I'm a big fan of Cook. I agree with nearly every stance he and Apple takes. To be blunt, he's wrong on this one. Everyone in this thread supporting this is also wrong. It's especially annoying because Apple is always pragmatic; it's rare that they needlessly confuse things. I understand that it's politically correct and that it's very much in vogue right now to be a champion of diversity. That said, Apple doesn't need to hire anyone because they are white, black, asian, male, or female. In fact, by doing that, they are discriminating. That's literally the definition of discrimination. They should be looking for, and hiring, the person who is most qualified for the job regardless of race or gender. Why? Because that is actual equality.
Not really. The age of the "Old boys club" was a real thing and there are a number of companies that are/were like that.
The problem here is that if what you say is true then the old boys clubs would/will ultimately fail. If companies are overlooking talented minorities and women then they are only hurting themselves and eventually the companies hiring the best person for the job will wipe the floor with the old white men. No one, not a single person in here, is making the argument that companies should overlook a more talented female or person of minority status. That'd be ridiculous, it'd be harmful to the company, and it would be morally reprehensible. Why then do so many people seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to overlook a more talented white male in the name of being inclusive?
You're deliberately being obtuse. Clearly the poster was using the number of twenty as an example. What he is talking about is inclusion. That's what diversity is supposed to be about. Diversity isn't about hiring someone because they are a certain race, sex, or whatever just to say you're diverse (that's a quota). It's about expanding your pool of talent beyond they typical White or Asian male that dominates the tech industry.
If a hiring manager says, "We have 100 employees. All are male, and either White or Asian. I need to hire some black women to balance this out", then that wrong. That's not diversity. If the manager says, "We've only hired White or Asian men. In this next round, let's expand our search to a larger talent pool that includes people of different races and sexes" that's diversity. It's not guaranteeing a job to a person because of their sex or race. It's including them in opportunity where in the past they weren't eve up for consideration. It's hiring the best person for the job regardless of their race or sex. That hasn't always been the case.
You are contradicting yourself in a big way trying to somehow twist this into something that makes sense. Simply put, you can't be actively seeking out women and minorities and then say you're hiring regardless of race and gender. In fact, the only reason you would ever mention diversity is because you are actively seeking out a certain race and gender. That's the entire point of Apple bringing this up.
The most privileged sex and race will tend to be the most "skilled" because they have more and better opportunities to better themselves. So that's a problem that needs to be addressed.
And there are still biases that come into play when people hire other people -- we tend to favour people similar to ourselves, our backgrounds, etc. If you have all white men at the top, it makes it very difficult for anything other than that to break through.
People who complain about the effort to diversify the workplace simply don't understand that the playing field is not level -- not by a long shot. So something needs to be done, because diversity is great for everything, whether it's coming up with new ideas to improve a product or better ways to keep a team productive.
If you stick to this idea that "the most skilled should be hired" and white men are the ones that keep getting hired -- how do you not see that there's something broken in the system? Because surely you don't think white men are just naturally superior. I mean, I would hope you don't. In which case, something clearly needs to be done.
So stop complaining and try contributing to the effort. We will all benefit as a result.
At this point anyone who thinks white men are naturally superior is just ignorant. If anyone does make that argument then they are racist and they don't deserve any more attention. That said, correlation does not imply causation. Because white people keep getting hired does not mean that there is some flaw in the system (although it is one of several possibilities). It certainly doesn't mean that we should actively discriminate against whites in order to "balance the scales." Which, while you didn't come right out and say it, seems like what you're advocating.
It's not about quotas, it's about proactively searching for the best talent wherever it is. It's possible there could be some bias in the recruiters that women/blacks/whoever don't do tech. I'm sure that at some point someone said we don't need blacks in baseball- we already have lots of good white talent!
This is so far off it makes my head hurt. It's absolutely about seeking out under represented groups. No company is sitting around saying, "we already have enough talent." White people did this in basketball, and do you know what happened? Over time the teams that went and got the best players regardless of race wiped the floor with the teams that didn't. They tried the good ole boy system and it didn't work. Consider this:
I fully believe that in the NBA right now teams are selecting the best players available to them regardless of race. It just so happens that the vast majority of these players are black men. What if basketball teams today started actively seeking out a more diverse group? Who do you think would win? You think the teams focused on picking the best players regardless of race would win or do you think the teams focused on achieving diversity would win? You can't have it both ways. You can't be searching for the best player regardless of race and gender but then actively considering their race and gender in the decision.
I would also argue that the larger race and gender plays into that decision the worse the outcome would be. For example if you have two centers who are almost identical as far as skills and physical abilities and you opt for the "diverse" pick then it probably doesn't have a meaningful impact. On the opposite end of the spectrum, if you built a completely diverse team of 3 white men, 3 white women, 1 black man, 1 black women, 1 Asian man, 1 asian women, 1 hispanic man, 1 hispanic women, and so on, then you have probably royally screwed up. Basically the more weight diversity has in the decision making process the worse off you are because you have put less emphasis on simply choosing the best person.
