Exactly. Is there any evidence that Apple's culture is resulting in hiring white men over equally qualified women or minorities?
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 Updates Corporate Bylaws on Diversity Following Criticism Over Lack of Female Leaders
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. Is there any evidence that Apple's culture is resulting in hiring white men over equally qualified women or minorities?
We live in a world where what you just said is considered by many to be bigoted, sexist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, etc. That's why.
No, it isn't. It's fair play. Do you really want to say that the disparity of women in important positions is because they aren't capable like men are?
Clearly, women have been discriminated against for years, placing many men in positions that they really didn't deserve because there was an equally qualified (or even more qualified) woman who got passed over.
It is only fair to try to right this wrong by helping equally qualified women to get an advantage to address past wrongs.
I would never advocate for a women who is less qualified to be chosen over a man, but when they are equally qualified, it is morally the right thing to do, since we have discriminated against them in the past.
----------
Good, then Apple can get rid of Al Gore and replace him with a more qualified woman or minority.
But, don't they need the inventor of the Internet on their board?
This.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would demand that a company hire people based on their gender over their actual competence. But what this means is that they are actively seeking out people who might not have been presented to them at first. Of course, a lot of this has more to do with the a bias at a larger level than at Apple specifically, as most of the larger tech organisations have a similar problem. (i.e. women see less inspiration models in technology, therefore consider it less as a career option, therefore there are less women entering the industry, meaning less women to choose from). All this means is that they are trying to compensate for that bias, and make sure they find the best person, even if they have to be a bit more proactive.
Concepts of diversity, affirmative action, etc., when applied properly, help to identify the best man for the job. Unfortunately, liberals have taken these concepts to the extreme as a means to justify the hiring of unqualified individuals in the name of social justice.
So I agree that the "best person for the job" is the right model, but I think considering an individuals socioeconomic and minority status helps to identify the best person for the job. If two individuals are competing for a job, and one individual has overcome hardships, such as discrimination and a poor upbringing, that particular individual has demonstrated a level of skill and competence over another individual who has not had to deal with such hardships. I'm not saying that the first person should automatically get the job over the second, but the first person would get some points in my book since he/she has demonstrated character, tenacity, and perseverance, which are all profitable traits in a prospective employee.
I'm not sure about this. In principle, sure, I'll vote for more diversity.
But be careful, Apple! Put more females in the boardroom could create distraction and tensions (if there is more than one females, they'd compete sometimes); just look at the HP for the last decade or so for all the dramas they created...
Wow
.
"The company is also set to add Burberry CEO Angela Ahrendts to its executive team in the spring"
Well, that is 2x the number of woman then. Incredible growth.
Well, that is 2x the number of woman then. Incredible growth.
Given women make up half the population shouldn't the long term aim be to make the board half women? Then Apple is woefully short.
Maybe the courts should force Apple to hire a Monitorship to sit in the boardroom and keep an eye on proceedings to see if this is happening. They could hold private meetings with Jony and Eddy and others and charge high hourly rates.
Shame we can't judge people on merit instead of being forced to look at gender/race/sexual orientation/religion/ect. by the progressive.
When people have equal opportunities regardless of gender/race/sexual orientation/religion etc. then sure
I thought conservatives were generally big supporters of equality of opportunity.
If someone has decided that the best way to run a business is to make the employee base mimic the world's demographics, then sure. Otherwise, no.
So you don't think in the long run women aren't equal to men? Seriously?
----------
So what should they do to make sure women get onto boards?
It really wasn't liberals as much as lazy people, and there have been enough legal precedents now that what used to happen, doesn't happen all that much.
You can't use quotas, and if you give "points" to a candidate for being a minority, you have to show that diversity is a key characteristic of your organization. Like a college that argues that a diverse population benefits all students by being exposed to people different than themselves. But those points can't be a substantial part of the decision, meaning that it gives them a distinct advantage over non-minoirites.
As did Steve Jobs....I highly doubt Steves goal for building his executive team was to assemble a cast of "older white males." He was basically blinded by abilities and talent to even worry about gender/race.
Besides...Eddy Cue is Cuban, the new SVP Retail will be female, and many VPs inside the company are gay (such as the VP of video apps), etc. I'd say Apple is one of the more open and diverse companies of any other in the country. They don't fill minority slots, they assign who is the most talented for the role.
Forced "diversity" = forced incompetence.
Best person for job, regardless of color or sex.
"Social Engineering"…never works.
Best person for job, regardless of color or sex.
"Social Engineering"…never works.
The moment a choice boils down to 'well, XX isn't a (man/woman/minority/majority/local/from planet X) the whole point of picking whoever was best for the job, given the information they have to work with, has gone out the window.
Positive Discrimination.
Positive Discrimination.
I'm sure Steve jobs often hired people he already knew. That produces a bias towards people like him.
You're assuming women as a whole are the same as men in every way including their desire to be on Apple's board.
Exactly this.
I don't agree with inequality in the work place, but what's just as bad is when people go out of their way to look for it; unless they can prove there are woman who were better qualified but overlooked for the job, then this is just as bad as the problem they're claiming to be against, namely because they're the ones looking at people's gender, or race or whatever.
Now if there's some proof that Apple has been unfair in its selection process then that's another matter, but until then it's nothing more than coincidental that the current board happens to include the people it does.
Seems like a good first approximation...
Women have generally made good leaders when given the chance. Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth (both) and Queen Victoria are some of our greatest leaders.
I suppose I read the same article as you did, but somehow I understood it differently.
Apple never hires the most qualified person. They hire the most qualified person who applies for the job, as every reasonable company does. For every employee at Apple, there are millions who didn't apply for the job. Now Apple states that they want to encourage more women and members of minorities to apply for jobs. As a result, it will happen more often that the most qualified person who applies is a woman or belongs to a minority.