Intel Sets New Bar for Diversity Reporting

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Intel today released its first mid-year 2015 U.S. Diversity in Technology Report, the most in-depth and transparent report from a tech company to date. The update details positive, measurable progress in workforce demographics and diversity programs toward Intel’s goal to reach full representation of women and underrepresented minorities in its U.S. workforce by 2020. Intel is tracking to 43.3 percent diverse hires for 2015, exceeding its goal of 40 percent diverse hires for the year, including improvements in representation of underrepresented minorities and women in the workforce and in leadership positions. Rosalind Hudnell, Chief Diversity Officer, offers more insights about the report in a blog post and more information is available at intel.com/newsroom/diversity.
 
This isn't equality. In an equal system people are hired based purely on their ability and the best person gets the job. Intel are instead hiring people to meet their self-set gender and race quotas. Hiring people based on their sex is sexist and hiring people based on their race is racist.

Intel's social engineering programme is like something a fascist dictatorship would do. You must meet the gender and ethnicity requirements set by the dictator or you will not be permitted to work! It's terrifying that this is happening in our society and even more terrifying that such a programme would actually be considered to be a positive thing.

The western world is royally fucked.
 
Mr Milquetoast said:
This isn't equality. In an equal system people are hired based purely on their ability and the best person gets the job. Intel are instead hiring people to meet their self-set gender and race quotas. Hiring people based on their sex is sexist and hiring people based on their race is racist.

Intel's social engineering programme is like something a fascist dictatorship would do. You must meet the gender and ethnicity requirements set by the dictator or you will not be permitted to work! It's terrifying that this is happening in our society and even more terrifying that such a programme would actually be considered to be a positive thing.

The western world is royally fucked.
Click to expand...

Don't hold back, tell us what you really think :D

There are benefits and risks of diversity and good companies try to find the balance between them.

Benefits:
- Alternate points of view ... if everyone is a WASP or similar background they often don't have a broad view of the world
- More attractive environment to wider range of employees ... in a monocultural environment you might only attract candidates (or retain them) if they are from that background
- Political perception ... bottom line it is good marketing to keep NGOs and the government off your back

Risks:
- Diversity can't offset talent ... you still need qualified people or your company will fail
- Failure to reach consensus ... if you get too much diversity then people may not ever agree on solutions or support competing solutions ... of course this can be indoctrinated out with a good "disagree and commit" culture (which Intel is good at)

Ultimately talent is often a range ... it isn't just your ability but how you can use it that makes you successful in business ... the highest GPA or the best experience might not be the best overall fit for a job ... when I did supplier selections I almost never selected the top supplier in a field (because they were out of the price range), I usually selected a capable one from the middle who could be groomed to become a world class supplier (and then replaced with another middle of the bell curve supplier when their price became unreasonable)
 
Mr Milquetoast said:
This isn't equality. In an equal system people are hired based purely on their ability and the best person gets the job. Intel are instead hiring people to meet their self-set gender and race quotas. Hiring people based on their sex is sexist and hiring people based on their race is racist.

Intel's social engineering programme is like something a fascist dictatorship would do. You must meet the gender and ethnicity requirements set by the dictator or you will not be permitted to work! It's terrifying that this is happening in our society and even more terrifying that such a programme would actually be considered to be a positive thing.

The western world is royally fucked.
Click to expand...
Pretty much this.


If women or people other then white want to work at a certain job then they need to have the education/skills to do so. If not then GTFO!
 
kbrickley said:
Don't hold back, tell us what you really think :D

There are benefits and risks of diversity and good companies try to find the balance between them.

Benefits:
- Alternate points of view ... if everyone is a WASP or similar background they often don't have a broad view of the world
- More attractive environment to wider range of employees ... in a monocultural environment you might only attract candidates (or retain them) if they are from that background
- Political perception ... bottom line it is good marketing to keep NGOs and the government off your back

Risks:
- Diversity can't offset talent ... you still need qualified people or your company will fail
- Failure to reach consensus ... if you get too much diversity then people may not ever agree on solutions or support competing solutions ... of course this can be indoctrinated out with a good "disagree and commit" culture (which Intel is good at)

Ultimately talent is often a range ... it isn't just your ability but how you can use it that makes you successful in business ... the highest GPA or the best experience might not be the best overall fit for a job ... when I did supplier selections I almost never selected the top supplier in a field (because they were out of the price range), I usually selected a capable one from the middle who could be groomed to become a world class supplier (and then replaced with another middle of the bell curve supplier when their price became unreasonable)
Click to expand...
What you're describing is diversity of opinions, which does not require diversity in gender or skin color. Your use of the acronym "WASP" reveals your bias. A race or gender isn't some homogenous group where everyone thinks alike just because they share the same physical attributes.
 
Armenius said:
What you're describing is diversity of opinions, which does not require diversity in gender or skin color. Your use of the acronym "WASP" reveals your bias. A race or gender isn't some homogenous group where everyone thinks alike just because they share the same physical attributes.
Click to expand...

I am a WASP so no bias intended (more of a Buddhist now since my wife is) ... you are right that there is more than one way to force diversity of opinions but you can only force people out of their comfort zone so far ... personally I think the best way to force diversity is globalization ... manufacturing and designing in only one country is bad for business and it is easier to find diverse candidates in other countries (so rather than trying to force diversity in this country I would just as soon have them move the jobs offshore ... you get the benefit of diversity and the cost savings both ... and there are often more female engineers and female workers outside the USA as well)
 
kbrickley said:
Don't hold back, tell us what you really think :D

There are benefits and risks of diversity and good companies try to find the balance between them.

Benefits:
- Alternate points of view ... if everyone is a WASP or similar background they often don't have a broad view of the world
- More attractive environment to wider range of employees ... in a monocultural environment you might only attract candidates (or retain them) if they are from that background
- Political perception ... bottom line it is good marketing to keep NGOs and the government off your back

Risks:
- Diversity can't offset talent ... you still need qualified people or your company will fail
- Failure to reach consensus ... if you get too much diversity then people may not ever agree on solutions or support competing solutions ... of course this can be indoctrinated out with a good "disagree and commit" culture (which Intel is good at)

Ultimately talent is often a range ... it isn't just your ability but how you can use it that makes you successful in business ... the highest GPA or the best experience might not be the best overall fit for a job ... when I did supplier selections I almost never selected the top supplier in a field (because they were out of the price range), I usually selected a capable one from the middle who could be groomed to become a world class supplier (and then replaced with another middle of the bell curve supplier when their price became unreasonable)
Click to expand...
It's pretty sickening that someone would honestly believe this crap.
 
We sure love to troll post about diversity here. Really warms up moron blood for some reason.
 
It's ironic that so many people seem to think that the way to reach a point where we are color blind, non sexist society is to give one group of people an advantage over another based on race or gender.

I college near me proudly points to the awards it's received for 100% minority hiring. Another community college also only hires minorities and go so far as to say it's for the sake of diversity, and yet when it's pointed out that when hiring for a department that is 100% women and minorities already a white male can't even be considered since "a white male can never be diverse."
 
Its beneficial to the business to be diverse. And its not just PR. Diversity enhances creativity and leads to better decision making.

Its not something that's made up, decades of scientific research show its the case.

So, benefits of diversity:
1. Good PR
2. Better business, more money

Benefits of homogeneity:
???

You people seem to think that hiring with diversity in mind means you hire morons instead of way better qualified white men. I'm baffled as to how you don't see how racist that is, to assume the minority candidates are somehow less qualified.

Intel isn't looking for idiots to fill a quota. They are hiring people that they think can do the job with the overall goal of diversity in mind to reap the benefits of that as well. The only reason this bothers you is because now it will be slightly harder for you to coast into a job just because you're a white guy. Cry me a farking river.
 
maverikv said:
Its beneficial to the business to be diverse. And its not just PR. Diversity enhances creativity and leads to better decision making.

Its not something that's made up, decades of scientific research show its the case.

So, benefits of diversity:
1. Good PR
2. Better business, more money

Benefits of homogeneity:
???

You people seem to think that hiring with diversity in mind means you hire morons instead of way better qualified white men. I'm baffled as to how you don't see how racist that is, to assume the minority candidates are somehow less qualified.

Intel isn't looking for idiots to fill a quota. They are hiring people that they think can do the job with the overall goal of diversity in mind to reap the benefits of that as well. The only reason this bothers you is because now it will be slightly harder for you to coast into a job just because you're a white guy. Cry me a farking river.
Click to expand...
Yes, decades of scientific research proves this right? Total BS.
That's why practically every single successful tech company prior to now has been mostly the same racial background? Because they hire on the best talent and not trying to meet quotas?
Look at google, apple, intel, ect. Show me a company that's successful because of it's diverse workforce.
If i was a shareholder and i saw this news i would sell and invest in someone else because it's just the start of the company crashing and burning.
 
It doesn't make or break a company dude.

If you read a study that providing free coffee increased productivity, would you call BS because goldman sachs doesn't do it and they make a shitzillion dollars a year?

Hot product, no diversity = good
Hot product, diversity = better

It doesn't MAKE you successful, jesus is it that hard to understand?
 
maverikv said:
It doesn't make or break a company dude.

If you read a study that providing free coffee increased productivity, would you call BS because goldman sachs doesn't do it and they make a shitzillion dollars a year?

Hot product, no diversity = good
Hot product, diversity = better

It doesn't MAKE you successful, jesus is it that hard to understand?
Click to expand...
How is being racist better?
I'm not comparing it to goldman sachs. I'm comparing it to itself and every other company like it.
Go ahead and show me a successful diverse tech company.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Yes, decades of scientific research proves this right? Total BS.
That's why practically every single successful tech company prior to now has been mostly the same racial background? Because they hire on the best talent and not trying to meet quotas?
Look at google, apple, intel, ect. Show me a company that's successful because of it's diverse workforce.
If i was a shareholder and i saw this news i would sell and invest in someone else because it's just the start of the company crashing and burning.
Click to expand...

Except Intel, Google, Apple, etc are very diverse companies who are successful so I am not sure where you are going with this ... gender diversity is a little trickier since women don't always want to pursue technical degrees ... cultural diversity is fairly easy (unless you go out of your way to avoid it) since other cultures value education much more than white Americans do ... a lot of PhD employees are not white Americans because few white Americans want to invest the money to get their PhDs ... when I worked at Intel a large number of the PhD employees were from Asia since there was a bigger pool of candidates with that education ... I suspect that Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and others are similar ... so if your goal is for them to hire the best employees then they are doing both (hiring the best and the most diverse ;) )
 
kbrickley said:
Except Intel, Google, Apple, etc are very diverse companies who are successful so I am not sure where you are going with this ... gender diversity is a little trickier since women don't always want to pursue technical degrees ... cultural diversity is fairly easy (unless you go out of your way to avoid it) since other cultures value education much more than white Americans do ... a lot of PhD employees are not white Americans because few white Americans want to invest the money to get their PhDs ... when I worked at Intel a large number of the PhD employees were from Asia since there was a bigger pool of candidates with that education ... I suspect that Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and others are similar ... so if your goal is for them to hire the best employees then they are doing both (hiring the best and the most diverse ;) )
Click to expand...
I have never seen a single article written by these SJW that state that google, intel and apple are diverse.
When i look at the stats (for google) it's "In terms of racial diversity, the company overall is 61% white, 30%, Asian, 3%, Hispanic, and 2%, black.". This is probably very close to the overall candidate pool for the jobs they are hiring for (engineering mostly i would assume).
Saying that you're not diverse enough and that 40%+ hires will be diverse directly points to racially profiling candidates for jobs so that your numbers look "better" for those pushing to diversity. This will impact the quality of new hires. There's no two ways about that.
 
Again, the assumption you're making here is that their hiring practices are 100% based on merit and potential and that white men just happen to beat out the competition in those areas.

Which is laughable. Are they racists? Who knows. A company can't be racist, but a hiring manager can have bias. But if you think any company hires exclusively based on merit you are woefully naive.
 
maverikv said:
Again, the assumption you're making here is that their hiring practices are 100% based on merit and potential and that white men just happen to beat out the competition in those areas.

Which is laughable. Are they racists? Who knows. A company can't be racist, but a hiring manager can have bias. But if you think any company hires exclusively based on merit you are woefully naive.
Click to expand...
As someone who has interviewed people for positions, you choose the best candidate. One who meets the qualifications, who will fit and work with the team the best, whom has other soft and hard skills that might be useful in the future and someone who has a good attitude. You never quite know if they're going to work out. You don't look at skin color, their accent, their looks or anything else. Doing so would almost guarantee that you don't get the best candidate for the position. If your job is to get second rate candidates by being racist then you are sabotaging the company's future and it's ability to be successful.
 
Congrats, you choose the best candidate for the position. Do you honestly think all hiring managers do this? Do you think they are capable of doing this?

Have you ever not gotten a job because they hired someone who knew one of the bosses instead?

Was that person more qualified than you?
 
I guess for some partial disclosure is that I'm hispanic and in the tech workforce. If google is any indication of what is to come, i should be cheering having an advantage over my peers. However i find it a disgusting practice. My own merits and past history should be my qualification for any future jobs, not my skin color or who my parents are.
 
The kids from the US just are not smart enough or they don't go for the right degree.
 
Mr Milquetoast said:
This isn't equality. In an equal system people are hired based purely on their ability and the best person gets the job. Intel are instead hiring people to meet their self-set gender and race quotas. Hiring people based on their sex is sexist and hiring people based on their race is racist.

Intel's social engineering programme is like something a fascist dictatorship would do. You must meet the gender and ethnicity requirements set by the dictator or you will not be permitted to work! It's terrifying that this is happening in our society and even more terrifying that such a programme would actually be considered to be a positive thing.

The western world is royally fucked.
Click to expand...

Great and truthful rant. They should be spending their time/resources hiring the best people, not trying to meet some perceived diversity goal.

Might be time to sell my Intel stock before the full effect of this "diversity" works it's way through their work force.
 
kbrickley said:
I am a WASP so no bias intended (more of a Buddhist now since my wife is) ... you are right that there is more than one way to force diversity of opinions but you can only force people out of their comfort zone so far ... personally I think the best way to force diversity is globalization ... manufacturing and designing in only one country is bad for business and it is easier to find diverse candidates in other countries (so rather than trying to force diversity in this country I would just as soon have them move the jobs offshore ... you get the benefit of diversity and the cost savings both ... and there are often more female engineers and female workers outside the USA as well)
Click to expand...
I understand looking at the acronym in its purely denotative meaning, but connotatively it is a very disparaging term used by sociologists to describe the homogeneity of political systems developed in the Western world. More specifically, the American system as it was in the early 19th century. The country was still new at that time, so one could expect that the social and political climate during that period still reflected its Anglo-Saxon origins. Today, I think it has lost its meaning and impact, which is why I believe the redefinition to "Wealthy Affluent Schooled Person" had to be made by identity politicians. That term itself is classist, which ironically is the one "-ism" often left out of the conversation of identity politics in today's social climate.

Cultural diversity is a reasonable thing to strive for in my opinion, as you allude to in globalization. What is often glanced over by those with an Amerocentric viewpoint is the fact that those who are light-skinned are very culturally diverse on a global scale. One cannot define what it means to be "white" based on that outlook without historical context. The experiences of someone born and living in the US cannot be compared to someone who lived under communist oppression in Poland, for example. Even in the US, itself, with how large its land mass is one will be able to find a diversity in culture just by moving from one state to another regardless of skin color or gender.

Cerulean said:
There's no such thing as no bias.
Click to expand...
No, but every person has at least one, conscious or otherwise. Bias is not inherently good or bad: it is how one acts on that bias.
 
nutzo said:
Great and truthful rant. They should be spending their time/resources hiring the best people, not trying to meet some perceived diversity goal.

Might be time to sell my Intel stock before the full effect of this "diversity" works it's way through their work force.
Click to expand...

I am unclear on why diversity is risky to a company ... which companies have failed because they were too diverse ... which companies have succeeded because they didn't have any diversity :confused:

Perhaps we could compromise here ... raise the H1B quotas back to their 90's levels (when our economy was the best it had been in the last 100 years or so) and we kill two birds with one stone (more diversity and stronger companies ... win-win) :cool:
 
kbrickley said:
Except Intel, Google, Apple, etc are very diverse companies who are successful so I am not sure where you are going with this ... gender diversity is a little trickier since women don't always want to pursue technical degrees ... cultural diversity is fairly easy (unless you go out of your way to avoid it) since other cultures value education much more than white Americans do ... a lot of PhD employees are not white Americans because few white Americans want to invest the money to get their PhDs ... when I worked at Intel a large number of the PhD employees were from Asia since there was a bigger pool of candidates with that education ... I suspect that Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and others are similar ... so if your goal is for them to hire the best employees then they are doing both (hiring the best and the most diverse ;) )
Click to expand...

PhD holders are typically foreign born because the PhD stipend is a good deal for them and the PhD gets them a professional job outside of their country of origin. A PhD for a natural born citizen is an opportunity cost in a technical field
 
maverikv said:
Congrats, you choose the best candidate for the position. Do you honestly think all hiring managers do this? Do you think they are capable of doing this?

Have you ever not gotten a job because they hired someone who knew one of the bosses instead?

Was that person more qualified than you?
Click to expand...

And if a minority knew management and got the job you would be fine with it, right? You can't throw those kinds of variables in there because they are completely random and aren't fair to anyone.

Also, since you and these people writing the articles seem to keep complaining about diversity, how about we look at the breakdown of the amount of degrees awarded in these fields? Here is a spreadsheet, and unless the trends are completely different for the past 5 years, it is relevant. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/append/c2/at02-19.xls

If you look at Engineering and Computer Science, whites made up around 64.5% of Engineering and 60.5% of CS degrees. So, how is it unreasonable that almost 60% of many of these tech companies is made up of whites? If you get 10x the amount of applicants from whites, how is it unreasonable that one of them is going to have better grades/experience/etc. than the one minority applicant?

Here is the original website. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c2/c2s2.htm
And just for some extra info, here is the data for all bachelors degrees. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72
 
xIronCrossx said:
And if a minority knew management and got the job you would be fine with it, right? You can't throw those kinds of variables in there because they are completely random and aren't fair to anyone.

Also, since you and these people writing the articles seem to keep complaining about diversity, how about we look at the breakdown of the amount of degrees awarded in these fields? Here is a spreadsheet, and unless the trends are completely different for the past 5 years, it is relevant. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/append/c2/at02-19.xls

If you look at Engineering and Computer Science, whites made up around 64.5% of Engineering and 60.5% of CS degrees. So, how is it unreasonable that almost 60% of many of these tech companies is made up of whites? If you get 10x the amount of applicants from whites, how is it unreasonable that one of them is going to have better grades/experience/etc. than the one minority applicant?

Here is the original website. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c2/c2s2.htm
And just for some extra info, here is the data for all bachelors degrees. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72
Click to expand...

Do those stats hold true for Masters and PhD's as well? Nobody with a bachelors degree is likely to get a job at any of the top tech companies right out of school ... almost all new hires these days require a Masters or a PhD or at least a decade of experience with the Bachelors degree ... it is a buyers market for labor right now, not a sellers market ... a bachelors degree only will get you a job with a smaller company but not a big tech one (except maybe if you are Ivy League or something) ... a non-technical bachelors degree will make you the best educated hamburger flipper at the franchise :cool:
 
kbrickley said:
Nobody with a bachelors degree is likely to get a job at any of the top tech companies right out of school ... almost all new hires these days require a Masters or a PhD or at least a decade of experience with the Bachelors degree ... it is a buyers market for labor right now, not a sellers market ...
Click to expand...
Absolutely false, the graduate degrees are only necessary for research positions. There are thousands of newly graduated BS CS degree holders hired by "top" technology companies yearly.
 
kbrickley said:
Do those stats hold true for Masters and PhD's as well? Nobody with a bachelors degree is likely to get a job at any of the top tech companies right out of school ... almost all new hires these days require a Masters or a PhD or at least a decade of experience with the Bachelors degree ... it is a buyers market for labor right now, not a sellers market ... a bachelors degree only will get you a job with a smaller company but not a big tech one (except maybe if you are Ivy League or something) ... a non-technical bachelors degree will make you the best educated hamburger flipper at the franchise :cool:
Click to expand...

First of all, LOL. The only way you don't get a job at a big company with a bachelors is if you were a moron and had shitty grades or never completed a useful internship. Second, look at the last link in my post, it may or may not have the information for exactly what you were asking about. It is not specific to engineering degrees though.
 
PersonalJ said:
Absolutely false, the graduate degrees are only necessary for research positions. There are thousands of newly graduated BS CS degree holders hired by "top" technology companies yearly.
Click to expand...

CS may be the exception then ... if you only have a BS in EE, ME, etc you are going to be competing with tons of unemployed folks with years (sometimes decades) of experience ... when I left Intel in the early 2000's they were generally screening out most BS candidates (unless there were no MS candidates applying or unless they were hiring outside the USA for foreign locations ... in the Philippines a BS might get you a technician or operator position at best) ... without the MS it was also harder to get promoted ... in the design groups it was impossible to get in with less than an MS and about 75% (or more) were PhD's

Another reason companies prefer MS and PhD candidates is they won't need to pay for their education ... employees with only a bachelors degree often expect their employers to reimburse them for the tuition to get an advanced degree (good for the employee but very bad for the employer)
 
xIronCrossx said:
And if a minority knew management and got the job you would be fine with it, right? You can't throw those kinds of variables in there because they are completely random and aren't fair to anyone.

Also, since you and these people writing the articles seem to keep complaining about diversity, how about we look at the breakdown of the amount of degrees awarded in these fields? Here is a spreadsheet, and unless the trends are completely different for the past 5 years, it is relevant. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/append/c2/at02-19.xls

If you look at Engineering and Computer Science, whites made up around 64.5% of Engineering and 60.5% of CS degrees. So, how is it unreasonable that almost 60% of many of these tech companies is made up of whites? If you get 10x the amount of applicants from whites, how is it unreasonable that one of them is going to have better grades/experience/etc. than the one minority applicant?

Here is the original website. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c2/c2s2.htm
And just for some extra info, here is the data for all bachelors degrees. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72
Click to expand...

No, that's not my point.

My point is the argument "they just hire the best person for the job" doesn't hold water, and I gave an example.

Additionally, people subconsciously drift towards people that are like them, and since the majority of the hiring managers are white men . . .

Get it? Its a self perpetuating problem, which in most cases is not even intentional.

My point is, the goal isn't to hire less qualified people to fill a quota. The goal is to hire a more diverse range of QUALIFIED candidates.
 
maverikv said:
No, that's not my point.

My point is the argument "they just hire the best person for the job" doesn't hold water, and I gave an example.

Additionally, people subconsciously drift towards people that are like them, and since the majority of the hiring managers are white men . . .

Get it? Its a self perpetuating problem, which in most cases is not even intentional.

My point is, the goal isn't to hire less qualified people to fill a quota. The goal is to hire a more diverse range of QUALIFIED candidates.
Click to expand...

How do you hire more diverse qualified candidates when there are 10x less? I don't have an issue hiring someone who is qualified without considering their skin color/sex, but how do you do that when there are way less of them?
 
Do you know how many people apply for every job that gets posted?Its absolutely insane. You're telling me there are no qualified candidates?
 
maverikv said:
Its beneficial to the business to be diverse. And its not just PR. Diversity enhances creativity and leads to better decision making.

Its not something that's made up, decades of scientific research show its the case.

So, benefits of diversity:
1. Good PR
2. Better business, more money

Benefits of homogeneity:
???

You people seem to think that hiring with diversity in mind means you hire morons instead of way better qualified white men. I'm baffled as to how you don't see how racist that is, to assume the minority candidates are somehow less qualified.

Intel isn't looking for idiots to fill a quota. They are hiring people that they think can do the job with the overall goal of diversity in mind to reap the benefits of that as well. The only reason this bothers you is because now it will be slightly harder for you to coast into a job just because you're a white guy. Cry me a farking river.
Click to expand...

Hi All

One thing life has taught me is that folk are going to believe what they want regardless of the validity of that belief. Folk like that can't be convinced that their thinking is flawed so it's best not to waste time trying to convince them.

When I was growing up I would get upset when folk would stare at me, clearly trying to figure out my ethnicity. However, as I grew older I came to realize that we are all individuals. Some Native American, Some Black, Some White, and every other ethnic group that I didn't mention. I also realized to judge someone based on their ethnicity is dumb. Folk who do it are dumb. Period.
I'll also add that I once would get angry at folk who thought that way, now, I pity them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top