So much for judging by the content of your character instead of your skin color...
Misused quote and classic red herring fallacy. This has nothing to do with the content of character. The most qualified tech candidate could easily be a jerk of the highest order.
It's about getting more people interested in the tech field. The more people interested in the field, the larger the pool of candidates can potentially be. That larger pool will have candidates from diverse backgrounds. The best and most qualified of the entire group will be the most attractive candidates. Probability dictates some of the best and most qualified will come from the less traditional candidates. That's the diversity Tim's trying to achieve.
DIVERSITY DATABASE:
Whites = 90
East Indians = 80
Asians = 75
Minority A = 15 <<< WARNING MUST HIRE MORE
Minority B = 6 <<< WARNING MUST HIRE MORE!!!
Minority B + Transgender = 1 <<< ALERT ALERT!!! EXTREME WARNING, HIRE AT ALL COSTS!
You may not be aware, but quotas (your example above) are not the same as diversity. You can use quotas to achieve a type of diversity, but no one is advocating the use of quotas. You can also achieve diversity by attracting a wider variety of candidates versed in STEM fields. Yeah, it will take longer than artificial quotas but it will be a natural consequence of making tech fields an attractive and viable alternative. That's why emphasis has been placed on STEM as early as elementary. Just so that I'm clear, diversity
≠ quota
You're also wasting the money of share holders, employees and the customers because you're unnecessarily spending more time and effort to recruit the "approved skin color" employees for whatever Tim Cook dictates to be the perfect Moonraker-Racial-Utopia of his choosing.
This argument is, and I'm being generous here, specious at best. Investing in growing your future candidate pool is not a waste of money. You seem to be hung up on race and actively ignoring the full scope of the diversity Apple wants to achieve. I guess that's one way to force a narrative. A bit myopic, but it's a way to do it.
Take it a step further...
Honestly, you haven't even taken it a step. To take it further requires the initial step. Your metaphorical step seems to be stuck on race with an inability to move forward.
Asians = East Indians and Chinese people?
Chinese = Just HAN or are
Uyghurs also included? If so at what %, and at what % of "Asian" or do we have our own category for Chinese / Japanese / Filipino / Mung / Thai / Etc...? When each of these has it's own ethnic cultures internally and on top of that you only have X limited amount of minorities that happen to live in the USA. You'll have a hard time fulfilling the North Korean quota, "We'll just hire a Vietnamese guy and just mark that down another "Asian" for Tim's Database" Don't discriminate and leave anyone out. So it doesn't take long to see that even the Diversity requirement will become a tangled mess of a problem that serves no logical purpose.
Race seems to be paralyzing your thought process. Diversity goes beyond
just race. Your arguments don't, but diversity does.
See how ridiculous it gets when USING DISCRIMINATION TO FIGHT DISCRIMINATION!?!?!?
Ridiculous is not recognizing that an argument against quotas does not qualify as an argument against diversity. The words diversity and quota lack equivalency. They are not interchangeable. In fact, they're more opposite than alike. Quotas are about a limited or fixed number. Synonyms such as limit, fraction, or portion come to mind when thinking of quotas. Diversity, on the other hand, is synonymous with variety, mixture, or multiplicity.
Let's agree to disagree. My arguments will most likely have no sway on your way thinking and your arguments are, frankly, wasted on me. Further discourse will probably lead to variations of what we've already covered. You have every right to your opinion and I can respect that. Don't agree with it, but I can respect it nonetheless.