Apple's U.S. Workforce Continues to Diversify Per Latest Federal Data

[farmboy]

So you would rather the pendulum swing to the opposite extreme instead of being neutral and having a fresh start???? Way to hold a grudge for stuff that never happened to you but happened to your ancestors there big guy......! (and in turn those 'white' people suffer now for what their ancestors may or more than likely may not have done.)

Oh yeah, forgive and forget, amiright? What would constitute a fresh start? This should be good.

And do you really believe that racism, sexism, etc. are relics of the past, affecting only "ancestors"? The denial is strong with this one.

 

[kironin]

How about the best person for the job? Based on skillset, character and work ethic.

For the simple fact that "the best person for the job" is not and never will be an objective evaluation. There is always going to be subjective judgement especially in highly competitive arenas. Humans in the position of making hiring decisions are also very much subject to influences like rational-bias related discrimination even when feeling they are against discrimination. It's certainly fair to ask given the racial diversity of the population and the history of this country, if biases past and present are still excluding some of the potential brain trust in this country.

 

[dk001]

Choosing someone because his skin color is correct is the worst form of racism.

So is the opposite and is just if not more frequently used.
Sadly.

 

[bpeeps]

Fine, punish the people who committed all the crimes. You can't justify punishing the innocent who happened to have ancestors who did bad things. Injustice in the pursuit of justice is morally corrupt.

You continue to misunderstand what people here are telling you in favor of repeating your crimes against white males and injustice comments. Your response has nothing to do with what I said. As of now, you're just repeating the same thing over and over again and not really comprehending the problem most are trying to address. If you actually want to engage in discussion, let me know.

Discrimination will always be around because all humans harbor prejudices. That's because we're generalizing creatures who categorize based on experience.

Try picturing what you DON'T experience, that factors much more into this discussion than what you do. You almost have an understanding of privilege and how it affects someone based on their experiences. You just don't know how to aptly apply it to the current topic or how it benefits white people.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

Oh yeah, forgive and forget, amiright? What would constitute a fresh start? This should be good.

And do you really believe that racism, sexism, etc. are relics of the past, affecting only "ancestors"? The denial is strong with this one.

Fresh start: Make overt discrimination illegal. Problem solved.

What not to do: Punish people because their ancestors did wrong. Committing injustice against people of any skin color because of their skin color is racism and as wrong as it gets.
[doublepost=1453225530][/doublepost]

So is the opposite and is just if not more frequently used.
Sadly.

Huh? You seem to be reacting out of habit. Please reread my post.

 

[bpeeps]

Oh yeah, forgive and forget, amiright? What would constitute a fresh start? This should be good.

And do you really believe that racism, sexism, etc. are relics of the past, affecting only "ancestors"? The denial is strong with this one.

Those who don't experience discrimination, racism, sexism are those most likely to not see how others are affected by it. I'd related it more to ignorance than denial.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

You continue to misunderstand what people here are telling you in favor of repeating your crimes against white males and injustice comments. Your response has nothing to do with what I said. As of now, you're just repeating the same thing over and over again and not really comprehending the problem most are trying to address. If you actually want to engage in discussion, let me know.

Fine. Explain why I'm wrong in insisting that selective injustice is morally wrong.

Try picturing what you DON'T experience, that factors much more into this discussion than what you do. You almost have an understanding of privilege and how it affects someone based on their experiences. You just don't know how to aptly apply it to the current topic or how it benefits white people.

Life is tough. If you're fat people treat you with disdain. If you're short people take you less seriously. Etc.

Prejudice is all around and we're all guilty of it. The best that can be done is to make overt discrimination illegal. Which we've done.

Time will heal the wounds, but not if we insist on continuing racism by harming those who've done no wrong but be the wrong skin color.

 

[HenryDJP]

I love how you think it might be illegal to have 1 job advertised for a white male not that 80 were advertised as not open to white males.

Your post makes no sense. I was asking for clarification. And since you bothered to reply, I stand by what I said. That can't be right that the police department advertises a job with a description stating that's only open for a "White Male". You know, posts like yours easily reveal exactly who you are. Thanks.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Why don't professional sports teams impose this, for the cause of diversity? The answer is obvious, because they want to field the best team possible. Apple also wants to do this so why should Apple care what gender, race, etc. it's employees are? This is a pure PR move and is racist.

So you basically said kept the NHL the way it is. Cause every over major sport is diverse.

 

[dk001]

This is absolutely it.

Fundamentally egalitarianism should be what we all strive for, but unfortunately it doesn't address the fact that there currently inequalities (as you mentioned) that interrupt it. The only way to have an egalitarian, or equal, society is to first reset everything to zero... but since we can't do that the best chance of it is to improve the existing inequalities as best we can.

Too bad we haven't figured out to properly execute that yet. For every fix we as a society implement it seems to "create" a point of "entitlement".

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

Two potential employees.

One white one black

White one slightly more suited for the job
"Oh wait we need to be diverse, sorry white".

This is still racism. You're noticing someone's colour/race, when we are meant to ignore all that and take someone for who they are.

Notice how when it comes to hiring a black person to bring diversity to the workplace, it's time to ignore race?

 

[dk001]

Just to confirm your post, is this true that the police department can post jobs stating the position available is for a "white male"? How is this not against the law?

No. They posted they were accepting applicants for current openings. Once you made it past testing and other qualifications you were ranked by your overall score. At that time you found out what needed to be filled. Of the 80 openings, they were only allowed to hire one "white male". All other openings were slotted for minority and female candidates.
There were 400 candidates that applied and it was a fairly diverse group.

 

[HenryDJP]

Why don't professional sports teams impose this, for the cause of diversity? The answer is obvious, because they want to field the best team possible.

That's actually not true. When it comes to sports, take a look around and see the very people that do it just for fun. You will see more black people playing basketball, more white people skiing or doing water sports and that includes hockey. Football is a mixture of white and black. Baseball tends to have more hispanics playing it professionally. It's generally the ethnicity that favors a certain sport to play, not necessarily the industry choosing the best player.

 

[unlinked]

Your post makes no sense. I was asking for clarification. And since you bothered to reply, I stand by what I said. That can't be right that the police department advertises a job with a description stating that's only open for a "White Male". You know, posts like yours easily reveal exactly who you are. Thanks.

I'm a person who thinks it is wrong to specify which races or genders can apply for a job. You seem to be one that is only bothered by that sometimes.

 

[HenryDJP]

I'm a person who thinks it is wrong to specify which races or genders can apply for a job. You seem to be one that is only bothered by that sometimes.

Sometimes?? I've only posted once before you decided to post your nonsense reply. Go find someone else to pick a fight with. Looks like you have an attitude and are ready for someone to jump on.

 

[dk001]

Because he never missed out on the job because of his race. Someone really needs to college level 101 walk you through what diversity and privilege is. It doesn't mean hiring uneducated and unqualified minorities to fill quota like you think it does.

True. However, if I am interviewing candidates for an engineering job and four qualify for the initial interview and the "white guy" is excluded from the second interview round as we have too many current "white guys" even if he is the most qualified... In my experience it isn't the initial interview round that reverse discrimination occurs.

 

[soupcan]

You're not a "better company" by being more diverse. You're a better company by hiring the right people regardless of skin color or religion or background.

Get that image out of your head.

 

[unlinked]

Sometimes?? I've only posted once before you decided to post your nonsense reply. Go find someone else to pick a fight with. Looks like you have an attitude and are ready for someone to jump on.

It would be advisable to ask more neutral questions if you don't want people to see obvious bias in them. If you weren't more put out by the 1 white male only job than the 80 that excluded white males you could have asked if it was legal to specify the race and gender of candidates.
[doublepost=1453227994][/doublepost]

In my experience it isn't the initial interview round that reverse discrimination occurs.

Usually I see it earlier than that but it probably depends on how much you need to stuff the ballot box to achieve what you want.

 

[btrach144]

I don't think white males are truly suited for a majority of STEM jobs or careers that is currently represented.

With that being said, I also don't think that hiring a Latina over a white male because of her gender/ethnicity does anyone any favors. Award the Latina only if she has better qualifications for the job.

When I was at a Midwest university, (30,000+ enrollment) there were easily 15 males for every 1 female. Granted lots of the males were different ethnicities.

Since my job requires a 4 year degree, I would expect to see a similar hiring ratio as to what I saw in my classes. This wasn't the case. I was hired for a position where 21 college grads were hired. 11 were woman and 10 were male. I was shocked at the ratio but I shortly learned that my employer like Apple and many others right now, is making a big push to hire more diversely. I was even more shocked when I learned that they hired similar groups of recent grads in previous years but those previous years were majority male. In reality, I feel like the proper hiring would have been somewhere in between the previous years in terms of gender hiring.

Also, granted my Midwest based university certainly isn't the only indicator of the ratio of diversity in those seeking STEM degrees. I've heard west coast schools have a higher female to male ratio.

With that being said, many of the woman I was hired along became great friends and they were certainly hard workers.

At the end of the day, we just need bright and intelligent people. I think some people are unconsciouslay biased and think things should remain the same with white males holding a majority of STEM jobs but I think we can find a happier median that treats the best qualified fairly.

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

Why don't professional sports teams impose this, for the cause of diversity? The answer is obvious, because they want to field the best team possible. Apple also wants to do this so why should Apple care what gender, race, etc. it's employees are? This is a pure PR move and is racist.

Integrated sports is as old as the nuclear age & only recently less controversial. Yet despite the numbers of black players in sports, there are a paucity of them in managerial positions of these same sports.

Perhaps Apple went out of their way to offer opportunities to qualified individuals who may not otherwise have gotten a position.

 

[Precision Gem]

I'm going to bite, even though I shouldn't.

Which scenario do you think happens more. White, qualified workers getting a job over qualified minorities. Or qualified minorities getting a job over white, qualified workers?

I can't really count on your specific situation because there are too many variables. Maybe you and your coworkers weren't as good as you thought you were and were replaced by more qualified people. Maybe they hired employees willing to do the work for less pay. You were too expensive and minorities were willing to work for cheap which is pretty standard here. Maybe you were discriminated against for your race, which would have been in your legal rights to take action against. I have a strong feeling, you didn't.

The fact of the matter is, it's all anecdotal and highly irregular and not representative of the status quo for how racial issues tend to work in employment. To answer your question, yes it would be discrimination if the motive in firing you was purely based on race. It is very unlikely GM would want to stomach the negative press and heat they'd get for discrimination, so I doubt that's all there is behind this story.

I don't think there is such a thing as a white male claiming discrimination in America. You would be laughed out of court.

We were replaced to bring up a quota number. My immediate boss at the time told us "sorry guys , but we have a quota to meet".

My current company has been trying for years to bring up theirs. In central rural PA however, most of the population is white. If ever a minority applied for a job in the engineering department they would be hired on the spot even if their qualifications were less than another white male applying for the job.

 

[dk001]

Racism is everywhere, sadly ... but it still seems incredibly rampant in the U.S..

Incredibly headlined. I have been many other places where it is cultural. Based on the other countries I have traveled to, I would rate the USA in the upper half in cultural diversity when it comes to employment.
[doublepost=1453229953][/doublepost]

I'm going to bite, even though I shouldn't.

Which scenario do you think happens more. White, qualified workers getting a job over qualified minorities. Or qualified minorities getting a job over white, qualified workers?

I can't really count on your specific situation because there are too many variables. Maybe you and your coworkers weren't as good as you thought you were and were replaced by more qualified people. Maybe they hired employees willing to do the work for less pay. You were too expensive and minorities were willing to work for cheap which is pretty standard here. Maybe you were discriminated against for your race, which would have been in your legal rights to take action against. I have a strong feeling, you didn't.

The fact of the matter is, it's all anecdotal and highly irregular and not representative of the status quo for how racial issues tend to work in employment. To answer your question, yes it would be discrimination if the motive in firing you was purely based on race. It is very unlikely GM would want to stomach the negative press and heat they'd get for discrimination, so I doubt that's all there is behind this story.

I think "who you know" is the most prevalent. Everything else is left overs

 

[phillipduran]

To be frank... Because before affirmative action WHITE PEOPLE only looked at WHITE PEOPLE when it came to hiring

I could have been black as tar with multiple degrees from Harvard... Yet a white person with no education would have gotten the job because.. He was WHITE! Fact is fact!

The black guy probably would have been a educated janitor though lol

White powerful people had cultural and racial bias when it came to hiring a black man FOR DECADES, I have no sympathy for white who complains about Affirmative action

Well because youre racist. time to put down those old ways.

 

[TechZeke]

To be honest, I don't know why someones skin color/genetalia is such a large concern when it comes to employment. All that should matter is that you reach the necessary qualifications. If that means you end up with an all asian, or an all black, or an all white group of employees, so be it. As long as they are doing their work, that is what should matter

Completely agree, in a perfect world.

With that said, many people in this thread who are against diversification are assuming every white person in the company was the most-qualified applicant and that any minority hired isn't which is just as screwed up. From my understanding, Apple just wants an equal playing field when they mean diversity.

I think the best person should have job. However, Anyone who doesn't think a panel of whites and Asians would have a bias toward a white or Asian applicant who's slightly less qualified than a black or Hispanic applicant is in dreamland.

 

[HMFIC03]

Maybe in future hiring for large companies could be delegated to a sophisticated AI system, who just hires the best people for the job? AI, programmed to totally ignore gender/race/orientation? I think that would be fair to everyone then.

Maybe apple will make a iRobots for it's store to replace people, then boom no more discriminate hiring. I swear it's not too far fetched if these conversations/practices keep happening.