Apple Releases Employee Diversity Report, 7 out of 10 Workers Are Male, 55% White

[BC2009]

Considering that 63% of US citizens are "white" (non-hispanic) then you would think that white people are under-represented at Apple. Yet somehow "55% white" is a bad thing to some news outlets.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...nic-whites-hits-all-time-63-article-1.1371772

 

[69Mustang]

Progress is racist
(in reverse)

Brevity sometimes doesn't convey any meaning. I have no idea what you're taking about.

 

[Mums]

It's not discrimination at all, it's leveling the playing field. And it only hurts white people in the sense that they now have more competition. The job isn't automatically theirs like it may have been in the past. But I understand wanting to hold onto privilege, it's a beautiful thing.

Your logic is so deeply flawed, but I understand you will never be capable of understanding that sad fact.

Industry is never a "privilege", and the only ones who are privileged are the ones given quota positions.

 

[markcres]

77.7% of the US population is white (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html)

Only 55% of Apple workers are white

Therefore, whites are under-represented and non-whites are over-represented

 

[PocketSand11]

Considering that 63% of US citizens are "white" (non-hispanic) then you would think that white people are under-represented at Apple. Yet somehow "55% white" is a bad thing to some news outlets.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...nic-whites-hits-all-time-63-article-1.1371772

Yeah, I was thinking about that too. I'm surprised nobody else brought it up earlier.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Considering that 63% of US citizens are "white" (non-hispanic) then you would think that white people are under-represented at Apple. Yet somehow "55% white" is a bad thing to some news outlets.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...nic-whites-hits-all-time-63-article-1.1371772

But you would have to factor together the ethnic regional makeup of every Apple store. I'm pretty sure more blacks applied in cities like NY, more asians applied in San Fran, and etc.

 

[imageWIS]

Isn't their something wrong with that though? I don't understand if you see what I mean, and I'm not trying to be a troll either.

Of course there is!

----------

Oh yes - you should enforce diversity on the Apple board of directors! Then we'll have even more mediocre product development than we already have!!

You think that adding minorities to the board would make make the products more mediocre?? Any more racist nonsense you want to say?

 

[Renzatic]

Of course you're having trouble understanding my point. That's my point!

As for women having the majority - they already do lol. And look where it's got them. You're just another man-hater masking herself under the guise of concern for social welfare. Too bad you and your ilk can never actually win.

Amazons = 1. Rest of the world = ∞.

Stay classy, Mums.

 

[Deacon-Blues]

Someone refresh my memory. Did we have this crap with Steve Jobs at the helm? All I remember was the environmenalist stuff (which I always thought was a bit hypocritical because unless you make computers and phones out of dirt, you will still hurt the environment).

It seems like with Tim Cook, Apple keeps drifting off into things that really have nothing to do with making great iProducts. Sadly, I can see myself leaving Apple behind if this continues.

The company always had a left-leaning attitude under Jobs, but under Tim Cook it has taken an overtly leftward step politically. I was always happily able to use Apple products before, because the company wasn't rubbing it in my face. Now I am, more and more often, being reminded that I am spending a lot of money on products from a company that doesn't much like me.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Your logic is so deeply flawed, but I understand you will never be capable of understanding that sad fact.

Industry is never a "privilege", and the only ones who are privileged are the ones given quota positions.

What quota? This thread has how many responses and nobody can answer that yet?

 

[dec.]

Funnily enough, I did think this a few weeks ago when there was all the Beats Audio talk going on.

Funny if you look at all the top people in Apple:

https://www.apple.com/uk/pr/bios/

Seems all very Old School in who they pick for the top positions does it not?

You mean that it does not look like they've picked their top people based on political correctness? That's nice, isn't it?

 

[bpeeps]

Your logic is so deeply flawed, but I understand you will never be capable of understanding that sad fact.

Industry is never a "privilege", and the only ones who are privileged are the ones given quota positions.

Which explains why the majority of people replying to you disagree.

 

[quagmire]

The company always had a left-leaning attitude under Jobs, but under Tim Cook it has taken an overtly leftward step politically. I was always happily able to use Apple products before, because the company wasn't rubbing it in my face. Now I am, more and more often, being reminded that I am spending a lot of money on products from a company that doesn't much like me.

Probably nothing changed, but it's more public under Tim.

Oh no a company leans left and since I lean right it means they hate me...... This partisan crap has to end...... Only partisan hacks hate people because they have a different political view.

 

[eyehop]

Sorry, but I found the idea of purposely hiring minorities for the sake of "diversity" ridiculous. Hire the best person for the job, not the one who'll improve your diversity report numbers.

The point is that the best person is often not chosen due to systematic racial disparity. The solution is not to take any minority off the street as you suggest is somehow happening, it's to ensure the education, outreach, selection process, and work culture, is all geared correctly. Making extra effort to get there is certainly no crime, but pretending it's about reverse discrimination may very well be. Apple's numbers seem pretty good, but more awesome black people, please.

 

[bpeeps]

The company always had a left-leaning attitude under Jobs, but under Tim Cook it has taken an overtly leftward step politically. I was always happily able to use Apple products before, because the company wasn't rubbing it in my face. Now I am, more and more often, being reminded that I am spending a lot of money on products from a company that doesn't much like me.

Remind yourself when you're dropping 2 to 300 on the next iPhone iteration. There are many more competing companies with which your political ideologies might align with.

 

[bsolar]

It's not discrimination at all, it's leveling the playing field. And it only hurts white people in the sense that they now have more competition. The job isn't automatically theirs like it may have been in the past. But I understand wanting to hold onto privilege, it's a beautiful thing.

It's discrimination by definition, since a preferential treatment is being given based on being part of a group or ethnicity:

Positive discrimination is the process of giving preferential treatment, especially in employment, to minority groups of society that have been prejudiced against in the past.

What is open to debate is whether this particular kind of discrimination (meant to "correct" a supposedly pre-existing bias) is a good thing and ultimately effective.

It would also be nice to know which specific goal is this "preferential treatment" supposed to reach. It will stop at which ratio of employees of the different demographics? How is the supposedly "unbiased" target ratio calculated? Does it take into account number or quality of actual candidates? Does it take into account their expectations?

 

[PocketSand11]

Do you think progress and advancing diversity means we need to hire as many minorities and woman as we can right now? Or do you think progress and advancing diversity means we are continually progressing towards hiring qualified individuals and many of those are becoming woman and minorities?

"Innovating in advancing diversity" doesn't really imply that they're hiring the best workers regardless and allowing the world to give them more qualified female and non-Asian workers. If I said "minorities" before, I was wrong, because females are actually in the majority, and U.S. majority whites are already underrepresented at Apple.

So, one of the three options:
- Apple was discriminating against women and non-Asian workers and is trying to stop that now, which I find highly unlikely.
- Apple is trying to hire more female and non-Asian workers, which I find more likely.
- Apple is doing nothing, and Tim Cook is making an empty speech, which I find equally likely as #2.

 

[kmj2318]

How do you know this? What if one group is actually better for a certain task? Also, there could be some difference between the number of male-only and female-only jobs available, taking more males or females out of other jobs, automatically causing some kind of overrepresentation somewhere.

I don't believe there are biological differences that can account for such a large difference. Those theories are outdated, along with myths of natural talent. Becoming good at something depends on the amount of time put into it. I don't believe there's anything that makes women worse than men at leadership or math. And the latest research shows underperformance among women in traditionally male domains is entirely due to the self-fulfilling nature of stereotypes.

I think the male-only and female-only jobs idea is an interesting one. I have a hard time imaging that there are very many jobs that have bona fide occupational qualitifications to account for any meaningful difference though. I don't what female-only jobs you have in mind.

 

[Rogifan]

Go to glassdoor.com and look up employee reviews of Apple. Rarely, if ever, will you see a complaint about Apple not being diverse enough. The biggest complaints from Apple corporate employees BY FAR is work/life balance. You also see complaints about internal politics, no room for upward movement and pay. I wonder what Cook is doing to address those issues, especially the first one.

 

[ThatsMeRight]

Yes it matters. Let me make this clear as day. Are you saying that Apple is using ANY TYPE of discrimination to have a more diverse employment?

If your answer is YES, then all my previous posts stand.
If your answer is NO, then please explain what you are referring to when speaking about positive discrimination.

I can't get any clear than that.

No.

The main subject in this thread appears to be:

"Positive discrimination is (GOOD/BAD)"

I simply stepped in and gave my opinion on whether or not I believe positive discrimination to be a good or bad thing.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Sorry, but I found the idea of purposely hiring minorities for the sake of "diversity" ridiculous. Hire the best person for the job, not the one who'll improve your diversity report numbers.

I've NEVER seen a single one of these "news" stories even question the "interest" factor in various technical jobs, especially ones that require a degree. When I took electronic engineering classes in the '90s, there was one girl in some of my classes, a few Asians, several students from Kuwait and zero African Americans. It was a State University and their overall student population was far more diverse than that. But people choose their own major out of interest. If you want greater diversity in science and technology fields, do something in high school or even sooner to get more people interested in it. You can't hire people that aren't there. I don't know why the news has to always look for the most cynical and "evil" explanation and ignore the obvious.

To point out the absurdity of it all, where are the news stories about how unfair it is that there are few Asian players in the NBA or NFL? Well obviously, they simply MUST be racist against Asians!

I'm not sure how "diverse" means everyone should be equally distributed and equally interested in the same things. That sounds like a lack of diversity in society, overall. The problem is that there's this belief that there are zero cultural and genetic differences in the human race and that culture, history and evolution play no factor what-so-ever in what fields people are interested in or have skills in. If you want to celebrate diversity, expect people to have diverse interests. In other words, preventing discrimination is not the same thing as expecting equal distribution of all races and genders. People have free will, after all. Ending discrimination is good. Forcing people to be interested in something they're not to achieve some level of homeostasis is totalitarian.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

It's almost like some of you can't believe that any minority had a fair shot, so Apple must have been giving the advantage base on a quota. That reflects what some of you really think about minorities.

 

[Mildredop]

Justin Beiber appears to lead a double life working for Apple.

 

[SmokyD]

Dear Apple,

You are LOSING YOUR FOCUS.

 

[kmj2318]

Of course you're having trouble understanding my point. That's my point!

As for women having the majority - they already do lol. And look where it's got them. You're just another man-hater masking herself under the guise of concern for social welfare. Too bad you and your ilk can never actually win.

Amazons = 1. Rest of the world = ∞.

I'm actually a man.

I think you are incredibly deluded. You don't want to see any women in leadership positions because you feel that it takes away from your identity as a man. The fact that you can't deal with women being equally represented in positions of power relative to the general population mean's you're just scared.