Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases Employee Diversity Report, 7 out of 10 Workers Are Male, 55% White
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple's diversity numbers probably paint a better picture than most tech companies because of their retail stores. The retail employees are very diverse in my experience, but I doubt it's like that at the HQs.
I'm glad you pointed that out.
I'm a triple citizen of America, Brazil, and Jamaica. In Brazil it gets pretty racist too. In Jamaica, gays have almost no protection and it's extremely homophobic. America still has it's problems, but Americans should be thankful of the progress this country has achieved. Apple is only glorifying that progress, not trying to spark anything negative.
I put the wrong race and gender so I have a chance at getting a job! Otherwise, they see "White male" and into the circular file my resume goes.
These types of reports are necessary because not so long ago things weren't as equitable as they are now. If you were non-white or female, access to certain jobs was denied; regardless of how qualified you may be. I'm not talking about 100 or 200 years ago. I'm talking less than 50. Granted, we've progressed a lot, but we haven't reached a level of equality because we didn't start with one.
I'm reminded of an old saying, "Those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it." That's not to say we'd go back to the "good ol' days". Far from it. It's just to say we should understand the freedoms we ALL enjoy; not just white males, but all of us, are fairly recent in our history.
Not to mention the fact they're near fairly close women to men, and 55% white isn't really bad considering whites make up the vast majority of the country. The whole "diversity" thing is idiotic to begin with. When you have two people wanting the same job, hire the better of the two. Rather that makes it 50/50 or 100/0. Who cares?
The Black guy would be chosen if quotas were taken into account. If there were no quotas, the person doing the hiring would probably choose the best candidate.
----------
Thank you Rogifan for taking a stance!
That's the key. In my example I said identical individuals/portfolios, including personality. It's not really a simple black-and-white answer, absolutely no pun intended.
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!!
As Peter Griffin would say this does "Grind your gears"
You really do have a rather large chip on your shoulder.
You really do have a rather large chip on your shoulder.
I have spent some time in the us and I guarantee you it's FAR worse here, it's not talked about and it's accepted. I also far far more racism in the US in southern ca than I did in arkansas. Great people in AR actually.
Here in mexico it's typical to put ads up for employees based on race or age they are looking for. Women can just about hang it up after the mid 30's. I know a woman that was an executive secretary for televisa that was really good at her job, but was fired at 35 for a younger version. She's close to 50 now and has only been able to get odd jobs since then. The wife worked for butterball a couple of years and the only people she had problems with were at work from here and the countries south of us.
Citizens there in ar were giving us clothes and stuff when they found out we were sending a lot back here.
Most people think because latin america is mostly people with shades of brown skin it's not racist here, but the more indigenous blood you have the lower class you are considered being. It just makes the news more in the us, not near as bad in reality though as here.
It's not very positive if it discriminates, is it? Or is discrimination a good thing?
The problem with positive discrimination is that someone is going to get discriminated.
If Apple is going to be more actively looking for non-male non-white persons, than that means anyone currently looking for a job at Apple and:
- is male;
- has a white skin color
has less chance for getting the job than someone who isn't male or white.
I get the idea behind positive discrimination. And yes, everybody should have an equal chance to get a job if they are equally qualified - but picking someone *because* _she_ is _female_ and has a _dark_ skin color is wrong, which happens with positive discrimination.
Of course, it is also wrong to pick someone *because* _he_ is _male_ and has a _light_ skin color.
If Apple is going to be more actively looking for non-male non-white persons, than that means anyone currently looking for a job at Apple and:
- is male;
- has a white skin color
has less chance for getting the job than someone who isn't male or white.
I get the idea behind positive discrimination. And yes, everybody should have an equal chance to get a job if they are equally qualified - but picking someone *because* _she_ is _female_ and has a _dark_ skin color is wrong, which happens with positive discrimination.
Of course, it is also wrong to pick someone *because* _he_ is _male_ and has a _light_ skin color.
As Peter Griffin would say this does "Grind your gears"
You really do have a rather large chip on your shoulder.
We all do, don't we? Those who say they don't, they do.
You are welcome, I just call it as I see it.
There are a lot of good people here, we have just allowed ourselves to be taken over by corruption.
As a female and a minority (black) who happens to be interested in tech (but got started way too late). I think that while efforts at the top are important ultimately real change (that doesn't feel unfair etc.) will have to come earlier during education.
Gender stereotypes and issues with access to technology and/or good computer science classes (not offered or emphasized by lower income schools btw) is probably the real issue. If you don't know that something is an option or you think (as a kid) that because you are female you shouldn't be interested in that option it is of course going to skew the numbers once we look much later down the line at the professions that people choose. I would much rather effort be spent on early education to narrow the gender and race gap than focusing on the hiring practices of companies from an applicant pool which probably does have a lower proportion of qualified female and minority candidates.
Yes, gender and ethnic diversity DO matter. Living in a society where class is de facto based on race is only a little better than living in a caste based society. It truly does limit opportunities in an unfair manner (I cannot begin to explain how terrible it feels to go to an academic meeting and the only other people of color in the whole building are the service staff. I've also experienced sexual harassment first hand that almost drove me out of my chosen career). BUT there is more than one way to go about fixing the problem. Increasing access to the beginning of the pipeline seems more fair (to me) than arbitrary quotas at the end.
That said if Apple wanted to hire ME to help their gender and race diversity (killing two birds with one stone) I wouldn't say no
So what happens when White males become the minority, as already seems to be happening an many urban American situation? Will you then advocate quotas to include White males?
You say it feels terrible to be in a meeting without other people of color. Is it okay if I feel the same way in a meeting without other White males?
Call my cynical, but I wonder if Apple's "minority ratio" is so high compared to other tech companies solely because of Retail employees?
Likewise, cynicality coming in, I wonder if the 9% "refused to answer" were white males who were 'encouraged' to decline to answer to skew the numbers...
To those bitching about "why be concerned about diversity?" and similar. Measuring it is a sign of how likely your hiring practices are to be discriminatory.
If 12.5% of the population is black, yet only 3% of your workforce is, then it's likely that your hiring policies are (intentionally or unintentionally) discriminatory. As others say, "all else being equal, hire the more qualified candidate." Statistically speaking, race has nothing to do with qualification - a software engineer is a software engineer. If 12.5% of your software engineer candidates are black, you should expect to see that 12.5% of your software engineer workforce is black.
Of course, that doesn't take in to account applicant demographics. I would like to see "percent of applicants" of each measured group - as well as "minimally qualified applicants" (since I'm sure that lots of jobs get applicants who literally aren't qualified - like a high school student applying for a senior management job on a lark. I know in my roles as hiring manager at multiple companies, a good 50% of resumes for highly-technical positions were not at all qualified.) THAT would be a good comparison.
"5% of our 'minimally qualified applicants' were black; 5% of our workforce is black." would be a good statistic. Perfectly reasonable. It means that more work would need to be done with education and outreach to black communities to encourage more black applicants to get in to the technology field to increase diversity.
Likewise, cynicality coming in, I wonder if the 9% "refused to answer" were white males who were 'encouraged' to decline to answer to skew the numbers...
To those bitching about "why be concerned about diversity?" and similar. Measuring it is a sign of how likely your hiring practices are to be discriminatory.
If 12.5% of the population is black, yet only 3% of your workforce is, then it's likely that your hiring policies are (intentionally or unintentionally) discriminatory. As others say, "all else being equal, hire the more qualified candidate." Statistically speaking, race has nothing to do with qualification - a software engineer is a software engineer. If 12.5% of your software engineer candidates are black, you should expect to see that 12.5% of your software engineer workforce is black.
Of course, that doesn't take in to account applicant demographics. I would like to see "percent of applicants" of each measured group - as well as "minimally qualified applicants" (since I'm sure that lots of jobs get applicants who literally aren't qualified - like a high school student applying for a senior management job on a lark. I know in my roles as hiring manager at multiple companies, a good 50% of resumes for highly-technical positions were not at all qualified.) THAT would be a good comparison.
"5% of our 'minimally qualified applicants' were black; 5% of our workforce is black." would be a good statistic. Perfectly reasonable. It means that more work would need to be done with education and outreach to black communities to encourage more black applicants to get in to the technology field to increase diversity.
Can anyone prove that a white male has a less of a chance landing a job because of some unwritten quota VS having more competition from other races on the same playing field?
When it stops being an issue. When minorities stop being discriminated against. AKA, never.
Jobs typically afforded to white people are now going to more minorities and you're finding it so much harder to find a job? This is a non-issue. Cry me an ocean.
Forcing someone to out themselves is not the right way to make a statement on acceptance. You don't know what his status is to his friends, close co-workers, and family. It isn't really any of your business, nor does it affect the business of Apple.
Because white racial slurs (which is an extreme phrase in itself) don't have the history and impact behind them. They weren't chained up, sold like a common pet, forced to work involuntarily, treated as less than human, and called these words to degrade them on a daily basis. That's why it is not as big a deal.
There's still a stigma attached to women in high power positions. They're seen as a b**** if they're too tough, or they're seen as a stereotypical woman who can't make the hard decisions if they're too soft. It's basically a lose/lose.
Have you experienced systemic oppression based on your race, which might have affected your higher level education, work placement, and overall quality of life?. I understand you grew up around mean black people who only have the power to be just that, mean. Someone robbing you as a kid because of your skin color, doesn't really affect your longtime quality of life. They don't have the power to prevent you from getting a job, a loan, a car, opening a business, or whatever else you want in life. Where as white people pretty much have that power since they're the head of all these companies.
I am trying so hard to remain civil, but you are really just not comprehending the crux of the argument. They want woman to have more opportunities to become executives. This article is not stating they need to hire 25% more women right now to meet a quota. You are interpreting the data in such a black and white manner, when it's the shades of gray you should be commenting on. It's basically showcasing a level of diversity in their company right now and stating that they want it to increase in the future. They want to see qualified women and minorities capable of maintaining positions within the company. As you can see, they aren't just hiring women and minorities right now (otherwise there would be a lot more within the company, they're only hiring qualified individuals. And most of those happen to be white males. This report is just a simple statement of that.
--------
I'm kind of ashamed every time a race post makes the first page because they are so many people who have the right intentions, but they're voicing it in the complete wrong way.
So you change your story because he's Mexican, but with me you keep to your attack? Such illogical, irrational hate against White males.