Tim Cook Says Diversity is the Future of Apple, Points to More Female-Driven Presence at WWDC

[69Mustang]

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?

The problem with your premise is it presumes diversity means excluding one class to give preferential treatment to another. That's not what it means at all. It means providing opportunity to all classes. If the best candidate for a job is a White male, give it to him. If the best candidate for a job is a Mexican female give it to her. What diversity hopes to achieve is a situation where the job is open for all qualified candidates. That wasn't always, and in some cases still isn't, the case. So Cook isn't saying he just wants to hire women and minorities. He's saying he wants a larger candidate pool. Diversity will be a consequence of that larger pool.

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.

Based on what you think diversity means, it's no wonder you think this way. It's wrong, but hey, it's your opinion. My opinion? Here's what I think Cook is thinking.
Example. 100 jobs, 1000 applicants. Traditionally those applicants are either White or Asian males. Take the best qualified 100. What he wants. 100 jobs, 3000 applicants. Because of diversity recruitment you still have your traditional 1000 White and Asian males, but you also have an additional 2000 men and women that don't fit into that previous category. From that larger pool you choose the best qualified 100. Some will be White/Asian male and others will come from women and minorities. They're all the best qualified; just more diverse than previously. This is a long play. Over time, the larger candidate pool will yield better candidates because there is more competition and those candidates will have to step up their game to be recognized as the best.

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 having a culturally diverse team 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.

Ironically, your choice of sports as a metaphor proves my point nicely. Professional sports in the US was notoriously segregated. Through diversity it became more of what everyone seems to want. Get the best qualified person regardless of race. Sometimes that's a White male. Sometimes it's not. Without diversity it would have only been the best white male, not the best person. Further, the minority candidate often had to be much better than his White counterpart to even be considered. A result of that was exponential improvement for the whole team.

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.

Again, you're looking at diversity meaning a certain number or percentage as if that's the be all, end all. I'm saying those numbers and percentages are only a consequence of opening the candidate pool to a larger, more diverse group of people. The numbers will happen naturally. Diversity is not about having 15% women or 23% Hispanic. It's providing opportunity where little or none existed before.

 

[darcyf]

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.

No.

 

[Gary03mw]

The problem with your premise is it presumes diversity means excluding one class to give preferential treatment to another. That's not what it means at all. It means providing opportunity to all classes. If the best candidate for a job is a White male, give it to him. If the best candidate for a job is a Mexican female give it to her. What diversity hopes to achieve is a situation where the job is open for all qualified candidates. That wasn't always, and in some cases still isn't, the case. So Cook isn't saying he just wants to hire women and minorities. He's saying he wants a larger candidate pool. Diversity will be a consequence of that larger pool.

Based on what you think diversity means, it's no wonder you think this way. It's wrong, but hey, it's your opinion. My opinion? Here's what I think Cook is thinking.
Example. 100 jobs, 1000 applicants. Traditionally those applicants are either White or Asian males. Take the best qualified 100. What he wants. 100 jobs, 3000 applicants. Because of diversity recruitment you still have your traditional 1000 White and Asian males, but you also have an additional 2000 men and women that don't fit into that previous category. From that larger pool you choose the best qualified 100. Some will be White/Asian male and others will come from women and minorities. They're all the best qualified; just more diverse than previously. This is a long play. Over time, the larger candidate pool will yield better candidates because there is more competition and those candidates will have to step up their game to be recognized as the best.

You seem to think that I am wrong because I have somehow defined "diversity" incorrectly. I'm sorry, but you don't get to make up your own definition of what the term means. Diversity certainly is not, "choosing from a larger candidate pool." Here is a definition from businessdictionary.com:

Workplace diversity- "Similarities and differences among employees in terms of age, cultural background, physical abilities and disabilities, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation."

Tim Cook may be attempting to increase diversity by increasing the number of minorities and women in the candidate pool but there is nothing that inherently ties the two ideas together. What I mean is that a larger candidate pool does nothing to increase diversity if the entire pool is nothing but white males. Increasing the candidate pool is a perfectly noble goal. Increasing diversity is not. Nobody is going to argue with you that having 3000 candidates is going to yield better results than having 1000 candidates. What we are going to argue is that once you have those candidates the goal should not be diversity but which ones are best suited for the positions. We would also argue the need and morality of focusing the increase on race or gender.

I can use the same example you just mentioned but leave out diversity. If I have a candidate pool of 5000 and you have a "diverse" candidate pool of 3000 then the odds are heavily in my favor of getting a better group of 100 employees. Basically you need to come to terms with the fact that the definition you provided of diversity is bunk. I'll also say that I find it ironic and a bit ignorant that you essentially attacked my correct definition of diversity and then proceeded to supply you're own that couldn't have been more wrong.

Ironically, your choice of sports as a metaphor proves my point nicely. Professional sports in the US was notoriously segregated. Through diversity it became more of what everyone seems to want. Get the best qualified person regardless of race. Sometimes that's a White male. Sometimes it's not. Without diversity it would have only been the best white male, not the best person. Further, the minority candidate often had to be much better than his White counterpart to even be considered. A result of that was exponential improvement for the whole team.

You've got a few problems with what you say here. Your definition of diversity is still wrong. It wasn't diversity, it was opportunity (that isn't always equal) that allowed the best players to make it to the top. Opportunity could have produced a diverse NBA, but it didnt. It ultimately produced a league with very little diversity. You know what? That's fine. It's not black peoples fault that white people aren't very focused on the game of basketball. The NBA doesn't need to throw up gyms in every small town that has an overwhelmingly white population in order to increase diversity the league.

 

[winston1236]

If you have to tell people you are something then you probably aren't what you claim.

 

[Gary03mw]

No.

If you want to make a point then make it

 

[69Mustang]

You seem to think that I am wrong because I have somehow defined "diversity" incorrectly. I'm sorry, but you don't get to make up your own definition of what the term means. Diversity certainly is not, "choosing from a larger candidate pool." Here is a definition from businessdictionary.com:

Workplace diversity- "Similarities and differences among employees in terms of age, cultural background, physical abilities and disabilities, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation."

Tim Cook may be attempting to increase diversity by increasing the number of minorities and women in the candidate pool but there is nothing that inherently ties the two ideas together. What I mean is that a larger candidate pool does nothing to increase diversity if the entire pool is nothing but white males. Increasing the candidate pool is a perfectly noble goal. Increasing diversity is not. Nobody is going to argue with you that having 3000 candidates is going to yield better results than having 1000 candidates. What we are going to argue is that once you have those candidates the goal should not be diversity but which ones are best suited for the positions. We would also argue the need and morality of focusing the increase on race or gender.

I can use the same example you just mentioned but leave out diversity. If I have a candidate pool of 5000 and you have a "diverse" candidate pool of 3000 then the odds are heavily in my favor of getting a better group of 100 employees. Basically you need to come to terms with the fact that the definition you provided of diversity is bunk. I'll also say that I find it ironic and a bit ignorant that you essentially attacked my correct definition of diversity and then proceeded to supply you're own that couldn't have been more wrong.




You've got a few problems with what you say here. Your definition of diversity is still wrong. It wasn't diversity, it was opportunity (that isn't always equal) that allowed the best players to make it to the top. Opportunity could have produced a diverse NBA, but it didnt. It ultimately produced a league with very little diversity. You know what? That's fine. It's not black peoples fault that white people aren't very focused on the game of basketball. The NBA doesn't need to throw up gyms in every small town that has an overwhelmingly white population in order to increase diversity the league.

Let's agree to disagree.

 

[darcyf]

That's not a clear indication of any bias. There are so many other factors. College isn't everything, college doesn't teach business skills, and different college degrees help with different kinds of jobs. Look at the average salary for engineering vs English majors. And yes, for whatever reason, not so many women are entering the engineering fields.

Granted there are numerous factors involved in contributing to this problem. But it's still a problem and we still need to do a lot of things to change it. It won't just go away on its own.

 

[darcyf]

If you want to make a point then make it

I made it. You twisted my words. So I set the record straight.

 

[Gary03mw]

I made it. You twisted my words. So I set the record straight.

You quoted a block of text and replied "No." I'd hardly call that setting the record straight.

No what? No, correlation does imply causation? No, white people getting hired does show some flaw in the system? No, you aren't implying that anything needs to be done to balance out past discrimination? No, you don't believe that doing things to re balance is actually discrimination against whites?

I still have no idea what you're point is so, once again, if you have one then make it.

 

[melendezest]

I do not understand people that complain about the promotion of diversity.

How is it a bad thing?

The existence of qualifications/skills are implicit. The problem of a lack of diversity (yes, it is a real problem) is not related to the individual's qualifications.

It is related to the bias that the hiring forces bring into the hiring process, especially when a person's "diversity-ness" is the only differentiation from other applicants.

In other words, people are still racist/sexist, etc in this country (and the world), which forces the issue to be brought forth and addressed like this.

Those that complain about it either have their heads buried in the sand, or fall into the racist/sexist category, whether or not they realize it themselves.

Break free from your conditioning, people.

We ARE equal. But there are too many out there that genuinely (and maybe even subconsciously) refuse to think so.

 

[Gary03mw]

I do not understand people that complain about the promotion of diversity.

How is it a bad thing?

The existence of qualifications/skills are implicit. The problem of a lack of diversity (yes, it is a real problem) is not related to the individual's qualifications.

It is related to the bias that the hiring forces bring into the hiring process, especially when a person's "diversity-ness" is the only differentiation from other applicants.

In other words, people are still racist/sexist, etc in this country (and the world), which forces the issue to be brought forth and addressed like this.

Those that complain about it either have their heads buried in the sand, or fall into the racist/sexist category, whether or not they realize it themselves.

Break free from your conditioning, people.

We ARE equal. But there are too many out there that genuinely (and maybe even subconsciously) refuse to think so.

It's simple. People that complain about diversity, like myself, think it is just another form of discrimination. Nobody in this thread has been against a minority or women landing a job because they are qualified. They are against them getting the job because they fit a criteria (based on race, gender, or both) that a company is looking for.

When Tim Cook is asked about diversity at Apple his response should be something like this:

"That's not something Apple is particularly focused on. We are looking for the most capable people regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender."

 

[melendezest]

It's simple. People that complain about diversity, like myself, think it is just another form of discrimination. Nobody in this thread has been against a minority or women landing a job because they are qualified. They are against them getting the job because they fit a criteria (based on race, gender, or both) that a company is looking for.

When Tim Cook is asked about diversity at Apple his response should be something like this:

"That's not something Apple is particularly focused on. We are looking for the most capable people regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender."

I believe the way you put that does not actively address the problem. Instead, it seems to diminish its existence and wishes that it goes away on its own.

So perhaps this (which is what I believe he intends the message to be):

"We are looking for the most capable people regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender. We are committed to ensuring that when you look at our company, it is obvious that our diversity reflects this."

 

[Gary03mw]

I believe the way you put that does not actively address the problem. Instead, it seems to diminish its existence and wishes that it goes away on its own.

So perhaps this (which is what I believe he intends the message to be):

"We are looking for the most capable people regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender. We are committed to ensuring that when you look at our company, it is obvious that our diversity reflects this."

It doesn't actively address the "problem" in the way you're looking at it. Basically I'm saying that we have a fundamental disagreement on what the "problem" is. I don't believe that diversity in a company is a goal worth pursuing. In fact, I believe that if you are pursuing it then you are actively discriminating. There's no other way about it... if you are selecting your employees based on race, sexual orientation, or gender then you are practicing discrimination. The fact that a company is doing it to achieve this idea of diversity that is currently in vogue doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

The simple fact is that there are plenty of companies that have hired the most capable people that do not have a great deal of diversity. The two don't necessarily come hand in hand. If companies discriminate and fail to hire talented people because of their skin color, religious beliefs, gender, etc then those companies will struggle. If companies skip over talented people in order to hire people specifically because of their skin color, religious beliefs, gender etc in the name of diversity then they will struggle just the same.

The answer is simple... Hire the most capable people for the position regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or any other grounds that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job.

 

[darcyf]

You quoted a block of text and replied "No." I'd hardly call that setting the record straight.

No what? No, correlation does imply causation? No, white people getting hired does show some flaw in the system? No, you aren't implying that anything needs to be done to balance out past discrimination? No, you don't believe that doing things to re balance is actually discrimination against whites?

I still have no idea what you're point is so, once again, if you have one then make it.

No way I'm continuing a discussion with someone who believes whites are being discriminated against.

 

[steve333]

If I never hear the word 'diversity' again I will be a happy man. They can also take multi-cultural as well.
Just hire the best person for the job and shut the f up

 

[Gary03mw]

No way I'm continuing a discussion with someone who believes whites are being discriminated against.

Thinking that white people aren't discriminated against is just as ignorant as thinking that black people aren't discriminated against. Since it's not discrimination perhaps you could tell me why I can't seem to go play a pickup game of basketball without being called "snowflake." Racists come in all shapes and sizes.

Affirmative action is discriminatory. My brothers keeper is discriminatory. Searching out diversity in the workplace is inherently discriminatory.

 

[melendezest]

It doesn't actively address the "problem" in the way you're looking at it. Basically I'm saying that we have a fundamental disagreement on what the "problem" is. I don't believe that diversity in a company is a goal worth pursuing. In fact, I believe that if you are pursuing it then you are actively discriminating. There's no other way about it... if you are selecting your employees based on race, sexual orientation, or gender then you are practicing discrimination. The fact that you are doing that in order to achieve a statistical balance among different demographics in your organization doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

The simple fact is that there are plenty of companies that have hired the most capable people that do not have a great deal of diversity. The two don't necessarily come hand in hand. If companies discriminate and fail to hire talented people because of their skin color, religious beliefs, gender, etc then those companies will struggle. If companies skip over talented people in order to hire people specifically because of their skin color, religious beliefs, gender etc in the name of diversity then they will struggle just the same.

This is the problem: "I don't believe that diversity in a company is a goal worth pursuing...if you are selecting your employees based on race, sexual orientation, or gender then you are practicing discrimination."

People are, and always will be discriminating. It is the why that matters.

So either we do it for the right reason: ie. "Isn't it odd that despite the diversity in applicants with equal qualifications, our company is made up primarily of white males? Let's do something about that."

vs.

the wrong reasons:i.e. "Although all these applicants are qualified I just don't see how Juanita can integrate and work together with our team given her "ethnic background. I think John's a better fit, so let's hire him."

The latter happens. What you want ignores that with wishful thinking. We need the Police for a reason.

What you propose is rightfully something to aspire to. To quote the very late Bob Marley:

"Until the philosophy that holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is WAR. Until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; until the most basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race...Until that day, that dream of lasting peace & world citizenship will remain nothing but a fleeting illusion to be pursued, but never attained."

 

[Gary03mw]

This is the problem: "I don't believe that diversity in a company is a goal worth pursuing...if you are selecting your employees based on race, sexual orientation, or gender then you are practicing discrimination."

People are, and always will be discriminating. It is the why that matters.

I'm not sure that we will ever completely get rid of discrimination and it's impossible to say to what degree it still exists. I will say that for the most part we have a society of people that believe in the idea that what you are capable of matters more than what your skin color or gender is. In fact, most companies have been trying to hire more minorities and women for some time now. Not to mention what I already said about the benefits to the company and their shareholders. It benefits them to hire those most capable. It harms them if they fail to do that. I would also add that if what you're saying is true then we should be trying to actively stop discrimination, not trying to balance how much of it we think happens by arbitrarily hiring and promoting who we think is being discriminated against.

So either we do it for the right reason: ie. "Isn't it odd that despite the diversity in applicants with equal qualifications, our company is made up primarily of white males? Let's do something about that."

But there aren't a diverse group of applicants with equal qualifications... Especially in STEM fields.

the wrong reasons:i.e. "Although all these applicants are qualified I just don't see how Juanita can integrate and work together with our team given her "ethnic background. I think John's a better fit, so let's hire him."

I'm not foolish enough to think this never happens. It's not right. I think it's wrong. I still don't think it changes the fact that actively applying the opposite is just as wrong.

 

[jimbobb24]

Always fun when Tim Cook self identifies as a moron. After civil rights era, the advancement of women we have finally gotten to era Martin Luthor King dreamed of where are judged by the content of our... Oh wait. No what matters now is the color of our skin and whether or not we have a vagina. So sadly stupid.

 

[applefan2390]

I'll give you a really good example of why diversity's important. I'm a highly skilled professional who's had good fortune working with a variety of great organizations and some cool tech companies that I've consulted for. I used to be able to walk into a room of men, be instantly regarded as a pro in my field, taken seriously, listened to, and people would ask me for a ton of advice because they respected my ideas and knowledge.

I say "used to" because I've since transitioned from male to female - as a younger trans women, I've been able to transition so well on hormone replacement therapy that no one knows I'm trans, and everyone just sees me as a beautiful young woman. However, I now routinely get talked over by men in meetings, am taken a lot less seriously, and hardly anyone asks me for advice anymore or wants to know what my thoughts / ideas are. Did my ideas suddenly start being bad? No.

Male privilege is a very real thing that stifles innovation, and discourages women from entering those fields... just imagine being a woman who had to face that type of behaviour everyday... it's an incredibly daunting uphill battle that turns a lot of bright minds away because it's so discouraging and prohibitive. Also, because I’m now seen as a woman and men systematically place less value on what I have to say, I earn less too.

The above post (I hope it wasn't a troll!) perfectly sums up why the word "diversity" shouldn't be approached with so much vitriol. We ALL have subconscious biases that have been passed down to us over decades and we don't even realize it. Everyone has displayed it in this thread. We assume that females aren't drawn to the tech field based on what we see or read when the reasons are so insidious in all of us that they cannot be isolated to one thing. Studies with fancy stats don't always tell the whole story (lies, damn lies, and statistics right?).

The truth is that we all approach the world based on our own experience. A company like Apple that prides itself on appealing to a broad customer base can appeal to even more people with a more diverse work force. As this person stated, once they navigated through the world as a woman things were different. Imagine if you were to try and live your life as another race or gender? Your story would be drastically different.

We are looking at the tech world as it is now based on many years of same-ness. It it ain't broke don't fix it seems to be what I'm hearing? But what would happen if we made coding a requirement in the curriculum for all the public schools in the country? Or heck even did a once a week coding enrichment program? What kind of talent would we attract in the coming years? Some kids might not be fully aware of what coding can do for them because the tech world isn't diverse enough to communicate with kids in a way that will reach them. It's just human nature, if we walk into a room full of people who don't look like us our first reaction is to be uncomfortable until someone breaks the ice and we realize that we're not all that different.

Images say a lot and right now a lot of women and minorities may look at the tech world and say, "they won't take me seriously enough to hire anyone like me so why bother?" They might actually have something in common with the current tech population, but on the surface it doesn't seem that way. All these jobs/industries (I think someone referenced HR execs?) that some here say are currently over-run with women/minorities were at one time completely populated by white men because they were the only ones with ACCESS to higher education or even the ability to get hired for any job. Once other groups were given access the demographics changed. Ob/gyn's and pediatricians use to be all white males at one time remember?

I especially love the sports analogies that people like to fall back on. Yes there are a lot of black men playing in the NBA and for a while playing in the MLB. Both of these leagues were created for white men only and eventually were desegregated and flooded with black american men. Today there are a lot more white european males in the NBA than ever (and a couple of Aussies in the Finals!) and latinos are super prevalent in the MLB. So what changed? NBA teams started scouting more in Europe where kids over there are groomed to play at an early age. MLB teams started spending a lot of money setting up kids' leagues across Latin America and kids started playing baseball at an early age. Now more NBA teams are looking for the next Dirk Nowitzki or Pau Gasol and MLB teams are paying big bucks to sign the next Miguel Cabrera. And they do so by going TO those places to find talent.

Once the barriers are broken and people in today's tech world see that things can be done by another gender or ethnic group we won't even need to talk about diversity 'cause it'll just happen. As more kids see people that look like them giving keynote speeches at WWDC they'll be more likely to explore the tech world. And really, I mean I don't remember seeing many guys with a thick southern drawl walking around the stage during any Apple keynotes do you?

Sorry I'm rambling but my point is, diversity is not a disease that the liberals are infecting us with. It's a very real way to improve the quality of a product and right now we aren't being very inclusive because we assume things are running smoothly as is. But we don't know what we don't know. We may not be able to make inroads NOW in terms of hiring, but I don't see the problem with bringing the tech world to boys/girls/transgendered kids from more diverse cultural backgrounds. And yes, we have make an effort to bring it TO them, not expect kids to wander over to us. Sure, the more qualified candidates may be mostly white/asian men now, but if we make a concerted effort to include more groups from future generations who knows what they can contribute?

Yeah this was super long. Of course my first post on this site has to be a freaking essay

tl;dr...diversity starts with bringing tech to kids. The hiring pool isn't particularly diverse now, but it can be if we start recruiting people at a younger age. History has shown that once we improve access to more groups demographics can change radically in a short time (ob/gyns, sport leagues once all white male are now more other). We don't know what we don't know. Yadda, yadda, yadda let's expand our reach to find the next big thing.

 

[Altis]

.....snip....
Yeah this was super long. Of course my first post on this site has to be a freaking essay

tl;dr...diversity starts with bringing tech to kids. The hiring pool isn't particularly diverse now, but it can be if we start recruiting people at a younger age. History has shown that once we improve access to more groups demographics can change radically in a short time (ob/gyns, sport leagues once all white male are now more other). We don't know what we don't know. Yadda, yadda, yadda let's expand our reach to find the next big thing.

(Cut down due to size)

I don't think anyone is really opposed to diversity, but where the two sides meet is equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. What happens if most women are more interested in pursuing other careers? At what point will pouring endless resources into female-specific scholarships, programs, events, as well as quotas, "no boys allowed" days at schools, etc.... what if you still end up with a less than 50/50 split M/F?

Freedom of choice makes it so that people do as they wish. We've been trying to get more women into all streams of STEM (including computer science) for over three decades now, and it starts really young. Post-secondary schools are rapidly approaching (and in some cases have surpassed) a 2:1 F:M ratio, but look at what they choose to major in.

What's also interesting is that countries like Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and UAE have the highest levels of female graduates in Math/STEM.

To be honest though, it is a bit of a crack-up when the people most vocal about lack of women in STEM have spent upwards of $60k on a Masters degrees in Gender Studies. As the old saying goes, Be the change you want to see in the world.

 

[darcyf]

Thinking that white people aren't discriminated against is just as ignorant as thinking that black people aren't discriminated against. Since it's not discrimination perhaps you could tell me why I can't seem to go play a pickup game of basketball without being called "snowflake." Racists come in all shapes and sizes.

Affirmative action is discriminatory. My brothers keeper is discriminatory. Searching out diversity in the workplace is inherently discriminatory.

The ENTIRE point of efforts like affirmative action or any sort of diversification initiative is the END the discrimination that is taking place where white men are FAVOURED. It only LOOKS like discrimination against white men because white men are so used to being the utmost PRIVILEGED and anything challenging that is TERRIFYING.

So sorry that you get hassled at the basketball court, though. That must really affect your ability to raise a family or progress in your career.

 

[Gary03mw]

The ENTIRE point of efforts like affirmative action or any sort of diversification initiative is the END the discrimination that is taking place where white men are FAVOURED. It only LOOKS like discrimination against white men because white men are so used to being the utmost PRIVILEGED and anything challenging that is TERRIFYING.

So sorry that you get hassled at the basketball court, though. That must really affect your ability to raise a family or progress in your career.

No, it looks like discrimination because that's exactly what it is. It's not okay that black students can get into universities over white students while scoring 170 points lower on their SATs. How on earth anyone can look at something like that and say that white men are favored is beyond me? By all means though, keep telling yourself that the white guy who scored nearly 200 points higher and didn't get in was "privileged."

 

[applefan2390]

(Cut down due to size)

I don't think anyone is really opposed to diversity, but where the two sides meet is equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. What happens if most women are more interested in pursuing other careers? At what point will pouring endless resources into female-specific scholarships, programs, events, as well as quotas, "no boys allowed" days at schools, etc.... what if you still end up with a less than 50/50 split M/F?

Freedom of choice makes it so that people do as they wish. We've been trying to get more women into all streams of STEM (including computer science) for over three decades now, and it starts really young. Post-secondary schools are rapidly approaching (and in some cases have surpassed) a 2:1 F:M ratio, but look at what they choose to major in.

What's also interesting is that countries like Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and UAE have the highest levels of female graduates in Math/STEM.

To be honest though, it is a bit of a crack-up when the people most vocal about lack of women in STEM have spent upwards of $60k on a Masters degrees in Gender Studies. As the old saying goes, Be the change you want to see in the world.

I get what you're saying. And I agree that we need to hear more from the women that are actually in STEM programs. I wish we could have an honest forum where men and women from many cultures talk about the barriers they've faced or witnessed.

But I would argue that we have not even begun to pour enough resources into grooming the next generation of STEM graduates. And I don't mean money, I mean time, access, and knowledge. We need to educate more kids on how the sausage is made because many kids now don't have near enough knowledge of the industry to know how to break into it.

Technology changes by the second and I think besides putting chromebooks or ipads in schools we need to educate more kids on how to stay on top of advances in the field so they're not left behind and also so that they can find ways to update their knowledge outside of school in case computer labs cannot keep up due to lack of funds or whatever. There have been many programs over the years attempting to include more groups, but honestly they're reach is not far enough to get kids and a young enough age. I think the seed needs to be planted before or during junior high.

You can't gage anything by what females or minorities are majoring in NOW. The women in college now have been raised by a school of thought that was not as eager to include them as they are now. And that is reflected in the degrees that women are graduating with. I just saw a commercial last year that shows 5-6 year old girls building things with cute little blocks and tools in pretty colors. So cheesy I know, lol, but the females in college today didn't grow up continuously seeing things like that or being constantly told that science and math can be fun in a girly way. Barbie and her thousand and one jobs hasn't made too many inroads

We need 10 or 20 years of improving access to really see where the field is headed. I think that once equal access and mentoring to tech careers is firmly in place to all kids at a young age then we can better see where the equilibrium is. There were medical specialties that were still being integrated in the 80s and I'm talking like first black/latino female surgeon in such and such specialty not being licensed until 1980something. So yeah it gonna take a few decades.

As for the females from the middle eastern countries, I think that speaks to the overall idea that the U.S. is severely lagging behind the rest of the world where STEM fields are concerned. Either way, I'm glad that STEM programs are being talked about more in any capacity and I hope everything that's going on now develops some great minds in the future.

 

[darcyf]

No, it looks like discrimination because that's exactly what it is. It's not okay that black students can get into universities over white students while scoring 170 points lower on their SATs. How on earth anyone can look at something like that and say that white men are favored is beyond me? By all means though, keep telling yourself that the white guy who scored nearly 200 points higher and didn't get in was "privileged."

I could very easily explain this to you. It would take all of about a minute for me to do so. But I won't.