Apple Donates Over $50 Million to Increase Diversity in the Tech Industry

[scottsjack]

Again, we need to force employers to treat blacks equally. The should not be allowed to decide for themselves who to hire, because employers are not able to remove their own biases.

Pure fantasy and rubbish. You want some committee to decide for me who I hire for my business? What a load!

 

[mozumder]

That is the biggest pile of crap I have read all day. Africans whose grandparents were never slaves are still whining about slavery. And somehow they expect white people whose grandparents were never slave owners to pay up.

My advice; learn to speak decent English, study in and out of school and wear clothes that make employers (black or white) want to hire you.

Yet, white people still have a bias against black people, which is why they won't hire black people because of their race.

My advice to you is to learn what REAL racism is. It is not the surface conscious decisions, but the hidden ones that hold back black people.

We need to remove racial bias from society. Forcing employment via affirmative action is a good way to make sure whites start to accept blacks.

----------

Pure fantasy and rubbish. You want some committee to decide for me who I hire for my business? What a load!

Yes. Because we do not trust your own judgement, because you do not know how to avoid your own racial bias.

We know better than you do.

 

[scottsjack]

Yes. Because we do not trust your own judgement, because you do not know how to avoid your own racial bias.

We know better than you do.

The mob knows better? That worked well in Ferguson didn't it. That was the same crowd that no employer in their right mind would want to hire. Quit blaming the majority of your problems on your skin color. That doesn't work anymore.

 

[rhett7660]

In before the "That's nothing compared to how much they make in profits" comments. Just remember, not donating =/= not advertising that you donated. However, to be fair, why advertise this, and not everything else?

As far as diversity is concerned, I'd like to see people of all genders, religions, races, sexualities and whatever other characteristic, have the opportunity to learn tech skills and get into the field. However, I am against hiring anyone based on anything other than their merits.

This is how I feel also......

 

[0098386]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Just reading the nonsense that was Gamergate lets me know I don't want any part of the Tech version of an "Old Boys club"

Oh god let me tell you about that. Or not. They're a crazy bunch, had a rollercoaster time with them (they harassed some of my friends, etc).

----------

This is how I feel also......

Unfortunately that's not good enough though. Because the opposite is currently true. I run a game studio and meet frequently with lots of people from other studios, headhunting groups, etc. Frequently women are turned down because "they might get pregnant" (as I've been told in the past). So I don't mind having it the other way for a while, reach out to those that might have been pushed away previously. If things had always been equal then yeah, continue it being absolutely equal.

 

[temna]

They are not at an economic disadvantage of "their own making". They are at an economic disadvantage because of white people's making. And white people have a bias against black people.

You can't "work your way" out of employment bias.

Given two equal resumes, one with a "black sounding" name and another with a white one, people select the white one over the black ones.

Again, we need to force employers to treat blacks equally. The should not be allowed to decide for themselves who to hire, because employers are not able to remove their own biases.

Yes, you can work you way out of an employment bias. Lots of people had to to get jobs when millions of people were on unemployment for years after this last (and current) recession. If they can do it, so can blacks. And for the record, there is equal bias against white people by blacks and your supposed white bias against blacks.

The "artificial advantage" is a correction for the artificial disadvantage blacks have had.

You need to forcibly fix the situation, instead of being passive about it.

No, any "disadvantage" blacks supposedly have is of their own making. No one needs to fix it but them.

 

[lincolntran]

There are plenty of white people whose families were not in the United States until well after slavery was abolished, so there can't be any economic benefits of slavery for them to enjoy. The aristocrats who benefited from slavery are most likely in the minority, actually.

And I don't see how any black person born in the U.S. and a descendant of slaves is disadvantaged compared to non-black immigrants who come here with nothing and can hardly speak English (whose ancestors may have been enslaved in foreign countries too). I would never use "my family was enslaved many generations ago" as an excuse for anything.

My family came here with literally $500 dollars in my mom's pockets and a pair of shoes, zero English. Through hard works, determinations, and lots of tears and sweats we have now archived the American dream. Each of us has a good job, living in our own houses and driving our own cars and have nieces and nephews that are making straight As in schools. Despite menu issues in the systems, we love this country.


It's time to stop using inapplicable excuses.

 

[mozumder]

Yes, you can work you way out of an employment bias. Lots of people had to to get jobs when millions of people were on unemployment for years after this last (and current) recession.

No, you can't "work" your way out of a bias. That's why it's a bias.

If they can do it, so can blacks.

Since when did blacks and whites have equal economic parity? That's news.

And for the record, there is equal bias against white people by blacks and your supposed white bias against blacks. No, any "disadvantage" blacks supposedly have is of their own making.

Any disadvantage blacks have had is because of white people, not because of black people.

It is time for white people to fix what they broke.

They need to take responsibility for their actions.

No one needs to fix it but them.

Exactly. White people need to fix the problems they caused to blacks.

Right now there are far too many whites that don't want to pay for the government and society that black people built for them. Every state in the south owes blacks their society.

----------

The mob knows better? That worked well in Ferguson didn't it. That was the same crowd that no employer in their right mind would want to hire. Quit blaming the majority of your problems on your skin color. That doesn't work anymore.

Yes, the public knows better than you.

Fortunately, you agree with that statement, because that's why you support a democracy where the decisions by the public gets to rule over you.

Thanks for participating in our government, where we get to decide over you, since we do not trust you to make sound judgment.

 

[Dekema2]

The interpretation of this article, Affirmative Action and the donation depends on perspective.

If you're a minority this may be viewed favorably as an effort to make sure fair hiring practices are in place as well as proper educational standards. There are those concerned if they are paired with a candidate with less on their resume of a majority race that they could be accepted over them for a job.

If you aren't (majority), this may or may not be viewed unfavorably, hence the "diversity is based on character and not physical characteristics." There are those concerned that if you are an equal applicant with a minority that affirmative action will enable the minority to get the job.

Every time this discussion is had it goes down the kitchen sink, so my belief is that if minorities (black, Hispanic, etc) less than 50 years ago were consistently denied jobs across the country, let alone Silicon Valley, then how today can we equivocally justify and prove that nobody at all is denied a job based on race?

 

[steve333]

Obama needs to shut his piehole.
The work isn't over because pinheads like Barry bend over for the illegal aliens that take jobs away from blacks and other Americans.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Some people at a company I was hired at awhile ago quit because the sexism was so bad. The same thing happened with employees that are of a minority status. I think the sexism happens more often than racism in the tech world.

However, many qualified minorities never get through the door because of things like "ohh we don't share the same vision technologically" or "the other guy was a better 'FIT'". The goal of diversity is to have diversity of thinking. If everyone comes from the same background it can be difficult to address up and coming challenges. In the tech world it's always the basement dweller type guy from an upper middle class white family who they are giving the jobs too. If you always hire that person you are going to likely get the same old ideas and no out of the box thinking because everyone is basically the same person but with a different last name.

When a black guy does actually get hired they don't offer up any encouragement at the same levels of everyone else. You get treated like you are stupid and ridiculed and overlooked for promotions and treated like less than the other employees no investment in growing you like they do with other devs etc... Let me tell ya from first hand experience... it can be very draining. I think the best manager I had was a really good female dev manager that didn't actually write code who the company ran off. She could be tough but she helped me grow a lot. My next manager benefitted greatly from her helping me grow and on the next performance review I received a big bonus, salary increase, and got to take on some more responsibility.

Rather than saying ohhh there aren't any qualified black people.... lets be honest you need to hire up the ones who are already in the market and train them to work within your organization...and they can show the others who are up and coming how it's done and help them along. Companies nowadays want a ready made product but in reality you need to invest in the people and train people to be what you need them to be. Throwing $50 million dollars around isn't going to do much of anything. That money will mostly be wasted and have no accountability and oversight. Companies would be better off just hiring and training people to do the jobs they need them to do. It's cheaper all around.With $50 million dollars you could've hired 500 minority developers at $100,000 a piece and gotten far closer to your goals. You still get the tax benefit and now you have a developer who is creating more value by furthering business goals.

----------

Qualification is the major point here. In much the same way that some white people are suspicious that someone might've been hired due to the color of their skin, black and Hispanic people are likely pretty loathe to think that the only reason they have their job is for that exact same reason. Skill, moreso than anything else, is what's most important.

My major point is that a company aiming for diversity isn't a bad thing, because, for one, it's a nice thing to aim for. For two, the people being hired represent a minority of the population, which means that automatically you're not going to have as many of them gunning for a position as the majority of the population. Once everything is tallied together, putting a focus on hiring minorities won't take away jobs from anyone else. It's much ado over nothing.

Yeah but a minority has to be twice as qualified as the non-minority (especially if you are BLACK) in order to get hired in the first place otherwise companies are scared to make the investment. I know I wouldn't have gotten hired at some of the places I did if the company hadn't already interviewed with hundreds of people and found no one before I came in.

 

[Renzatic]

Yeah but a minority has to be twice as qualified as the non-minority (especially if you are BLACK) in order to get hired in the first place otherwise companies are scared to make the investment. I know I wouldn't have gotten hired at some of the places I did if the company hadn't already interviewed with hundreds of people and found no one before I came in.

Yup, and this is what affirmative action is supposed to combat. The biggest arguments you'll always hear against almost always revolve around the quote unquote quotas. How the government is telling private businesses that they absolutely have to hire X amount of minorities, or face some sort of consequences.

From what I've seen, read, and heard, there are no quotas as a part of affirmative. They don't state businesses have to hire so many minorities, rather it states that you can't disqualify a candidate for a job simply because of their race. It's a fairly small distinction that makes a huge amount of difference in how it's enforced.

Rather than saying "you have to hire 3 black guys, and 4 Hispanics per 20 Caucasians", it's saying, to use your example, "okay, you had a qualified guy right here that was perfect for the job. Why did you spend three weeks combing through 300 other applications before finally deciding to hire him".

It's actually the opposite of enforcing diversity for the sake of diversity. It's ultimate attempt is to be race blind. To level the playing field for everyone involved, so people get hired because of their skills and qualifications, rather than their race.

 

[thekev]

Men also have babies.... I'm a woman who has never had a baby. Are you saying women don't belong in the tech industry because they might get *gasp* pregnant?

I think (not positive) that he was referring to the fact that a percentage of women either drop out of the workforce or spend less time working on career growth after they have children.

Rather than saying ohhh there aren't any qualified black people.... lets be honest you need to hire up the ones who are already in the market and train them to work within your organization...and they can show the others who are up and coming how it's done and help them along. Companies nowadays want a ready made product but in reality you need to invest in the people and train people to be what you need them to be. Throwing $50 million dollars around isn't going to do much of anything. That money will mostly be wasted and have no accountability and oversight. Companies would be better off just hiring and training people to do the jobs they need them to do. It's cheaper all around.With $50 million dollars you could've hired 500 minority developers at $100,000 a piece and gotten far closer to your goals. You still get the tax benefit and now you have a developer who is creating more value by furthering business goals.

These things are largely about PR, but the donations themselves aren't always up front in cash. First off it's likely that whatever funds are handed off in some way to possibly multiple organizations, but apart from that donations are often structured in weird ways. It's hard to tell what is actually being donated just by looking at a press release. Regarding oversight though, you can look at the past results of whatever non-profits are recipients.

 

[AlecZ]

Yet, white people still have a bias against black people, which is why they won't hire black people because of their race.

Hmm, I don't have a bias against black people. A few people here might, but we know that every black person at UC Berkeley got in here for a legitimate reason, not Affirmative Action (which is banned in California). There can't be a thought police to make sure nobody has even the slightest bias against blacks, but it helps to not have a system that gives handouts to people of certain races. Otherwise, people look down on them.

 

[leenak]

Hmm, I don't have a bias against black people. A few people here might, but we know that every black person at UC Berkeley got in here for a legitimate reason, not Affirmative Action (which is banned in California). There can't be a thought police to make sure nobody has even the slightest bias against blacks, but it helps to not have a system that gives handouts to people of certain races. Otherwise, people look down on them.

I think a scholarship isn't a handout, it is intended to help someone go to school who may not otherwise be able to. I can tell you that as someone who has a good paying job, pays tons of taxes, donates lots of money to charity and participates in the economy (aka buys stuff) with no debt, that I don't think it would've been possible for me if I hadn't been given scholarships/grants to go to school (I also went to a UC). I would've most likely ended up like my parents working in low income jobs. If someone wants to look down on me because I received scholarships to go to school, feel free.

 

[lowendlinux]

So it is interesting when Apple donates money for scholarships for students, that it devolves into "this is racist because hiring due to race is racist". This is scholarships... for students.

Having said that, there have been many studies done on race/sex and hiring practices. One of the most famous one involved sending out resumes with 'white sounding' names and others with 'ethnic' sounding names. The white sounding names had overwhelming responses with the same resumes. There have also been studies to show that white males are more likely to hire white males. And recently I read an extensive study that showed diverse technical teams perform better.

Also, as a women, I see sexism all the time in the tech industry. Many men can deny it exists if they want but that doesn't make it go away. I was at a tech conference last year where the announcer was introducing a presenter and then made a comment about her boobs, that isn't the kind of things you want to hear from your peers in a professional setting. But that type of thing happens. And yes there is some inherent racism that goes on as well as sexism.

Anyway, I'm glad that Apple is giving back and providing scholarships to those that desire to enter into the tech field. We definitely need more diversity.

You beat me to it, I was going to bring that up.

That's not what bigoted means.

I think you meant racist. However, that's not what a racist is either. A racist believes one race is superior to another (or to turn it around, that a race is inferior).

Also, this money is for education. That may lead to employment... but that would be employment based on merit.

Maybe you think it's unfair? Yet there's good evidence that, in general, black people are at a significant socioeconomic disadvantage in this country. You can certainly argue about the hows and whys and what to do about it, but there's little doubt it exists. So that's not fair either. Also, women are highly underrepresented in tech fields and are paid less than men across the board. Again you can debate the hows, whys, and what to do, but it's not fair. The idea is, that this is a way to balance things out a bit.

Helping people who are down to give them a leg up... I just can't see how this is a bad thing.

Throwing around charged terms, especially ones you don't understand, won't change that. All it does is muddy the waters and perhaps all you could ultimately accomplish is to lessen the help and compassion people are willing to give to other people.

Is that really what you want to do?

Nope I don't either and it seems strange that people would be offended.

 

[Technarchy]

Hiring based off race is racist regardless if you are doing it towards minorties.

Agreed, however we can take steps to try and make sure more types of people are qualified to apply to begin with.

 

[Happybunny]

This was just Apple funding some much needed SCHOLARSHIP money, to people who have historically missed out.

Just because they get a scholarship, doesn’t mean they get a free ride, they still have to do the work, pass the tests, but it does help level the playing field.

But that didn’t stop a small but vocal group, shouting about quotes, hiring practices, and old standby ‘ Well if I can’t have it, NOBODY should have it.’

 

[anthony11]

What argument against diversity? I was just replying to the guy who was claiming that whites benefitted from slave labor and that that's why they statistically get better education and jobs on average. "White people are currently enjoying the remnant benefits of actual SLAVE labor that built the US economy." This is about blacks, not diversity as a whole.

Maybe that was once true, but today in tech and even education, being a Caucasian male (or even a citizen) is a distinct disadvantage.

 

[AlecZ]

I think a scholarship isn't a handout, it is intended to help someone go to school who may not otherwise be able to. I can tell you that as someone who has a good paying job, pays tons of taxes, donates lots of money to charity and participates in the economy (aka buys stuff) with no debt, that I don't think it would've been possible for me if I hadn't been given scholarships/grants to go to school (I also went to a UC). I would've most likely ended up like my parents working in low income jobs. If someone wants to look down on me because I received scholarships to go to school, feel free.

Scholarships are great. Government-granted scholarships that favor people based on skin color are not. Actually, if any elected official tried to push for giving scholarships only to people of certain races, I'd definitely suspect him of bribing the voters. AFAIK, they don't do that, at least not here. There ARE scholarships given by private entities that favor people based on race, nationality, etc, but they can do whatever I want as far as I'm concerned.

 

[SarcasticJoe]

That's not what I'm saying at all. My quote was addressing your assertion that equality was achieved decades ago. The first and last sentences in my full quote say just that.

This is one our main disagreements. Your stance is that there is inequality because the end results are what they are and my stance is that I don't agree with you as I haven't seen any concrete evidence that the hiring and training acceptance processes are biased.

If you have 5 openings and interview 20 people, of which say 4 are women and 2 are black or hispanic, then most of the hires are obviously going to be white and male unless you have a bias or the quality of the female, black and hispanic interviewees are considerably higher than the white and male interviewees.

Employment figures aren't abstract. There are hard numbers that show the make up of companies: race, gender, salary, and position are all accessible. It may not be the case in Finland, but in America discrimination based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference is not just an abstract. Hell, we can't even agree to allow gay marriage. Totally unrelated to this topic except as an example of discrimination still existing in America.

Employment figures may not be abstract, but in this context they're meaningless. When you actually look at the pool of tech workers you're going to see that white and asian men make up the vast majority of it thus the only way the employment figures could be any different would be if there was a significant bias against these groups.

If you consider a low representation in itself an issue, then you don't fix it by creating a biased in the hiring process for those already in the sector, you go back and fix it at and before the point where people chose what they want to do for a living. I'm not against going to schools and teaching girls and minorities about technology and convincing them that they can work in the tech industry, what I am against is when this you target specific groups rather than a more inclusive campaign where everyone gets to take part.

As for your attempt at using gay marriage as an argument on how much different Finland is, we can't agree on it ether. The current government was supposed to bring it up, but one of the smaller parties in it (the "Christian Democrats") made sure it wasn't brought up for a vote until a people's initiative (based on a program inspired by Change.org) got it brought up and parliament voted in favor of it so the next government has to consider it. However the next government can still stop it by not taking it any further and with the "Center Party" (which is mostly supported by conservative people from the countryside) looking to become the lead party of our next government, there's a good chance we'll have to wait until the government after that before it's brought before a parliamentary vote. The initiative passed with a moderate majority, but the Center Party was among the three parties that voted against it.

You're probably mixing us up with Sweden, where gay marriage has been a reality for years, but over here it's stalled in the parliamentary process.

Again, not sure what you think my quote says, but it doesn't say what you think it does. If I was to render an opinion on this part of your quote it would be this: It's not about fighting fire with fire. It's about opening the candidate pool to include all qualified candidates. Through the scholarship programs and an emphasis on STEM in younger kids, the candidate pool will grow. That candidate pool can be judged on it's merit, which hasn't historically been the case.

My point is that jobs are already available to women and majorities in the tech sector job pool. The reason why they're so underrepresented in jobs is simply because they're a minority in the worker pool and giving them a bias in the hiring process is not a solution. A better solution is to try to increase their share in the worker pool, but our I think our main disagreement is on how this should be done.

If you begin to considered over-representation of a certain field is proof of discrimination in itself, then that opens up a pretty huge can of worms. That would imply for instance that liberal arts are biased against men, so is the service industry, education, health care, human resouces a number of other female dominated fields.

 

[AlecZ]

Employment figures aren't abstract. There are hard numbers that show the make up of companies: race, gender, salary, and position are all accessible. It may not be the case in Finland, but in America discrimination based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference is not just an abstract. Hell, we can't even agree to allow gay marriage. Totally unrelated to this topic except as an example of discrimination still existing in America.

Just because tech companies mostly hire Asians and whites doesn't mean there is discrimination. There can be so many other causes. If you look at the breakup of majors in college and the percentages of each race going to college in the first place, you'll see similar disparity. The upper bound on the number of blacks and Hispanics who could work for these companies is set by how many are interested and/or educated in the relevant fields, and their numbers are relatively low right now.

By the way, Asians (east and west) have higher income on average than whites in the U.S.

 

[leenak]

Scholarships are great. Government-granted scholarships that favor people based on skin color are not. Actually, if any elected official tried to push for giving scholarships only to people of certain races, I'd definitely suspect him of bribing the voters. AFAIK, they don't do that, at least not here. There ARE scholarships given by private entities that favor people based on race, nationality, etc, but they can do whatever I want as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not aware of any government granted scholarships. One of the best grants I received was due to my father being a disabled vet(it was a government grant)

----------

My point is that jobs are already available to women and majorities in the tech sector job pool. The reason why they're so underrepresented in jobs is simply because they're a minority in the worker pool and giving them a bias in the hiring process is not a solution. A better solution is to try to increase their share in the worker pool, but our I think our main disagreement is on how this should be done.

If you begin to considered over-representation of a certain field is proof of discrimination in itself, then that opens up a pretty huge can of worms. That would imply for instance that liberal arts are biased against men, so is the service industry, education, health care, human resouces a number of other female dominated fields.

According to the Department of Labor, women comprise of 47% of the workforce. I know very few women who have dropped out to raise their kids, actually I know more men who have done that. In general, minorities and women are not well represented in the tech industry based on their representation in the workforce as a whole. There are many reasons for that and for many women I know, they find it difficult to break into the tech industry even after technical training, formal training and certifications.

 

[69Mustang]

This is one our main disagreements. Your stance is that there is inequality because the end results are what they are and my stance is that I don't agree with you as I haven't seen any concrete evidence that the hiring and training acceptance processes are biased.

You made a general statement that: " ...At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, the feeling I get from the modern successors of the feminist and civil rights movements is that they've basically progressed to a point where it's no longer about getting equal opportunity, that was (for the most part) achieved decades ago, but how much MORE can they get in the name of equal opportunity."

I'm paraphrasing your quote, but nothing in that original quote says anything about the tech industry. It was just a general statement about the feminist and civil rights movements and how they relate to equal opportunity. That is what I responded to. That's what I am responding to. That's where my stance differs from yours. And just so we're on the same page:

My stance is you're wrong. Equal opportunity wasn't achieved decades ago. That's my entire stance. Nothing more, nothing less. Has it improved overall? Yes. More in progressive areas of the country and a hell of a lot less in our less than evolved areas. The key word there is improved. Improved is not achieved. Just so that we're clear on what I mean, equal opportunity doesn't mean you have to include someone because they are X. It means you can't exclude someone because of X. Example: 20 people of equal stature apply for 10 jobs. 10 white male and 10 a mix of races and sex. Equal opportunity: All have a chance at getting one of the jobs. Best candidates wins. Inequality: Only the 10 white males have an opportunity for the job, regardless if the others may have been more qualified.

As for your attempt at using gay marriage as an argument on how much different Finland is, we can't agree on it ether. {snip}

Joe please do both of us a favor. Please stop assuming I mean something I don't. I clearly stated why I included a reference to gay marriage: "Hell, we (USA) can't even agree to allow gay marriage. Totally unrelated to this topic except as an example of discrimination still existing in America." Not sure how I could be more clear.

Just because tech companies mostly hire Asians and whites doesn't mean there is discrimination. There can be so many other causes. If you look at the breakup of majors in college and the percentages of each race going to college in the first place, you'll see similar disparity. The upper bound on the number of blacks and Hispanics who could work for these companies is set by how many are interested and/or educated in the relevant fields, and their numbers are relatively low right now.

By the way, Asians (east and west) have higher income on average than whites in the U.S.

Sorry Alec. Nothing in my quote relates to tech companies. My comment to Joe was about employment figures in general. It's off topic so apologies.

 

[MacGuffin]

I'll believe Apple is sincere about diversity when it has fewer white men running the show.