Denise Young Smith Takes on New Role as VP of Diversity and Inclusion at Apple

[techwhiz]

Apple still refuses to hire anyone over 50 as new hire, I know Apple have passed on qualified, experienced potential employees over 50 then they picked a a millennial with a masters degree then that millennial goes on stress leave after six months because they can't handle the pressure ha ha Ha! I this happened @ Apple because I know have close family member that works there the hiring manager was clearly biased against hiring the "older worker"

I don't know if they refuse but, like Google and others, they are predisposed in that direction. Over 50 is seen as expensive. But you get what you pay for. Expensive also means experience. It means you don't make stupid mistakes that cost money and schedule.

This position is head of diversity, not head of hiring unqualified minorities.

 

[stevet]

Good question. In a normal world you hire people best for the job, not people of certain skin colour. Qualification is the deciding factor, maybe character is too, but not the skin colour or **** like that.

With all due respect, no ****... I understand what utopia is but what I want to know is Apple doing this because they have a problem or because they think it looks good to everyone outside of Apple? I don't get the flaunting of hires and promotions like this.

 

[Reach9]

Yeah. If that were true, if the VP were there to blah blah blah, then you'd have a point.

But that's not what the VP is there for. You're just being paranoid and it's a problem.

Sorry, that's exactly what the VP is there for. I'm a non-white 'minority' guy in tech, I'm not being paranoid about any of this. You just can't see the BS and it's a problem.

 

[applezulu]

With all due respect, no ****... I understand what utopia is but what I want to know is Apple doing this because they have a problem or because they think it looks good to everyone outside of Apple? I don't get the flaunting of hires and promotions like this.

Obviously they believe there's work to do. I don't think they're particularly flaunting anything, though. Changes in senior-level management at Apple or any other large company is always news. In fact, if it's a publicly traded company, I think it's a requirement to issue press releases and announcements when they make decisions about senior management. That press releases would be written to promote a positive perspective on whatever area of work is represented by an executive promotion should be a matter of course. Presumably a new management position is intended to add value to the company and its stock, so that's what the press material is intended to describe.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Not sure what "rules" you are talking about. Laws on equal pay have been on the books for over 50 years, and are still in force. The law already mandates equal pay for equal work and has done so for a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

They are not enforced accurately, and laws to enforce equal pay for equal work have been struck down.

 

[techwhiz]

The position reports directly to Cook and is E-Staff. It would have to be put into disclosures to the SEC as well as things like compensation, etc.

So the announcement is not simply grandstanding.

 

[stevet]

Obviously they believe there's work to do. I don't think they're particularly flaunting anything, though. Changes in senior-level management at Apple or any other large company is always news. In fact, if it's a publicly traded company, I think it's a requirement to issue press releases and announcements when they make decisions about senior management. That press releases would be written to promote a positive perspective on whatever area of work is represented by an executive promotion should be a matter of course. Presumably a new management position is intended to add value to the company and its stock, so that's what the press material is intended to describe.

How many companies that you are aware of have a VP of Diversity and Inclusion in their company ranks? I don't know of any.

 

[applezulu]

How many companies that you are aware of have a VP of Diversity and Inclusion in their company ranks? I don't know of any.

Just because you didn't bother to look doesn't mean they're not there.

A quick search yields this convenient listing of corporate executives in charge of diversity at their companies. The specific titles vary, as do many other titles for corporate leadership roles. Nonetheless, they are there.

 

[darcyf]

Sorry, that's exactly what the VP is there for. I'm a non-white 'minority' guy in tech, I'm not being paranoid about any of this. You just can't see the BS and it's a problem.

Please answer the following question: Why would Apple jeopardize their future by intentionally hiring less qualified people?

 

[techwhiz]

Sorry, that's exactly what the VP is there for. I'm a non-white 'minority' guy in tech, I'm not being paranoid about any of this. You just can't see the BS and it's a problem.

I have given examples of subtle bias and ageism and you still think this about hiring people that can't do the job.

That would be just a detrimental to the bottom line as hiring people because they "fit" in because they speak that language, etc.

Diversity is not a quota system. If it was I'd have 100 job offers from these companies. I think I'd be exactly what they are looking for. But strangely enough nobody is beating down my door because they want me to fill a quota as a diversity candidate.

Take a guess how many really experienced black guys there are in SV designing chips that are Senior Members of the IEEE?

 

[frogger2020]

Good question. In a normal world you hire people best for the job, not people of certain skin colour. Qualification is the deciding factor, maybe character is too, but not the skin colour or **** like that.

Unfortunately, nowadays, skin color is one of the most important qualifications, above other factors.

 

[hayesk]

Apple still refuses to hire anyone over 50 as new hire, I know Apple have passed on qualified, experienced potential employees over 50 then they picked a a millennial with a masters degree then that millennial goes on stress leave after six months because they can't handle the pressure ha ha Ha! I this happened @ Apple because I know have close family member that works there the hiring manager was clearly biased against hiring the "older worker"

I know two people over 50 hired by Apple in the past year.

 

[Aragornii]

For people who question the need for this: Do you believe the lack of diversity in silicon valley (and other positions of power around the US) is simply a result of certain races not being as genetically smart or hard working as white people?

You can argue whether it's genetics or some other factor, but you can't argue that there aren't significant differences in mean IQ among racial groups. That is a simple and easily measured fact.

But the question as to whether Apple has sufficient racial diversity, is does their workforce mirror the racial makeup of the pool of qualified applicants? If it does then instituting quotas to advantage people of one race while disadvantaging people of another is simple racism. But if they do have a problem hiring equally qualified minorities then this lady has a legitimate job to do.

 

[stevet]

Just because you didn't bother to look doesn't mean they're not there.

A quick search yields this convenient listing of corporate executives in charge of diversity at their companies. The specific titles vary, as do many other titles for corporate leadership roles. Nonetheless, they are there.

Right, and a quick search would show that more than half of those positions were created in the last 2-3 months. We have a 'me too' syndrome in this country. If you aren't doing what everyone else is doing then you are lacking, and it doesn't really matter if they adhere to it as long as there is a name on the title.

 

[You are the One]

completely unashamed antisemitism married to unironic mccarthyist paranoia in the year 2017

Zionism is a political movement, the 1% elite that run your mind happen to be zionists. Has nothing to do with semites or racism or jews in general. Go read a book.

Yes, the communist revolution was orchestrated by zionists from the US. I understand cognitive dissonance makes it hard for many to accept any perspective different from what they are fed with by the main stream zio media, not much to do about that.

Here watch this, some very orthodox (anti-semite? lol) rabbis show their appreciation and respect to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. If you watch it, the rabbis will explain the difference between zionism and judaism.

Only reason this is discussed here is the fact that the neo-liberal, social justice warrior movement (driven by neocon or zio interests) and the collectivism it represents is politically supported by

 

[Rocketman]

BTW are they going to "diversify" all those Foxconn plants they use and regulate with a standard of conduct?

 

[Atlantico]

BTW are they going to "diversify" all those Foxconn plants they use and regulate with a standard of conduct?

Good one!

 

[applezulu]

Right, and a quick search would show that more than half of those positions were created in the last 2-3 months. We have a 'me too' syndrome in this country. If you aren't doing what everyone else is doing then you are lacking, and it doesn't really matter if they adhere to it as long as there is a name on the title.

Interesting. You originally wrote, "How many companies that you are aware of have a VP of Diversity and Inclusion in their company ranks? I don't know of any." So I offered a link to a rather extensive listing of people in similar positions at various companies. In fact, the list on the page I linked to was titled "2016 Top Executives in Corporate Diversity List." Seeing as how we are currently near the end of the fifth month of 2017, I find your assertion that "more than half of those positions were created in the last 2-3 months" to be devoid of credibility. Your assertion and the data I presented are by definition mutually exclusive. Counting back the last 2-3 months gets us to late February 2017, at most. Please provide evidence of a "quick search" that would show half of the positions on that list to have been created in the last 2-3 months, or you know, don't. It seems unlikely you can recover from your error in logic. If you can, however, I will vigorously lobby the Nobel committee to recognize you for your creation of a time machine.

 

[stevet]

Interesting. You originally wrote, "How many companies that you are aware of have a VP of Diversity and Inclusion in their company ranks? I don't know of any." So I offered a link to a rather extensive listing of people in similar positions at various companies. In fact, the list on the page I linked to was titled "2016 Top Executives in Corporate Diversity List." Seeing as how we are currently near the end of the fifth month of 2017, I find your assertion that "more than half of those positions were created in the last 2-3 months" to be devoid of credibility. Your assertion and the data I presented are by definition mutually exclusive. Counting back the last 2-3 months gets us to late February 2017, at most. Please provide evidence of a "quick search" that would show half of the positions on that list to have been created in the last 2-3 months, or you know, don't. It seems unlikely you can recover from your error in logic. If you can, however, I will vigorously lobby the Nobel committee to recognize you for your creation of a time machine.

You're right, the 1/2 I was referring to was 6 months or less in their creation, LOL. It's a me too train, and that was my overall point. They are typically held by people of diverse backgrounds to ironically underscore the diversity, so they are mostly excluding white people from the role, cause you know, they couldn't possibly be open minded.

 

[Cineplex]

BTW are they going to "diversify" all those Foxconn plants they use and regulate with a standard of conduct?

No no no....100% Asian = diversity. Anything >1% white = diversity problem.

 

[applezulu]

You're right, the 1/2 I was referring to was 6 months or less in their creation, LOL. It's a me too train, and that was my overall point. They are typically held by people of diverse backgrounds to ironically underscore the diversity, so they are mostly excluding white people from the role, cause you know, they couldn't possibly be open minded.

No, you're going to need to provide some evidence to back up your ever-shifting claims. First you said the positions didn't exist at all. I showed you evidence that they are, in fact, quite common. Next, you said more than half the positions on the list were created in the last 2-3 months. I pointed out that this assertion is factually impossible, since the list is from 2016, and we're almost a full five months into 2017.

So now, you've shifted again, with an assertion that "1/2 [are] 6 months or less in their creation." Giving you an unearned benefit of the doubt, I'll take your assertion to mean that 'as of whenever that list was created, the jobs of half the people on the list were six months old, or less.' It seems pretty evident that your estimate of "1/2" is something you arbitrarily made up. For that matter, your shifting assertion of 'they don't exist,' to 'more than half were created in the last 2-3 months' to 'half were created six months or less from whenever the list was generated' also seem pretty clearly made up, too. But hey, there's one other assertion you probably made up as well, that if it were actually true would make it pretty easy to clear all this up. You said, "a quick search would show" whatever the assertion you were making about those positions. So to be charitable, I'll give you one more chance. Give us some links to evidence that something resembling any one of your shifting claims is true. You can show us how none of those positions exist (your first claim), or how more than half were created just this spring (your second version), or you can show us that half of those positions were created sometime in 2016 (a generous application of your most recent fall-back position). Now, I'm not asking much here, because you said yourself that a quick search would yield, um, one or the other of your claims. If you can't come up with any links to back up some version of what you've said, then I think it's pretty safe to conclude that you're just posting stuff that's not true. Don't bother responding without links, and seriously don't post links that don't actually support your claims, because that could just be embarrassing for you.

 

[stevet]

No, you're going to need to provide some evidence to back up your ever-shifting claims. First you said the positions didn't exist at all. I showed you evidence that they are, in fact, quite common. Next, you said more than half the positions on the list were created in the last 2-3 months. I pointed out that this assertion is factually impossible, since the list is from 2016, and we're almost a full five months into 2017.

So now, you've shifted again, with an assertion that "1/2 [are] 6 months or less in their creation." Giving you an unearned benefit of the doubt, I'll take your assertion to mean that 'as of whenever that list was created, the jobs of half the people on the list were six months old, or less.' It seems pretty evident that your estimate of "1/2" is something you arbitrarily made up. For that matter, your shifting assertion of 'they don't exist,' to 'more than half were created in the last 2-3 months' to 'half were created six months or less from whenever the list was generated' also seem pretty clearly made up, too. But hey, there's one other assertion you probably made up as well, that if it were actually true would make it pretty easy to clear all this up. You said, "a quick search would show" whatever the assertion you were making about those positions. So to be charitable, I'll give you one more chance. Give us some links to evidence that something resembling any one of your shifting claims is true. You can show us how none of those positions exist (your first claim), or how more than half were created just this spring (your second version), or you can show us that half of those positions were created sometime in 2016 (a generous application of your most recent fall-back position). Now, I'm not asking much here, because you said yourself that a quick search would yield, um, one or the other of your claims. If you can't come up with any links to back up some version of what you've said, then I think it's pretty safe to conclude that you're just posting stuff that's not true. Don't bother responding without links, and seriously don't post links that don't actually support your claims, because that could just be embarrassing for you.

Ya, you're right it was 8 months and 2/3rds of them were not even created. Haven't you searched?

 

[batchtaster]

Ya, you're right it was 8 months and 2/3rds of them were not even created. Haven't you searched?

Aren't you tired of playing/embarrassing yourself with this game?

 

[stevet]

Aren't you tired of playing/embarrassing yourself with this game?

https://www.google.com/search?q=2016+Diversit+VP's+Hired&oq=2016+Diversit+VP's+Hired&aqs=chrome..69i57.9494j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=+2016+Diversity+VP's+Hired

P.S. Nice screen name...

 

[smoledman]

I know two people over 50 hired by Apple in the past year.

I bet they are very healthy and high energy too. The problem with middle aged people is they tend to get sick and don't have the same 'pep' as younger workers.