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

[darcyf]

This will take less than a minute:

If 999 black people and 1 white person are discriminated against because of the colour of their skin, that equals 1000 injustices.

If you perceive assisting a minority as discriminating against a white man then you are misunderstanding the difference between a person being assisted and a person being privileged.

White men, whether you wish to admit it or not (because that is irrelevant to the facts), are privileged -- far more than any other race or gender. This is not up for debate any more than the fact that the Earth is not flat. However, white male privilege, unlike the latter example, is 100% up for change.

Equality, while far from being achieved, is always on the rise. And when equality has been achieved and history looks back at the way things were compared to the way things at that time will be, it will look back on those who opposed this change, with nonsense arguments about discriminating against the most privileged people, with the utmost of pity for their ignorance.

 

[Gary03mw]

This will take less than a minute:

If 999 black people and 1 white person are discriminated against because of the colour of their skin, that equals 1000 injustices.

And if 999 white people and 1 black person are discriminated against because of the color of their skin, that also equals 1000 injustices.

It's pretty simple math, but it doesn't explain anything. It also doesn't really touch on the point I've been making. That point isn't about race, gender, or sexual orientation. It's about individuals. People. A world that has 999 injustices is still a better world than one that has 1000. If your girlfriend cheats on you 3 times it's not gonna make everything right if you go cheat on her 3 times. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that the argument being made here is that because certain groups of people were discriminated against in the past that it's okay to discriminate against other groups today in an attempt to counteract those past issues.

 

[Gary03mw]

If you perceive assisting a minority as discriminating against a white man then you are misunderstanding the difference between a person being assisted and a person being privileged.

White men, whether you wish to admit it or not (because that is irrelevant to the facts), are privileged -- far more than any other race or gender. This is not up for debate any more than the fact that the Earth is not flat. However, white male privilege, unlike the latter example, is 100% up for change.

Equality, while far from being achieved, is always on the rise. And when equality has been achieved and history looks back at the way things were compared to the way things at that time will be, it will look back on those who opposed this change, with nonsense arguments about discriminating against the most privileged people, with the utmost of pity for their ignorance.

As long as you continue to look at things in terms of race you will continue to be the same bigoted person that you are. We should be assisting those in need; namely the poor. In America today assisting the poor will also obviously assist a great deal of minorities. But when you start grouping everyone by race and you call a little white boy in a poor neighborhood "privileged" you've become part of the problem. All minorities aren't disadvantaged. Everyone in the majority isn't privileged. When you start grouping people by race and giving out assistance you are discriminating, plain and simple.

 

[darcyf]

As long as you continue to look at things in terms of race you will continue to be the same bigoted person that you are. We should be assisting those in need; namely the poor. In America today assisting the poor will also obviously assist a great deal of minorities. But when you start grouping everyone by race and you call a little white boy in a poor neighborhood "privileged" you've become part of the problem. All minorities aren't disadvantaged. Everyone in the majority isn't privileged. When you start grouping people by race and giving out assistance you are discriminating, plain and simple.

I absolutely agree with you about poverty being the biggest problem and the most urgent thing to solve. And please don't misconstrue my words: I'm not saying every single white male on the planet is currently in a better situation than every other race or gendered person. Does that even need to be said? No, so I won't waste any more words in that direction.

What I've been taking issue with here are the objections being made to diversification of the workforce. When people start crying out "white discrimination" in response to such efforts, I object on the grounds that they are confused about the difference between discrimination and support.

This isn't about saying no to the top ten candidates for a role just because they all happen to be white males (if that were the case) and then picking the 11th best person because they're not a white male. It's about trying to break the perception that only white men are the top candidates in the first place -- because that can't possibly be the case. There has to be a mix, by the laws of chance as well as the laws of nature. And yet so often there isn't. And while the reasons behind this are complicated, perception plays a huge role.

So we need to change that perception. Not to take opportunities away from deserving white males, but to bring opportunities forward to deserving people of every other race and gender.

 

[Gary03mw]

What I've been taking issue with here are the objections being made to diversification of the workforce. When people start crying out "white discrimination" in response to such efforts, I object on the grounds that they are confused about the difference between discrimination and support.

Let me retrace this and see if I understand what you're saying. If company XYZ looks at a resume and they grade that resume an A. Then they look at a second resume and they grade that resume a B. The second resume though happens to be a black woman. This particular company knows that they have struggled to recruit black women and that their diversity report shows that this group is the most under represented in the company. You would call the choice to hire this woman "support" while I would call it "discrimination." I won't name the race, gender, or sexual orientation of resume A because in my stance it's not important, and hopefully it will help you better understand the point I'm making. Someone, a person, who worked hard to build a better resume than their competition is going to get displaced, and you are okay with that?

This isn't about saying no to the top ten candidates for a role just because they all happen to be white males (if that were the case) and then picking the 11th best person because they're not a white male. It's about trying to break the perception that only white men are the top candidates in the first place -- because that can't possibly be the case. There has to be a mix, by the laws of chance as well as the laws of nature. And yet so often there isn't. And while the reasons behind this are complicated, perception plays a huge role.

So we need to change that perception. Not to take opportunities away from deserving white males, but to bring opportunities forward to deserving people of every other race and gender.

This just seems like doublespeak to me. I agree that it's not about skipping 10 white males. It is about skipping a more qualified candidate because of the desire to have a more diverse group. If diversity is a part of your selection criteria that is precisely what you're doing. You can say it's some call to change perception (which I disagree is the perception) but Tim Cook said that he believes that the most diverse group will create the best product. That's championing diversity because he believes that there is an advantage gained from having a wide group of people. My issue with that is that it creates discrimination in hiring. It ignores the fact that it's inherently bigoted to begin with in it's assumptions of who people are because of their gender or race. It also harms your organization because your missing the "best" people in order to get the most "diverse" people.

 

[darcyf]

Let me retrace this and see if I understand what you're saying. If company XYZ looks at a resume and they grade that resume an A. Then they look at a second resume and they grade that resume a B. The second resume though happens to be a black woman. This particular company knows that they have struggled to recruit black women and that their diversity report shows that this group is the most under represented in the company. You would call the choice to hire this woman "support" while I would call it "discrimination." I won't name the race, gender, or sexual orientation of resume A because in my stance it's not important, and hopefully it will help you better understand the point I'm making. Someone, a person, who worked hard to build a better resume than their competition is going to get displaced, and you are okay with that?



This just seems like doublespeak to me. I agree that it's not about skipping 10 white males. It is about skipping a more qualified candidate because of the desire to have a more diverse group. If diversity is a part of your selection criteria that is precisely what you're doing. You can say it's some call to change perception (which I disagree is the perception) but Tim Cook said that he believes that the most diverse group will create the best product. That's championing diversity because he believes that there is an advantage gained from having a wide group of people. My issue with that is that it creates discrimination in hiring. It ignores the fact that it's inherently bigoted to begin with in it's assumptions of who people are because of their gender or race. It also harms your organization because your missing the "best" people in order to get the most "diverse" people.

This is the tension point at which you and I struggle. You seem to think -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that there is currently no discrimination taking place in the workforce -- diversification efforts notwithstanding. It also sounds like you're saying that people are chosen based off of their resumes and not their interviews. I'm pretty sure you are better informed than that, so I'll let that one go -- but then why give resumes as an example of discrimination? People are hired based off of their interviews. Resumes -- and cover letters -- just get them through the door.

And so it seems to me that you think that, currently, the way things work is that people are hired without any discrimination taking place -- that when the white male gets hired over any other race or gender, it's got to be because he was the best and not due any gender- or race-based biases on the part of the person doing the hiring. In all cases this has to be because the white male was the best person for the job if they are the person that was chosen.

I disagree. White males can and will be chosen despite not being the most qualified due to biases inherent in the people doing the hiring. And that needs to change.

And you also seem to think -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that if we make efforts to encourage companies to think and act more diversely in their hiring practices that we would then be shunning more qualified candidates for less qualified candidates.

I disagree. Breaking down barriers to hiring minorities opens up the possibility of hiring what would be the best person for the job. Sometimes that's a white male. Sometimes it's a female hispanic. Sometimes it's a black transgendered. But without the effort to encourage diversification, the latter two stand far less of a chance of standing out as the primary candidates that they are.

It's not about introducing discrimination or choosing lesser candidates. It's about ending discrimination so the best candidate can and will be chosen.

 

[theluggage]

A world that has 999 injustices is still a better world than one that has 1000.

Yes - that was pretty much my point. I think we're violently agreeing with each other. I think the ratio was more plausible my way round, though.

I'm not saying every single white male on the planet is currently in a better situation than every other race or gendered person.

Sorry, but if you say:

White men, whether you wish to admit it or not (because that is irrelevant to the facts), are privileged

...then that is exactly what you are saying - unless you want to play newspeak with the word "privileged".

Not to take opportunities away from deserving white males, but to bring opportunities forward to deserving people of every other race and gender.

Just cross out the word "other" and I'd sign up to that. Very few, if any, people in this thread have been objecting to the principle of equality of opportunity, or opposing measures to help deserving people.

The issue is with the presumption that all white males are privileged and everybody else is deserving. Improving opportunities for the deserving, full stop, will still help all the people you want to help, and improve diversity in a sustainable way that won't risk being wipes out by a backlash from the underprivileged white males who's existence you deny.

I disagree. Breaking down barriers to hiring minorities opens up the possibility of hiring what would be the best person for the job. Sometimes that's a white male.

Absolutely - provided that the barriers are removed for everybody and not specifically removed for a particular value of 'minority'. Its the difference between setting up a scheme to encourage young people to learn programming, and setting up a scheme to encourage girls to learn programming.

 

[darcyf]

Sorry, but if you say:

"White men, whether you wish to admit it or not (because that is irrelevant to the facts), are privileged"

...then that is exactly what you are saying - unless you want to play newspeak with the word "privileged".

You are being deliberately obtuse. There is a huge difference between saying one group is more privileged than another group and saying every single member of one group is better off than every single member of another group. You really are grasping at straws if that's the best you can do to try and diminish my argument.

Discrimination in the workforce is real. White males are chosen more often because of discrimination. If you are as supportive of the idea of everyone being given equal standing then you should be supportive of the effort to end that discrimination.

 

[Altis]

You are being deliberately obtuse. There is a huge difference between saying one group is more privileged than another group and saying every single member of one group is better off than every single member of another group. You really are grasping at straws if that's the best you can do to try and diminish my argument.

That is the entire concept of privilege (grouping together along some common attribute and applying it uniformly to all members of that group). It's seriously broken because people can be privileged and disadvantaged in a ton of different ways, and most often it is more to do with economic class than anything else (which can happen along lines of race and geographical areas, no doubt!). So claiming that the very small percentage of white males who are in high tech are there due to their innate privilege of being white and male while completely ignoring the other +98% of white males who are not in high tech makes your model awfully broken. It also ignores all the non-white and non-male members who make up a substantial proportion of the industry.

In other words, while you think that the other poster is denying privilege on account of exceptions, you're applying privilege exclusively on exceptions (a very small percentage of people who are white and male).

Discrimination in the workforce is real. White males are chosen more often because of discrimination. If you are as supportive of the idea of everyone being given equal standing then you should be supportive of the effort to end that discrimination.

Where is your proof of this assertion? You've made it over and over without any evidence that it's true other than your clear adherence to ideology.

You're going to need to show that women or non-whites are hired less than their respective ratios in post-secondary, at the very least. If only 20% of ComSci graduates are female, then it follows naturally that 20% of new hires are female -- with no discrimination. That would statistically happen if all hires were entirely blind.

If, for instance, women make up 20% of C.S. graduates and are hired at 30%, then where you see the 30% as proof of discrimination against women, it's actually in favor of women despite being lower than the overall ratio in the population (some 54% ish female).

Like I've said before, the challenge is ultimately always to get more people interested in that stream early on. This has been an effort that has been going on for decades and decades.

Here's a Computer Chronicles video from 1985 (30 years ago!) where they were already dealing with this topic. Enjoy!

 

[Gary03mw]

This is the tension point at which you and I struggle. You seem to think -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that there is currently no discrimination taking place in the workforce -- diversification efforts notwithstanding. It also sounds like you're saying that people are chosen based off of their resumes and not their interviews. I'm pretty sure you are better informed than that, so I'll let that one go -- but then why give resumes as an example of discrimination? People are hired based off of their interviews. Resumes -- and cover letters -- just get them through the door.

No, in the sense that you're referring to, I think discrimination absolutely happens. How big the problem is could be debated. I do think that there are a lot of incentives not to discriminate though. One being that it is illegal, although hard to prove. Another being that it's not beneficial to the organization to hire someone who isn't as capable. A third is that the idea of inclusion is currently great PR. I think it's practically a nonexistent issue in larger organizations today but probably a bigger issue in small business? The degree is really tough to say and I'm not sure that the goal of completely eliminating it is even possible (although we should always be trying).

The use of resumes was just an example that I chose because it was objective in some way. It's not particularly important for the point I was trying to make. You can change their resume grades of an A and a B to their interview grade if you think that makes more sense. The point is simply that company XYZ thinks that the first candidate was the more capable candidate but the second candidate is a part of a racial group that they are struggling to recruit.

And so it seems to me that you think that, currently, the way things work is that people are hired without any discrimination taking place -- that when the white male gets hired over any other race or gender, it's got to be because he was the best and not due any gender- or race-based biases on the part of the person doing the hiring. In all cases this has to be because the white male was the best person for the job if they are the person that was chosen.

I wouldn't say in all cases, but I would say in most. I would note that it depends on the field if this is even true. Assuming we are talking about STEM fields, the biggest reason for this is obviously because white males are the vast majority of the candidates. Now the reason for this run deep and we could talk about this for hours and hours, but it's the reality of the situation.

I disagree. White males can and will be chosen despite not being the most qualified due to biases inherent in the people doing the hiring. And that needs to change.

And you also seem to think -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that if we make efforts to encourage companies to think and act more diversely in their hiring practices that we would then be shunning more qualified candidates for less qualified candidates.

The second paragraph you are correct in understanding my thoughts. I would say that I don't think this, I know it. The two ideas are completely at odds with one another. Logically, it can't be both ways. You can't say you're hiring the best candidate for the job if you're giving a bump for some arbitrary reason to candidates. That arbitrary reason could be race, gender, eye color, height, shoe size, it doesn't matter. Precisely the moment you start considering those things you are diminishing the weight placed on being the best in direct proportion to how much weight you put into that arbitrary reason. Hiring a person for any one of these reasons is no better than hiring a white male who is less qualified. In fact, it's the exact same thing. Same coin, different side.

I disagree. Breaking down barriers to hiring minorities opens up the possibility of hiring what would be the best person for the job. Sometimes that's a white male. Sometimes it's a female hispanic. Sometimes it's a black transgendered. But without the effort to encourage diversification, the latter two stand far less of a chance of standing out as the primary candidates that they are.

It's not about introducing discrimination or choosing lesser candidates. It's about ending discrimination so the best candidate can and will be chosen.

There's nothing to disagree with in my statements. Logically, the point I'm making above isn't really refutable.

You seem to be equating hiring a minority who is less capable (or giving a scholarship) to "breaking down barriers to hiring minorities." They aren't the same thing. As someone said earlier there is a difference in equal opportunity and equal outcome. If you want to break down barriers then you have to give equal opportunity (which is not what this is). Of course equal opportunity still doesn't mean that the outcomes will be equal. Also as someone else mentioned woman are outnumbering men in post secondary education nearly 2-1, aka they have every opportunity to enter STEM fields, but they aren't.

 

[darcyf]

You seem to be equating hiring a minority who is less capable (or giving a scholarship) to "breaking down barriers to hiring minorities."

No, I do not seem to be doing that because that's not what I have said. I have said, time and time again, that it is about creating the opportunity for the best candidate to have the best opportunity to be found.

People make the wrong decisions for what they believe to be the right reasons all the time. That is the nature of bias and we are all subject to this -- but we can be less subject to it if we are made aware of it. That is what the effort to diversify is about -- drawing awareness to the fact that biases around race and gender exist in the workforce (which historically have favoured white men and still do today) in order to reduce and ultimately eliminate them.

Agree to disagree if you want. But please don't reshape my message to suit your opposing view.

 

[Gary03mw]

Yes - that was pretty much my point. I think we're violently agreeing with each other. I think the ratio was more plausible my way round, though.

Perhaps more plausible but I'm not sure. I think it's a two way street today. Almost everyone is subject to their own set of issues. I would note two things: One, I think education and racism tend to go hand in hand. Speaking in generalities, minorities are typically less educated so it follows that they would also be more racist as whole. Two, while it may be plausible that white people are less racist as a whole it can be much more dangerous when a person in a powerful position holds racists beliefs. The odds of the person in this position being a white male is extremely large. Basically a racist kid calling me a "snowflake" on the basketball court is still a racist but 1,000 of those kids still may not have the impact of one racist CEO.

Take this with a grain of salt. It's obviously complete guesswork with very little in substantial proof.

 

[theluggage]

If you are as supportive of the idea of everyone being given equal standing then you should be supportive of the effort to end that discrimination.

I don't think I've seen anybody in this thread saying "Yay for Discrimination!

The dichotomy here is between people who believe in equality of opportunity and those who want to artificially force equality of outcome.

 

[darcyf]

I don't think I've seen anybody in this thread saying "Yay for Discrimination!

The dichotomy here is between people who believe in equality of opportunity and those who want to artificially force equality of outcome.

No, the dichotomy here is between people who believe in equality of opportunity and those who wish to keep that from happening by hampering any such efforts to encourage it.

You don't have to say "Yay for discrimination" to be in support of it. Ignorance is a powerful ally of discrimination. As is denial.

Discrimination exists. Doing nothing won't change that. Doing something might. I'm all for plan B. Sorry if you feel otherwise but that doesn't make you a champion for the cause of equality. It means you're standing in equality's way.

 

[Peruna]

Try and take a long term view. This is about redressing a decades-long imbalance, so that one day we really can stop worrying about inequality in the tech world, and become a true meritocracy. That day is not here yet.[/QUOTE]

Two wrongs don't make a right and all you end up doing is creating more problems and an expectation of reduced standards for women if they are regularly hired over men with better credentials. The greatest way to achieve equality is guarantee equal opportunity not equal results. Individual merit should alone determine hiring and advancement not wether someone comes from a particular "in-need" segment of society. And let's be honest, do you really think in the name of diversity Apple is going to go out of the way to hire, say, conservative Christians, who disagree with Apple's "social justice" viewpoints? Of course not nor should they.

All people are not equal and men and women have distinct traits, interests and strengths which means they have different goals in life and are interested in different professions. To try to force feed the tech industry women solely because they industry wants to look better is not only disingenuous, it is condescending. Should hospitals feel compelled to hire less qualified men as nurses because they want more in the profession? No, when you go to the hospital you damn well want it staffed by the best quality people available.

Look, diversity has its place, I am not saying it doesn't, but it should be way down the list.

 

[theluggage]

You don't have to say "Yay for discrimination" to be in support of it. Ignorance is a powerful ally of discrimination. As is denial.

I'm not denying discrimination. I'm not opposing the many things that have been done in the past decades to prevent it and I fully accept that more may needed to be done. That's the straw man you keep throwing up as a lazy argument against anybody who doesn't offer unreserved and uncritical support for every single thing you propose in the name of equality.

I just disagree with the shallow focus on superficial "diversity" as an end in itself (which is treating the symptoms and not the disease) or with any 'solution' that doesn't accept the fundamental principle that discrimination - in either direction - is wrong. Those approaches won't bring equality - they'll just entrench attitudes, feed the trolls and end up causing a backlash. None of that is incompatible with rooting out overt discrimination, protecting whistle-blowers, reigning-in the 'old boys network', fighting bullying at work, encouraging social mobility, flexibility in hiring and rational minimum qualifications, more on-the-job training and career progression vs. certificate counting and altruism based on individual need (which, if you're right about privilege, will automatically help disproportionately large numbers of minority people anyway).

 

[giuliaiaconistewart]

well, the thing with this is that women and other minorities aren’t ENCOURAGED to the same extent as (white) men are to pursue careers in computer science, tech, math/science, and therefore don’t show the same level of interest in those fields. there was an article about this in the NYT recently re. stanford, i think...of COURSE minority populations are, in theory, just as capable as men are of succeeding in and contributing to tech industries, but allowing this capability to express itself naturally requires starting at the educational level. and i mean FOUNDATIONAL educational level. it starts when you are a toddler. not when you are seeking entry into a university or employment at a company. if education were based on equal opportunity and encouragement, which would nullify affirmative action, THEN we’d be on our way to solving this issue. yes, tim cook and others who are pioneering this corporate affirmative action stunt are calling attention to the pervasive lack of diversity -- and i am a strong advocate of generating discussion as the first step in beginning to tackle huge social issues. however, apple’s (and others’) solution is a mere band aid over a gaping, ten-meter-deep wound on the fabric of society. to properly fix this issue with educational reform will require decades. unfortunately, ours is a society of immediate returns, and it seems as though unsustainable, label-based 'solutions' like this one are the most desirable at the moment.

 

[SeattleMoose]

Diversity is the enemy of merit.

 

[SeattleMoose]

All this political correctness.

The ones saying are the women interested in the tech field? Then they should go for it but not being promoted into it.

I know some technical students which enrolled for a programming degree a couple years ago. There where like 7 girls, and guess how many there where after 2 years? None. Most of them dropped out after the first semester because it was "too complicated"

What does this tell you? There sure are the couple girls who really like math and logic and they will go through with it and will be successful with it but telling all the girls get in the tech field its awesome over here is missing the point. Its like the thing, everyone should learn how to write code. ******** then most of them write ******** code who dont know what they are doing or dont want to learn it in the first place because while everything gets computerised, not even close to everything needs people who need to use these system to know how to code it.

What the PC crowd fail to understand is a simple biological fact. Men and women are inherently different and designed for different tasks. Hence our brains our different. Men are simply more geared to tech than women (in general). Besides "encouraging" any kid to do something is essentially "pushing them". Let kids interest develop naturally and you'll see the difference between boys and girls and what they naturally gravitate to. It is a good thing. The ratios in the market place simply reflect reality.

 

[Dargoth]

Why? Why does it matter whether or not women work in the field of tech? Let's take the fashion industry for example. Now I don't have any source or anything to back this up but we all agree that there are probably more women working in the fashion industry than men right? Do we feel the need to make more men interested in fashion? No because nobody gives a **** and it doesn't ****ing matter. Apple shouldn't care how their diversity reports look and they sure as hell shouldn't be releasing them. They also shouldn't care how diverse the people at the keynotes are. The tickets should be given as a lottery not diversity. It does not matter period.

The real racists are the ones whose decisions are even only slightly based on the person's ethnicity. It is important to include everyone (naturally), but these people try to measure diversity as a statistic of who's been hired in relation to the makeup of the general population. I think it's fairly obvious that the number of people who want to be in tech in the first place is NOT proportional to the racial/ethnic/gender demographic. Maybe fewer black people want to be in tech. Let them do what they want to do. Don't tell them they have to be in tech just to prove a point. Let them do whatever it is they wish to do. That's equality. What they preach is a form of inequality that makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside. That's truly what this is about: Them. Not anyone of any racial or ethnic background, just them. It makes them feel good, so they don't really give a hoot about whether or not it's actually doing anyone else any good.

 

[ecommerceedward]

Why not just hire the best performing person?

When I buy something on eBay I just care about the feedback , or on Amazon I just care about the reviews, I could care less about the genitalia of the seller, I just buy based on the best performance.

Is there some racial or sexual quota they are trying to fulfill?

The only way to fulfill that would be to discriminate against race or sex, which would the whole thing totally hypocritical.

There's already an incentive to disregard race and sex it's called MONEY.

• Assume woman and men are equally skilled at assembling widgets.
• Let's just say the "old boys company" was only hiring men because they're sexist
• You would have a surplus of skilled women available and more eager to work
• Therefore the "old boys company" is choosing to pay a higher cost to exclude women from their hiring base.
• Naturally a competitor would swoop in an just hire all the women at lower costs.
• Why would the shareholders of a corporation want to willingly pay MORE? It doesn't make sense.
• The market already has an incentive for this.

 

[ecommerceedward]

expand our search to a larger talent pool that includes people of different races and sexes

So how would that work exactly?

You just keep discriminating qualified people based on their skin color until you fill in all the race requirements?

 

[69Mustang]

So how would that work exactly?

You just keep discriminating qualified people based on their skin color until you fill in all the race requirements?

Sounds like you're confusing increasing the talent pool with guaranteeing a job. It's not the same thing. The only way your thought could be valid is all the qualified were (from the original example) White/Asian male AND jobs were given to others regardless. In a larger talent pool, the probability of the most qualified people being only White/Asian males is statistically near impossible. There is no discrimination when the most qualified candidate is chosen regardless of race. As I said before, it's not about guaranteeing a job because of race. It's about providing access to opportunity where it didn't exist before.

 

[ecommerceedward]

increasing the talent pool

So much for judging by the content of your character instead of your skin color.

So, advertise in Ebony magazine or something. Or advertise in (need more of skin-color X magazine) until racial quota X is fulfilled.

You're just discriminating at a different level, that's all. You still have your racial quota and internal database of race.

Your "diverse" company will have some internal racial database. This is so IBM-Nazi era creepy.

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'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.

Take it a step further...

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.

See how ridiculous it gets when USING DISCRIMINATION TO FIGHT DISCRIMINATION!?!?!?


Austin Powers UN, or Apple HQ?:

 

[69Mustang]

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.