sexist. Therefore discouraging even more of them to choose a tech field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top