Congressional Black Caucus Begs Apple For Its 'Trade Secret' Racial Data

theodp writes: In Silicon Valley this week, Rep. Barbara Lee called on Apple and other holdouts among the nation's tech companies to release federal data on the diversity of their work forces. She was with other members of the Congressional Black Caucus to turn up the heat on the tech industry to hire more African Americans. "If they believe in inclusion," said Lee, "they have to release the data so the public knows that they are being transparent and that they are committed to doing the right thing." Apple has refused to make public the EEO-1 data that it routinely supplies to the U.S. Dept. of Labor on the demographics of their workers. In the absence of the race and gender data, which Apple and others historically argued were 'trade secrets' and thus not subject to release Freedom of Information requests, tech companies were free to make unchecked claims about their Black employee ranks (Google's 2007 Congressional testimony) until recent disclosures revealed otherwise. The National Science Foundation was even convinced to redirect NSF grant money specifically earmarked for getting African American boys into the computer science pipeline to a PR campaign for high school girls of all colors and economic backgrounds.

Comments

This is Ridiculos

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in Apples tech support and there are enough black folks around here.

Re:This is Ridiculos

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

And seeing the typo you made in your title, I'd say there's enough Mexicans, too.

Hey man, if you can be racist, so can I. ;-)

Re:This is Ridiculos

[ebvwfbw]

Except you're not. Negro (aka black which is really a color and not a race) is a race. Mexican isn't. Hispanic isn't. Hispanic is an ethnicity. They're really white people.

Re:This is Ridiculos

[NicBenjamin]

Except you're not. Negro (aka black which is really a color and not a race) is a race. Mexican isn't. Hispanic isn't. Hispanic is an ethnicity. They're really white people.

Most of them aren't. Mostly they're Mestizo, White Mexicans are a much smaller group.

Measuring either is an extremely difficult process, because Mexicans don't actually give a shit about race (the entire concept is basically a delusion invented by us White Americans to explain why we were treating certain immigrants worse then others, justify slavery, etc.), so there's no government statistic on the issue, and there's no uniform definition of Mestizo. Mexicans define themselves by culture, so Indigenous Mexican who use their natrive language are very well defined, but if one of them assimilates to the Spanish-stanard of Mexico, he'd probably be counted as a Mestizo.

Re:This is Ridiculos

[ebvwfbw]

What you're describing is most likely politically called an Indian. A lot of stuff is political, for example many big cities, county and state boundaries - that's a political boundary. What we call people in America is determined by the US Congress and they tell agencies such as GSA, OPM, Census (who counts them) and others what to call them. I know, maybe they make a distinction. We're all really the same. Crazy leftists often like to highlight difference so they can split us apart. The left is very racist.

Race is used because the minorities think they are having a tough time. They don't realize we all go through the same old crap. We're really all the same. We all have weird relatives, we all have trouble learning, we all grow up, we all get offered educated, we all have choices to make. Those that we hang around often tell us crap (those white folk hate us, those black folk hate us, we're oriental and everyone hates us). We're all held back. So act like a jerk? Do drugs? Steal? Bitch about really nothing? They need to grow up. I rent to low income people. I see very little difference between the so called races. It's just that they cling to excuses like a crutch.

Best way to stop discrimination is to stop discrimination.

Re:This is Ridiculos

[NicBenjamin]

All races are treated the same?

When's the last time you saw a white guy shot in the head by a cop, for no reason?

Re:This is Ridiculos

[ebvwfbw]

Kind of a sore subject with me because I've been trying to highlight police abuse for about 25 years. Police imitating hollywood as I put it in the beginning. So -

You're kidding, right? ALL THE TIME. However white lives don't matter. Neither do black lives if you want to be honest about it. None of us citizens do.

To the point - Google
"white man shot by black officer"
Not that this is a racial thing or something white people get shot by police.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Check out the graph on race.

This is what is killing us - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Police have taken this about 20 foot rule and if you're in that circle, they shoot you. Black, white, other, you're shot. I discussed the militarization of the police with a MD state policeman. Man was he hostile about it. Said things like that never happen. This was about a year ago. So I've told him recently - told you so. He was hostile again. Not his force... yet it still happened in Maryland and Baltimore has been crazy for a long time. Need more sheriff Taylor type policing. Less swat.

Re:This is Ridiculos

[NicBenjamin]

Look at the graph again. There's 1.7 white deaths per black deaths. There's 6.3 white people per black person. It's very hard to get to those numbers without some actual racism.

BTW, if you're white and killed by the cops, the Black Lives Matter movement is probably one of your best bets for publicity. Take this article:
http://www.theroot.com/article...

Re:This is Ridiculos

[ebvwfbw]

I'd have to get into a protracted discussion about numbers to explain why that's not the case. In brief, you're counting all whites. Not just the ones in poverty, in a city, which is where most of these problems happen. Density really does matter. Never the less, even in raw numbers there are more white people killed than black people. They act as if none are killed, maybe they just don't matter.

Some are very needless, like that man in I think it was SC that decided to run away. WHY? It was just a traffic citation, get his ticket like everyone else and get on with life. On the other side - WHY on God's green earth did he shoot at him? He could easily have caught up to him. The black man was about 50 and out of shape - I could have easily caught him and I'm 50, the cop was around 30 and in shape. No contest. Very dumbass move.

I think there's light at the end of the tunnel. For the first time in decades they seem to be listening and re-thinking their policies.

Re:This is Ridiculos

[NicBenjamin]

I'd have to get into a protracted discussion about numbers to explain why that's not the case. In brief, you're counting all whites. Not just the ones in poverty, in a city, which is where most of these problems happen. Density really does matter. Never the less, even in raw numbers there are more white people killed than black people. They act as if none are killed, maybe they just don't matter.

And what you're missing is that nobody tolerates this kind of thing even in high-density, low-income, white police jurisdictions.

Poor blacks start showing up, and police tactics abruptly switch for the expensive and low-death "community policing" to the relatively cheap, high-death "broken windows" model.

There's a reason the guy who shot Tamir Rice was not tolerated in white, working-class Independence, but did get a job in black Cleveland.

Some are very needless, like that man in I think it was SC that decided to run away. WHY? It was just a traffic citation, get his ticket like everyone else and get on with life. On the other side - WHY on God's green earth did he shoot at him? He could easily have caught up to him. The black man was about 50 and out of shape - I could have easily caught him and I'm 50, the cop was around 30 and in shape. No contest. Very dumbass move.

The guy ran because getting caught up in the gears of the legal system is truly nightmarish for those on the low end of the income spectrum. Speaking for myself, I made the mistake of forgetting my insurance paperwork once, got convicted of it because my brakes went out on the court date so I couldn't show them a copy, and then forget to pay the third $several-hundred penalty (Michigan does the fine, plus two "driver responsibility fees" for forgetting your insurance paperwork) until September 30th of 2010 when it was due BY September 30th. I didn't find out I was driving on a suspended license until somebody stole my wallet, and Ohio license, in August of 2013, which meant that if I'd still been driving and an Ohio cop had noticed I'd be in their system for driving on a suspended license. For forgetting paperwork, and then paying the fine ON instead of BY.

Running probably wasn't the smart thing to do, even given that; but it is a very understandable mistake to make if you know how state and municipal governments milk their poorest residents for fines, generally enforced by the threat of completely ruining your life. And not a problem for the ruling middle class, because they have the money for a lawyer.

The cop did it because be thought he'd get away with it. Police can get away with damn near anything, if they have a somewhat sensible reason to claim they feared for public safety (and it doesn't have to be terribly sensible -- this particular cop was alleging the victim stole his stun gun, and it's kinda difficult to go on a murder spree with a stun gun).

I think there's light at the end of the tunnel. For the first time in decades they seem to be listening and re-thinking their policies.

It'll help.

If I meet a black lives matter activist whose losing hope I point out that Mayor Gribbs of Detroit set up a police unit called "Stop The Robberies, Enjoy Safe Streets," which killed black men at a fairly prodigious pace. 2 every 3 months was an unusually low death toll. Whites loved it, and the white police chief became their standard bearer for the next election. It seemed like Nichols would win, and then some silly woman realized the knife "belonging" to one of the victims came out of the pockets of police-issued pants. Officer Peterson got off. The Jury decided that being on Chief Nichols force would drive anyone to becoming a racist serial killer. Chief Nichols lost the Mayoral election to a black guy, but got a nice consolation prize as Sheriff of the suburban County just north of the City.

I suspect to completely fix the problem we'd have t

invalid data

[swell]

I worked for Apple for a time. And many other companies. I never revealed my race on those forms and I don't know of anyone who did. I doubt there are any valid statistics to be found.

Re:invalid data

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for a shop a few years back and got to know one of the HR folks fairly well. They told me that their online system would export all the candidates who applied for a position to a spreadsheet with the click of a button, so the HR manager could review them. It had a column for what the applicant selected under the optional question about race.

It would be directive at some times to not hire anyone who clicked the box for 'caucasian'. That meant the HR manager wasn't going to waste their time investigating the applicants who clicked 'prefer not to answer' and they simply moved on to candidates who marked 'african american'.

I asked them how I got hired, being a caucasian male myself. The response was; "Your row on the applicant list spreadsheet would probably be hidden today."

Re:invalid data

[AmiMoJo]

If it's a bunch of "did not answer" entries then why not release the data? There must be some reason for keeping it a secret, and "trade secret" sounds like bullshit.

Re:invalid data

[alvinrod]

Because it is of no benefit for Apple to release it. The only people who care about this data just want to use it to harangue Apple for not conforming to some predetermined standard of workforce racial distribution. Sure, "trade secret" is a bullshit reason, but the reason for wanting the data is just as bullshit, so it's only fair.

Re:invalid data

[NatasRevol]

They do file the EEO-1 reports. It's in the fine summary, even.

They're just not required to do anything else with it. Your obvious bias not withstanding.

Re:invalid data

[cavreader]

Race is the most meaningless metric of all when it comes to evaluating an ideal workforce. The last thing minority activists want is for competence to become the deciding factor when determining who to hire. If competence can be overridden by the color of someones skin than that only bolsters the idea that there are inferior races that need to be graded on a different scale. And justifying a bias based on race to make up for some historical wrongdoing just perpetuates injustice. Why should someone today accept reverse discrimination for the actions of others hundreds of years ago? And releasing data to be "fair" begs the question of who judges what is fair and what is not? Standing around waiting for the world to be fair will only guarantee failure propped up by an appalling entitlement complex.

Re:invalid data

[russotto]

I worked for Apple for a time. And many other companies. I never revealed my race on those forms and I don't know of anyone who did. I doubt there are any valid statistics to be found.

If you don't choose a race, the company is required to guess.

Re: invalid data

[cyber-vandal]

You think the Nazis were socialists? How cute. I bet you think the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy too.

Re: invalid data

[jmac_the_man]

The only people who care about this data just want to use it to harangue Apple for not conforming to some predetermined standard of workforce racial distribution.

Close. The part that's predetermined is "Apple isn't hiring enough minorities." The actual ratio or raw numbers are irrelevant. I hate Apple as much as anyone, but this is the government shaking them down.

Re:invalid data

[larryjoe]

Race is the most meaningless metric of all when it comes to evaluating an ideal workforce. The last thing minority activists want is for competence to become the deciding factor when determining who to hire.

There are competing goals at play here. Some might want an ideally efficient workforce, whatever that means. I think the proponents of releasing the racial data are aiming for something else, i.e., for equal opportunity across races. I think both goals are arguably desirable. One of the great complications in evaluating equity is the complexity in evaluating competence and how that competence was attained. The argument behind race-based considerations is that competence is relative, and the disadvantaged level of competence for certain minority races is to some extent the result of past injustices that would today be considered not only illegal but crimes against humanity.

Yes, we weren't around when these injustices were carried out, but we reap the relative benefits. A few reap the direct benefit of direct financial inheritance from those injustices. However, many more reap the relative benefit of having a large portion of potential competitors relegated to less competent status due directly to the those injustices.

Re: invalid data

[larryjoe]

Racism is not the problem. The problem is inequality of opportunities and resources, which happens to correlate somewhat with race and which has some causes characterized by racial history.

Refusing to recognize the existence of race or race-based historical causes of inequality would have the effect of freezing in place the current situation of inequality. This is a good thing for those who currently benefit and a bad thing for those at a disadvantage.

BTW, there appears to be several definitions of "racism" assumed by the various viewpoints on this topic. To some, it means any acknowledgement of the existence of race. To other, it means actions that put a particular race at a disadvantage. It seems to me that the underlying definitions are manipulated to support antithetical viewpoints.

That's why it's critical to focus on the inequalities rather than the malleable concept of racism. Of course, if we don't care about addressing the inequalities, then this entire discussion is fruitless and simply devolves into a rhetorical exercise in the semantics of a fuzzy term.

Re: invalid data

[KGIII]

No, they were socialists. They were authoritarian socialists but socialists nonetheless. This does not mean that all socialist governments will be like Nazi Germany or anything silly like that but, yeah, they were indeed socialists. They did turn more fascist but, by all means, they were indeed socialists. There is no shame in it just like Hitler was white and you do not need to be ashamed of that or try to claim he was not white.

Re: invalid data

[dryeo]

Actually the socialists were mostly purged in the "Night of the Long Knifes". Afterwards the National Socialist Party was about as socialist as America. Hitler pretty well had to throw the socialists under the bus to have the Reichswehr, which consisted largely of Prussian aristocracy, as well as other leading conservatives, on his side. Note that quite a few conservatives who were considered disloyal, were also shot.
Hitler really doesn't seem to have much of a political philosophy besides "me first", taking some socialist ideas and many conservative ideas as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:invalid data

[dryeo]

It's not really race, rather that a group, who were defined by skin colour, have been kicked down for generations and helping them up. Really the problem is groups who have lost their parenting skills and how the next generations suffer from that. It's a hard problem to deal with.

Re:invalid data

[ultranova]

Race is the most meaningless metric of all when it comes to evaluating an ideal workforce.

In a country free of racism it would be. America is not even close to that, thus searching for statistical anomalies is essential to keep racism's effects below whatever treshold the populace will tolerate, which tends to get lower with time.

The last thing minority activists want is for competence to become the deciding factor when determining who to hire. If competence can be overridden by the color of someones skin than that only bolsters the idea that there are inferior races that need to be graded on a different scale.

Do you go to a job interview dressed like a bum? Of course not, appearances affect perceptions. But while you can always wear nicer clothes, unless you're Hannibal Lecter you can't wear a nicer skin. Consequently, for competence to be the deciding factor when determining who to hire the racial bias needs to be canceled out, which of course means that some people will end up in better positions than the incorrect, racism-tainted model suggests they should.

Discrimination is a vicious circle of misinformation: perceptions of current generation guide where people are likely to end up in life, which in turn guides the perceptions of future generations. It's self-sustaining and thus won't end on its own, yet is both unjust and a huge liability to the society it infects, hence the need for Affirmative Action and similar programs. Think of them as adjusting your sights after noticing your shots tend to miss the target with a bias.

Standing around waiting for the world to be fair will only guarantee failure propped up by an appalling entitlement complex.

Yes, it would fail. So why do you complain when someone's doing something to make it more fair?

Also, as a matter of fact everyone is entitled to fair treatment. There's nothing appalling in that.

Re: invalid data

[KGIII]

We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!

Gregor Strasser

Note that I mention that they change but, the reality is that they were socialists. It was very popular at the time. I suspect that was their motivation.

Re:invalid data

[ne0n]

Makes sense. Studies show that style (color of skin etc) is more important than substance. It's an Apple tradition. Nothing else explains those gold iPods with the bedazzler treatment.

Re:invalid data

[cavreader]

Define fair. Race should never be used to deny opportunities which is the text book definition of racism. There are plenty of laws on the books that provide recourse for anyone feeling discriminated against. However using race to increase opportunities for a particular group is also racism.

Re:invalid data

[NicBenjamin]

The problem here is that the US System is so convoluted and iterative that one racist asshole can fuck things up for an entire race, and literally the only way you have to verify that shit is collecting data on race and fixing it post hoc.

For example, in the US it is pretty much impossible to give a convicted drug offender financial aid. Same with school loans, income tax credits for higher ed, etc. This is not inherently racist. So let's add a second factor. As a lower-income group, blacks tend to both qualify for and need financial aid at greater rates then whites. This is not racist in and of itself. I'm sure we could have an interesting debate on whether black low income is caused by racism, but for the sake4 of keeping the argument focused I won't argue that point. But even assuming it's not racist, it does mean that getting caught with weed is statistically more likely to doom a black kid to a life of GED-level jobs then a white kid.

Then consider the NYPD's policy of stop-and-frisk. Several years their stop-and-frisks of black men in the 18-24 age bracket were greater then the population of black men in that bracket. This meant that 100% of black potheads were ineligible for financial aid because they all got caught. probably more then once, because a) you're likely to act scared if you've been caught with weed by the cops once, and gone through the wringer, and a cop walks by (which is suspicious, and can be made to look like probable cause on the stop-and-frisk paperwork), and b) if a cop has brought you in for pot once, then the whole damn precinct knows that if they need a pot arrest to make their numbers frisking your ass would be a good idea.

De Blasio's stopped stop-and-frisk, so the current crop of High Schoolers should (in theory) be fine. But Police Officers nation-wide are under pressure to produce numbers, and they know they can get away with a lot of shit if they restrict it to black kids who dress a certain way, because their daddy is highly unlikely to have lawyer-money.

Now how do you detect that little nightmare I mentioned is playing out? One way is to see the employment figures of companies that hire pretty much 100% college grads. Companies like Apple. Which you know hire very few black people because you went to their campus in Cupertino. Then you give Tim Cook bad press, until he throws some money at the problem (minimum a six-figure donation to create a computer lab in a poor black neighborhood school), and you use that victory over a guy with more money then most states to intimidate Congress into doing something about the problem. Perhaps a jurisdiction that's routinely convicting black kids of these crimes at a much higher rate then white get6s the Ferguson treatment.

Re: invalid data

[NicBenjamin]

The only people who care about this data just want to use it to harangue Apple for not conforming to some predetermined standard of workforce racial distribution.

Close. The part that's predetermined is "Apple isn't hiring enough minorities." The actual ratio or raw numbers are irrelevant. I hate Apple as much as anyone, but this is the government shaking them down.

Reread the post. This is the Congressional Black Caucus.

A Caucus is not the government. It has no Executive authority. It has Legislative authority to the extent it can win vote in the House, and they aren't likely to convince Boehner to allow a vote on this in the House.

Re: invalid data

[NicBenjamin]

I don't think you understand the definition of Socialist. Actual Socialists ended up in Dachau, not the government.

Re: invalid data

[kenh]

You don't have to be black to identify as black...

Re:invalid data

[cavreader]

One of the underlying themes in analyzing race equality is the assumption that there are no economically disadvantaged white people. There are white people living in poverty with criminal records, poor educations, and very few opportunities to improve their situation. I cringe every time I hear someone making rash generalizations when describing and labeling the residents of the US. The US is the most diverse country in the world when it comes to race, ethnicity, and pretty much every religion known to man. The elimination of racial strife will never happen until people start taking personal responsibility for their decisions, Laws, statutes, and government legislation cannot make the problems go away unless the individual attempts to make their own opportunities. The screeching lunatics and hardliners on both the left and right drown out the vast majority of the population and create false perceptions. There is racism in the US today but there has been progress in fighting racism. Just imagine if you lived in the deep south 40 years ago and someone told you a black man would be elected President of the US. I imagine both black and whites could not even imagine such a thing. And you do not need a college degree to succeed in life. Gates, Jobs, and Zuckenburg didn't need a degree and look where they ended up. I have worked in the IT field for 28 years and have found it is pretty easy to evaluate someones technical skills during an interview. Their formal education credentials are really not that important to me when deciding who to hire.

Re: invalid data

[tjstork]

Strasser was one of the guys purged from the party.

From Wikipedia:

In what became known as the Night of the Long Knives, selected men of the Schutzstaffel ("Protection Squadron"; SS) arrested and eventually killed at least 85 people from 30 June to 2 July 1934.[20] Among these were Strasser, who had been included in the purge on Hitler's order.[9][20] He was shot once in his main artery from behind in his cell, but did not die immediately. On the orders of SS general Reinhard Heydrich, Strasser was left to bleed to death which took almost an hour.[21] His brother Otto, who had left the NSDAP in July 1930, managed to avoid the Nazi purge and survived World War II.[22][23]

Re: invalid data

[KGIII]

Indeed he was. That does not negate my point which is that they were, indeed, socialists. They trended fascist over time but started out as authoritarian socialists. This does not negate socialism or anything - any more than a black person who commits a crime does not mean all blacks are criminals. It also does not mean that they remained socialists once they had consolidated power. It only means that they were, indeed, socialists.

Re: invalid data

[Plumpaquatsch]

We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!

Gregor Strasser

Note that I mention that they change but, the reality is that they were socialists. It was very popular at the time. I suspect that was their motivation.

The same Gregor Strasser that Hitler removed from all responsibilities in the NSDAP before he even came to power and was killed in the "Night of the Long Knifes" the OP just mentioned? Way to prove his point.

Re: invalid data

[KGIII]

My point is that they were socialists - which they are seemingly emphatically denying. They did not remain socialists - in fact they trended towards fascism. They were socialists. This does not mean socialism is bad, by any stretch of the imagination, it means that they were bad and did not remain socialists. Additionally, there was more to the NSDAP than Hitler and they were elected to seats before Hitler's rise to power. Again, this is not a slight against socialism - it is just what was.

Re: invalid data

[david_thornley]

From about the earliest times, there was a division in the National Socialist German Workers' Party between the socialists and the nationalists. Early on, it really didn't matter, because they didn't have much power. When they gained power, it was with the nationalists (with Goering sucking up to big industrialists).

There were originally some socialists in the NSDAP. The organization itself was never fully socialist, so, as far as we have records, it's incorrect to say that "they were socialists" without qualification. By the time the party was important, the socialists were pretty well removed from power, and killed not too long after.

Re: invalid data

[Plumpaquatsch]

My point is that they were socialists - which they are seemingly emphatically denying.

"They"? So now everybody who says the Nazis weren't Socialists is a Nazi. How convenient.

Re:invalid data

[cavreader]

I won't brush aside the statement claiming the US was built on the backs of African Americans but the mainly white immigrants from Europe did a hell of a lot more. From the minute their ships docked and they were enlisted in the Union army which had a role in defeating the southern slave owners. And you do need to prove yourself if you wish to be successful in life. Standing around bemoaning the hardships your ancestors had to put up with will not get you very far. Without a doubt racism exists in the minds of individuals but there have been great strides in eliminating institutional level racism. There are laws and statutes in place to provide recourse if you feel you are being discriminated against because of the color of your skin. The "All men created equal..." declaration in the US Constitution was BS as soon as the ink dried. However I look at the Constitution as a work in progress were the goal is to eventually create a society where those types of declarations become more than words on a piece of paper.

Re:invalid data

[NicBenjamin]

Dude, don't swallow the pro-American propaganda. Most countries aren't "racially diverse," but that's not because there utopias of homogeneity, it's because the whole concept of "race" is so imbued with American's own private bullshit that it really truly doesn't apply those countries. The Canadians are more diverse then us. The country has never not been majority minority, you just don't think of it that way because they have managed to figure out how to have two completely different nations (Anglophones and Francophones) coexist with remarkably little conflict. The Brits can't even count the nations that reside within their United Kingdom. The Baltic states have more interesting minority issues then anyone because a significant proportion of their populations are ethnic Russians; there are spirited debates over whether the Belgians have a majority group (and if so which one); African states of any size tend to be multi-tribal, multi-linguistic, multi-religious contraptions that work for reasons understandable only to the Africans themselves and (possibly, I'm not sure he's this smart) God; etc.

As for socio-economic problems in whites, yes I agree that is a problem. If God came down from heaven and made me Emperor for a week the second thing I do (first is Emperors get a pension), would probably involve major changes intended to make it the default for poor kids of all colors to get at least as far as an Associates. Most blacks strongly agree with me on this issue, which is proven by their stubborn insistence on voting for income-redistrubuting Democrats despite frequent Republican appeals to their Evangelical faith.

On personal responsibility, so whose responsible if a 18-year-old didn't teach himself to code because the computing devices in his house are a) three smartphones, b) a current-gen console, c) a last-gen console? That's the problem with just washing your hands of the issue and saying "those people should take personal responsibility." You're dealing with entire generations of people who have very little contact with the middle-class, genuinely have no fucking clue what they should be doing to ensure their kid has the right tools to succeed, and it's impossible to say who was the irresponsible party.

That's why you need an education system, run by said middle class people, and it needs to bed very very hard to not finish.

Re:invalid data

[GargamelSpaceman]

I agree. They need to stop punishing people who evaluate people as individuals and let market forces punish prejudice.

Affirmative action/quotas only validate prejudice by making it true. If minorities have largely been the 'beneficiaries' of affirmative action and failings overlooked to allow enough to attain a position/rank/certification then a given minority at a given position will tend to be less qualified than their non-minority counterpart.

This is the opposite of the Tuskeegee Airman scenario where the black pilots were kept in aviation school and trained for longer than their non-black counterparts and showed themselves to be superior due to their better/longer training and practice.

Treat everyone as an individual and prejudice will punish itself to the extent that it is factually wrong.

And if due to past history a race is disadvantaged, there is still no reason to care. Caring which race is disadvantaged or not is preferring one race over another which is racism. It is up to each individual to overcome their circumstances and earn a better place in society, and the respect that comes with it. Handing out 'a leg up' denies minorities as a class the respect some have worked hard to earn.

Because of affirmative action no matter what a member of a 'preferred' minority group does, they will be in a pool of people whose attainment means less. The prejudice they experience is inescapable.

Re: invalid data

[jmac_the_man]

OK, you're technically correct, which of course is the best kind of correct. Let me rephrase the last sentence.

I hate Apple as much as anyone, but this if these specific elected representatives were to succeed, it would represent the government shaking them down.

WTF

[drinkypoo]

Apple has refused to make public the EEO-1 data that it routinely supplies to the U.S. Dept. of Labor on the demographics of their workers.

How is this even a thing? Why are these filings not required to be public? We can't figure out if the government is doing its job (in this case, tracking this information) without public disclosure so we can follow up.

Re:WTF

[Brett Buck]

How the hell is it the job of the governement to tell private companies who they should hire?

Re:WTF

[drinkypoo]

How the hell is it the job of the governement to tell private companies who they should hire?

The government was complicit in slavery, so the government must also be part of the solution.

Re:WTF

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Because hipsters are being super extra-loud at the moment and the government is close to passing laws requiring workforce diversity in big companies?

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple and others already owe the public that information. That's why they file it with the DoL in the first place. Why it remains "secret" and members of Congress must beg the companies for it is the mystery!

Re:WTF

[quantaman]

Apple has refused to make public the EEO-1 data that it routinely supplies to the U.S. Dept. of Labor on the demographics of their workers.

How is this even a thing? Why are these filings not required to be public? We can't figure out if the government is doing its job (in this case, tracking this information) without public disclosure so we can follow up.

So your argument is we should get to see a company's private information so we can tell if the government is doing a good job in obtaining the company's private information?

That strikes me as somewhat dubious.

I'll say that I do think there's a problem but I don't think it's Apple's fault and I don't like forcing them to reveal their demographic information for the purpose of a public round of shaming.

It's pretty obvious that all the tech companies are trying to increase diversity but the talent simply doesn't exist in the industry. There needs to be more minority and female students taking computing science in university, which means better recruitment for girls coming out of high school and better schools for minorities in general.

Re:WTF

[JBMcB]

Slavery was never legal in my state. Why should the federal government stick it's nose in the business of a company here?

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

You're up against the new inquisitors on a witch hunt to find sinners guilty of intolerance.

They don't need anyone's permission to enforce the one true morality of inclusiveness.

(If you are guilty, just make a donation to Al Sharpton for your indulgence.)

Re:WTF

[Gravis Zero]

It's pretty obvious that all the tech companies are trying to increase diversity but the talent simply doesn't exist in the industry. There needs to be more minority and female students taking computing science in university, which means better recruitment for girls coming out of high school and better schools for minorities in general.

but why do there need to be more minorities and females in IT? forced diversity is blatant prejudice.

Re:WTF

[ShanghaiBill]

Slavery was never legal in my state.

Slavery was legal in northern states during the colonial period, and northern states profited from the slave trade. Northern states also profited from processing cheap cotton and other products produced in the South with slave labor.

Anyway, I don't think slavery should be the basis for prohibiting discrimination in hiring. There are plenty of other reasons, and EEO laws apply to plenty of people where are not the descendants of slaves.

Re:WTF

[quantaman]

It's pretty obvious that all the tech companies are trying to increase diversity but the talent simply doesn't exist in the industry. There needs to be more minority and female students taking computing science in university, which means better recruitment for girls coming out of high school and better schools for minorities in general.

but why do there need to be more minorities and females in IT?

There needs to be more minorities because a society where certain minorities are largely absent from high end professions is not a healthy society. It's unfair to those minorities who become a lower class, unstable because those minorities are resentful and tend to cause crime, and under-performing because you're losing out on their economic potential.

Imagine how much better the US would be if you could transform the ghettos into middle class communities.

As for females there needs to be females because an office that is 90% male sucks for both the 90% who are guys and the 10% who are girls.

forced diversity is blatant prejudice.

How did you read "better recruitment for girls coming out of high school and better schools for minorities in general" and end up with "forced diversity"?

Re:WTF

[alvinrod]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Under normal circumstances, Apple shouldn't be getting special treatment from the government, nor should they be required to divulge any information about their workforce.

Your argument also begs the question.

Re:WTF

[Crashmarik]

And just what monopoly does Apple have ?
Monopolization of hipsters with more dollars than sense ?

Re:WTF

[JillElf]

Slavery was never legal in my state.

Slavery was legal in northern states during the colonial period, and northern states profited from the slave trade. Northern states also profited from processing cheap cotton and other products produced in the South with slave labor.

And a number of CURRENT states (possibly including JBMcB's state) were not even admitted into the US until after the Civil War and the elimination of slavery in all of the older states. A few weren't even territories of the US until after the Civil War.

Re:WTF

[Crashmarik]

Sorry legislating equal outcomes is ridiculous.

Re:WTF

[quantaman]

There needs to be more minorities because a society where certain minorities are largely absent from high end professions is not a healthy society. It's unfair to those minorities who become a lower class, unstable because those minorities are resentful and tend to cause crime, and under-performing because you're losing out on their economic potential.

Disagree. That's a false equivalence between high end professions and IT, one being a subset of another.

How is it a false equivalence? IT is a high end profession and I don't see why it should be any different among high end professions with regard to race.

If the lack of interest is there, you'll never force anything beyond nominal professional success out of your target group.

It's not lack of interest, it's kids never getting the basic skills to where the have a chance to develop a proper interest. I never had an interest in being a rock star in part because I never got guitar lessons so I knew it was never an option. If I never got good math and science training I wouldn't have developed an interest in being a programmer either.

That's under-performing. Arguably, the lack of interest is widespread enough that it's patently obvious resentful minority groups aren't angry because they don't have IT jobs, but rather a host of other issues ongoing and historic.

I'm not proposing to fix racial inequality by giving minorities IT jobs. I'm proposing to improve racial inequality in primary and secondary schooling, thereby reducing inequality overall and as a side effect increasing the number of minorities in IT jobs.

Imagine how much better the US would be if you could transform the ghettos into middle class communities.

Imagine no possessions, it's easy if you try.

Look at it this way, the ghettos are a MASSIVE drain on public resources. If you throw a crapload of money at improving them, and fail almost completely, you've still probably won because it's such a big problem.

As for females there needs to be females because an office that is 90% male sucks for both the 90% who are guys and the 10% who are girls.

This depends on the office as much as anything. Or, dare I say, foxhole.

There are a small subset of jobs where there are legitimate sex differences in traits important to performance, the military is one of them.

But IT? The only reason your office works better without women is if you have a really dysfunctional culture, and in that case you're severely limiting your talent pool because there's a lot of guys who won't want to work in that environment either.

Re:WTF

[penix1]

The monopoly the government grant of patents gives them. Next question...

Re:WTF

[fustakrakich]

The public has an interest in the doings of highly influential publicly traded companies. These are just some of the conditions that need to be apply to corporate charters. But they shouldn't be taken to task just because certain people don't apply for a job.

We also need to demand a much stronger FOIA, with a department to process requests, not question and deny them.

Re: WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Like you're taxes. The government has the information so congress should have it.
And hey it should be public.
What that's different?
How so?
What about the census data?
That personal too!
The government collects a lot of data for for statistical and regulatory purposes. It was indicated that Invidual data would not be released

Re: WTF

[uncqual]

And, don't forget your Medicare records when you reach that age (or get early coverage)!
And, don't forget your Social Security earnings history!
(And, don't forget the phone calls you've made in the past decade!)

Re:WTF

[uncqual]

So, anyone who takes the mortgage interest tax deduction should also have their tax returns subject to FOIA requests since they are getting a special tax break?

Re:WTF

[uncqual]

Ah, yes, that "benefit" that appears in the U.S. Constitution as one of the (few) functions of the Federal government. Notice however that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does the Federal government have an obligation to release private information about anyone.

Re:WTF

[ShanghaiBill]

A few weren't even territories of the US until after the Civil War.

Nearly all Native American and Polynesian societies practiced some form of slavery. So you're still guilty.

Re:WTF

[ShanghaiBill]

Sorry legislating equal outcomes is ridiculous.

EEO doesn't legislate equal outcomes. It prohibits discrimination in hiring. Many tech companies have very unequal workforces (1% black in a country that is 12% black). That is legal, as long as the process is nondiscriminatory.

Re:WTF

[quantaman]

How is it a false equivalence? IT is a high end profession and I don't see why it should be any different among high end professions with regard to race.

Because there are plenty of non-IT high-end professions that your target groups may actually want to engage in. So it becomes senseless to shoehorn people into IT as a social experiment.

With minorities, the main group in question, there's zero reason to think they'd be less interested than any other ethnicity. And I never proposed to "shoehorn people into IT as a social experiment", you're arguing against a position I didn't propose.

As for women it's possible there's some intrinsic differences between the male and female brains that make women less interested in programming. But from the women I've met in software I find this very dubious and think it's far more likely that young girls are simply realizing it's a male dominated profession and they're seeing some very unhealthy cultural segments so they're looking elsewhere.

It's not lack of interest, it's kids never getting the basic skills to where the have a chance to develop a proper interest.

But that's not strictly true, is it? Women have arguably a more favorable educational experience than their male counterparts. It's a lack of interest for this group.

But really you're presenting an educational issue that, for multiple minority groups, transcends STEM and manifests across the curriculum. You touch on this more below.

The argument was better education for minorities, better undergrad recruitment for women.

I'm not proposing to fix racial inequality by giving minorities IT jobs. I'm proposing to improve racial inequality in primary and secondary schooling, thereby reducing inequality overall and as a side effect increasing the number of minorities in IT jobs.

And that's an admirable proposition, but altogether different from your assertion that we need a certain degree of diversity in IT to have a healthy society. You've drilled closer to a root cause of a problem and rendered your own post a side effect.

Diversity in IT is one characteristic of a healthy society, it's the characteristic we're talking about.

Look at it this way, the ghettos are a MASSIVE drain on public resources. If you throw a crapload of money at improving them, and fail almost completely, you've still probably won because it's such a big problem.

I don't think that's self-evident. Some helper programs degrade self-reliance.

You need smart money but if you just pump it into schools so you recruit better teachers (and either improve bad teachers or send them into other professions) that should be pretty safe.

If you do it properly you've got those kids for 5+ hours 5 days a week for 9-10 months for up to 12 years in an environment where you have almost complete control.

It's inexcusable for those schools to be underfunded.

The only reason your office works better without women is if you have a really dysfunctional culture, and in that case you're severely limiting your talent pool because there's a lot of guys who won't want to work in that environment either.

My experience is from equally dysfunctional offices prioritizing equality stats, not a frat boy club house. Some people won't work for an environment mired in the identity politics raffle for promotions. Sadly, some of the most talented will meekly sit by and take it year after year.

That's why I suggested recruiting first years into CS as a solution.

Re:WTF

[drinkypoo]

We also need to demand a much stronger FOIA, with a department to process requests, not question and deny them.

Every few years we hear some bullshit about computerizing more records so that we can get our hands on them quicker, but what actually happens is it's always just another pork project.

I'm starting to think that this government really will become so encrusted that it falls over under its own girth. But you know what happens to the little people in its mighty shadow...

Re:WTF

[nanoflower]

Because it's up to companies like Apple to fix the low numbers of blacks in CS. Clearly the government can't do it so now the government can require corporate America to fix what the government can't fix. Otherwise what's the point of the inevitable public shaming that would follow Apple releasing the numbers of minorities employed in the company?

Re: WTF

[Crashmarik]

Defense of the nation is actually explicitly provided for. It's all the other crap the living document has grown that isn't

Re:WTF

[quantaman]

This is a rabbit hole I am not prepared to explore at this time. While the US outspends nearly every Western nation in per student spending I expect you'll have (valid) observations of investment disparities among communities and resource redistribution suggestions. That said, I don't expect we'd ultimately agree on root causes and long-term effects of various approaches. Agree to disagree.

The US might spend more but heavy minority districts might need a lot more to fix their problems. For instance enough school councillors and/or guidance councillors to give every student some serious regular 1-on-1 attention. It's extremely expensive but I could see something like that making a huge difference to a lot of kids.

That's why I suggested recruiting first years into CS as a solution.

Not seeing the solution in this.

Most first year CS students are starting from scratch so girl's skills are sufficient, and if you get a fairly balanced first year they create their own healthy culture. But if it's just a handful of girls they're surrounded by men and are more likely to switch programs.

Re: WTF

[cyber-vandal]

What anti trust rules have Apple broken and why do you think the government is treating them differently to Google, Microsoft, Intel and the RAM cartel?

Re:WTF

[PopeRatzo]

So, anyone who takes the mortgage interest tax deduction should also have their tax returns subject to FOIA requests since they are getting a special tax break?

Pay attention:

An individual ("anyone") has inalienable, constitutional and natural rights to privacy.

A corporation is not an "individual", my friend. A corporation exists due to a specific statute in law and that's it. You could say a corporation only exists by virtue of there being a government, because without that statute, there is no corporation. It's the fiction that allows them to avoid consequences for their actions. Government creates this fiction in order to maintain a particular mechanism of aggregating capital. A corporation is nothing more. In fact, a corporation doesn't even have to be owned by humans. Corporations can be owned by other corporations which are owned by other corporations. There doesn't have to be a human anywhere in the chain outside of the "registered agent" of the corporation, who is usually some legal office in Delaware which isn't subject to any consequences either.

To summarize: Humans have rights. Corporations may be said to have rights, but only subject to government statute. If statute (such as FOIA) is not complied with, then government can pull those rights (which are really only privileges, Citizens United notwithstanding). But even withstanding Citizens United, there is no way, shape or form in which a corporation can be said to have "inalienable" or "natural" rights.

So yes, corporations are subject to different laws, and have different rights, than individuals. Would you have it any other way?

Re: WTF

[PopeRatzo]

What anti trust rules have Apple broken and why do you think the government is treating them differently to Google, Microsoft, Intel and the RAM cartel?

Government treats everyone who has the last name, "Inc." differently. Especially when those companies are willing to provide government with mechanisms of control.

Re:WTF

[quantaman]

There needs to be more minorities because a society where certain minorities are largely absent from high end professions is not a healthy society. It's unfair to those minorities who become a lower class, unstable because those minorities are resentful and tend to cause crime, and under-performing because you're losing out on their economic potential.

You mean like displacing white and Asian software engineers for African Americans with a substandard GPA and IQ? I've been there son, and I've gotten more than a few of them fired. When I was in the army, we had a captain (legit O-3) who couldn't use there their and they're to save his fucking life, let alone not end a sentence in a preposition. All of us white folks (and a few Latinos) had to take up the slack for his semi-retarded ass. He was ineffective, incompetent, and could have easily gotten good men (yes, men are still the bulk of combat forces) killed. Instead, he got promoted because of quotas in the army (first mentioned in the Army Times in the early 1990s).

It's kind of ironic.

I claim we should fix the minority education situation so that they can actually compete at the same level. You completely misinterpret that as an argument in favour of affirmative action... then start criticizing black people's IQ. I'll give you the benefit of assuming this was a specific scenario instead of a claim about genetics but you should understand that it's a rightfully sensitive topic.

Imagine how much better the US would be if you could transform the ghettos into middle class communities.

How about you imagine reality, motherfucker. Native Africans from areas such as Nigeria have come to our universities and kicked the ever living hell out of African Americans because their culture supports learning and self development. Play social engineering games on your own dime, cock sucker.

So you admit that culture is the problem, yet you don't actually want to do anything to try and fix that culture.

As for females there needs to be females because an office that is 90% male sucks for both the 90% who are guys and the 10% who are girls.

Says who, you? Show me a peer reviewed top-10 journal with a citation. I have degrees in both engineering and industrial/organizational psychology and you're full of shit.

Why ask for citations on a topic where you know there's unlikely to be specific research?

You have a degree in organization psychology, why don't you supply the citation?

Because oft-times it's about excluding fully qualified white and Asian males in favor of widdle white gurls who want to milk the system for a year or two before deciding that they want a baby instead of an engineering career. Oh yeah, and then they want to come back off of six to nine months of maternity leave, while the aforementioned guys have been pulling her work load and expect not only to come back at the same level, but to be promoted as though she were there the whole time.

Wow, you again confuse recruiting with affirmative action then launch into an unrelated rant against maternity leave.

Re: WTF

[jmac_the_man]

To summarize: Humans have rights.

Among them, the right to peacably assemble. Humans don't lose their rights because they acting as a group towards a common goal.

Re:WTF

[Javagator]

(1% black in a country that is 12% black)

The question is, what percentage of computer science graduates are black. I can't believe that there are large numbers of unemployed black software developers.

Re:WTF

[Oligonicella]

They don't *have* a monopoly of patents. That's hyperbole.

Re: WTF

[PopeRatzo]

Among them, the right to peacably assemble. Humans don't lose their rights because they acting as a group towards a common goal.

Yes, they have rights as individuals. They don't lose those rights when they aggregate.

However, I don't see how you can argue that being in a group confers any additional rights on them.

Humans don't lose their human rights. They are inalienable. A corporation can lose its charter for not following statute. And FOIA is a statute. So they can be "killed" without there being a capital crime. A corporation is created - is born - when some forms are filled out and by-laws are written and a filing fee is paid. Human rights exist at birth and end with death. Corporations do not have such lifespans. Human rights transcend government. Government does not give humans rights. But government DO give corporations rights. They are limited to exist by statute and only by statute.

Remember, you can have a corporation without a single human. Corporations can be the sole owners of other corporations and right on down the line. There are legal shell corporations that are nothing but an address. They are fictive golems and nothing more. Corporations are not individuals. They are not human beings.

Re: WTF

[uncqual]

A corporation always has owners who are human -- sometimes they are indirect. How many corporations other than ones owned by the government or entirely by an entity like a pension fund (who, has parties they have obligations to, but not real "owners") who is not owned, directly or indirectly, by one or more humans? That list certainly does not include hardly any of the entities referenced in this /. article.

When an owner dies, another owner ends up with their share. When a corporation dies, the owners are either compensated in some way (such as in a merger) or their property becomes valueless (such as after some forms of bankruptcy - no different if your car, which you own, becomes valueless after it burns to a crisp).

For example, an owner of a house, like an owner of a corporation, has the right not to have their property (house or shares of stock) seized without just compensation (at least in theory, although the government sometimes stretches that - such as in the case of GM and forfeiture laws).

Re: WTF

[shutdown -p now]

A corporation always has owners who are human -- sometimes they are indirect.

And the privacy of those owners (or any other employee or shareholder) is not infringed by publishing aggregated statistics on how many persons of a given race the company hires.

Re: WTF

[uncqual]

So, any data about any piece of property you own should be available to the government - such as your computer and all the data on it?

Remember, the Federal Government is one of limited powers. The only thing they are allowed to do is detailed in the United States Constitution. In that document, the people granted the Federal Government certain limited powers.

However, that matters little -- Corporations are state entities. The Constitution grants the Federal Government no power whatsoever over them beyond what may follow on from the powers that the Constitution may have relinquished to the Federal Government over the owners of those corporations. A corporation is as much an "effect" of the individual owners ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...") as a computer owned by such a person is.

Re: WTF

[shutdown -p now]

No, not any data. Like OP said, the privacy of individuals constituting the company is still legally protected. But aggregate data like that, which describes the company as a whole without divulging specific records for individuals, does not infringe on anyone's privacy (well, unless it's a company of only a few people).

Re: WTF

[dryeo]

Having a national army was only begrudgingly allowed with funding having to be re-applied for bi-annually. The second amendment is pretty clear that the militia was important and at the time it was widely recognized that maintaining a permanent national army leads to tyranny. Besides how hard would it have been to amend the Constitution to allow an Air Force? The lack of Constitution amendments is one of the problems with the current American political system. Want Congress to be able to limit speech for national security? Amend the Constitution rather then interpreting the 1st amendment in a way that does not jive with the very simple language.

Re:WTF

[thinkwaitfast]

Why do you think that female participation in ham radio is ~13%. A number that is fairly consistent in all countries over all time?

Re:WTF

[thinkwaitfast]

come to our universities and kicked the ever living hell out of African Americans

This is important and I don't know why it's rarely brought up. The people I knew in Africa (Tanzania) hated blacks from the US. They also considered them white as black/white was a money thing and not skin color.

Re:WTF

[ultranova]

How the hell is it the job of the governement to tell private companies who they should hire?

Because the price you pay for not having to worry about the consequences of your actions is either taking orders from someone who will, or destruction.

Re:WTF

[quantaman]

Why do you think that female participation in ham radio is ~13%. A number that is fairly consistent in all countries over all time?

It could be the same cultural factor, once a community becomes male enough it settles at about 90%, or guys could be predisposed to that kind of activity.

But I don't think CS as a profession shares the same characteristic, guys will probably dominate the online technical forums and open source community but I don't think that means they should dominate the profession.

Re:WTF

[painandgreed]

How the hell is it the job of the governement to tell private companies who they should hire?

Because excluding a large segment of the population from such jobs means a less productive country. It is in the countries best interest to make sure that all the people are of the nation are educated and working the highest possible jobs. Its basically the same economic reason that slavery had to be done away with. To keep slave in line, they were prohibited from learning to read and write or learn more skilled trades. Thus the South had made sure a large portion of their population was only fit for unskilled manual labor, not fit even to be a factory worker, thus dragging the South down into poverty even in the 1800's. This was acting as a weightstone even on the North.

It's also in the countries best interest to see lots of new population that are skilled and ambitious. The best way to get those is to have skilled and ambitious parents. Expect to see more parental leave laws being passed in the US in the future also to encourage this.

Re: WTF

[cyber-vandal]

If only Microsoft, Google and Intel had thought of that. You still haven't said what anti trust violations Apple is guilty of.

Re: WTF

[PopeRatzo]

You still haven't said what anti trust violations Apple is guilty of.

Well, these are just some of the ones they've been found guilty of, which you can read about in the judge's opinion when he found them guilty (you could have googled it yourself, you know):

http://assets.nationaljournal....

Bullet points here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/tec...

Re: WTF

[cyber-vandal]

Ah I'd forgotten about that. I don't know much about the US legal system so I'm assuming that as you're saying the DoJ ignored Apple's violations that federal judges aren't part of that organisation.

Re:WTF

[Type44Q]

There needs to be more minorities because a society where certain minorities are largely absent from high end professions is not a healthy society.

No, it isn't... but you go right ahead and attempt to treat symptoms (instead of looking elsewhere for the root causes) and let me know how far you get.

Re: WTF

[PopeRatzo]

I don't know much about the US legal system so I'm assuming that as you're saying the DoJ ignored Apple's violations that federal judges aren't part of that organisation.

It wasn't so much that they weren't prosecuted, as when they were found guilty, they weren't punished. It wasn't even a slap on the wrist. There was a finding a guilt and then *poof!* it all went away.

Since the DOJ and the US attorneys have great latitude in recommending fines, I can only assume some calls were made and then a decision to look the other way.

Re: WTF

[cyber-vandal]

Possibly but do Apple have more leverage than Microsoft in their heyday? That's what I'm getting at. Why would Apple get a free pass when no one else in the tech industry has?

Re: WTF

[PopeRatzo]

Why would Apple get a free pass when no one else in the tech industry has?

Tech industry gets a pass because they provide the elite with the mechanism of control.

Re:WTF

[NicBenjamin]

How the hell is it the job of the governement to tell private companies who they should hire?

So if a private company refuses to hire you because it has enough white guys you don't want the government to intervene?

BTW, I really want you to say they wouldn't do that. Because a quick google will reveal more cases of white men winning discrimination claims then any other group.

Re:WTF

[NicBenjamin]

(1% black in a country that is 12% black)

The question is, what percentage of computer science graduates are black. I can't believe that there are large numbers of unemployed black software developers.

Then the question is why?

If you click on the links above it specifically mentions that the NSF put out a grant to encourage black boys into the field, but the grantee did a marketing study which convinced them that black boys were just as interested in computer science as anyone else, and they should use their $Million to get girls of all races and incomes into the field.

I suspect the reason is a combination of hyper-aggrssive policing in black communities resulting in a lot more black boys (particularly the marijuana users) having criminal convictions that make college impossible, lower-average-incomes meaning college is difficult, overall lower education levels so mom has no clue what to do if the kid flunks out after a semester, and a complete lack of big Desktop computers in the lives of the black working class. Whether this analysis is correct, if so which of the four problems should be solved by government, and at which level, ir probably a pretty important debate to have.

If you have a report from every damn tech company saying "we're 1% black" you might be able to start that debate in Congress, and might get them to solve some of the problems. This is particularly true if somebody holds out, so you can keep the debate hot in the media for awhile.

Re:WTF

[NicBenjamin]

Because hipsters are being super extra-loud at the moment and the government is close to passing laws requiring workforce diversity in big companies?

Dude, Hipsters didn't just shut down Bernie's rally in Washington State.

Hipsters tried to be extra-loud in Occupy Wall Street, but it didn't work because we suck at it.

Re:WTF

[david_thornley]

The percentages indicate we have a problem. There's no real difference between blacks and whites (aside from the obvious cosmetic ones), so if we have blacks underrepresented in technical jobs we're not getting the best people there. This doesn't mean that companies are to blame, or that they should be forced to hire less qualified people.

We've found that encouraging companies to hire women and minorities doesn't create equality, since they can't really control who applies for jobs, so it's not necessarily a company's fault. There are problems earlier in life, and we should be addressing those.

Re:WTF

[micahraleigh]

Hey, man it was. It's called: the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, an amendment to the Constitution, etc. Other than FREE STUFF what else are you looking for?

Re:WTF

[hucker75]

Has anyone stopped to think Africans might be shit at programming? Different races are better at different things. We should not require them all to be present in every company.

Re:WTF

[Plumpaquatsch]

Apple has refused to make public the EEO-1 data that it routinely supplies to the U.S. Dept. of Labor on the demographics of their workers.

How is this even a thing? Why are these filings not required to be public? We can't figure out if the government is doing its job (in this case, tracking this information) without public disclosure so we can follow up.

Why should you Nazis know which companies hires Jews?

Re:WTF

[Plumpaquatsch]

The monopoly the government grant of patents gives them. Next question...

Bwahahaha. You guys are truly delusional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - Apple doesn't even show up in those yearly top tens.

Re: WTF

[Plumpaquatsch]

Having a national army was only begrudgingly allowed with funding having to be re-applied for bi-annually. The second amendment is pretty clear that the militia was important and at the time it was widely recognized that maintaining a permanent national army leads to tyranny.

Good thing we still have militias who plan on blowing up members of the military takeover of America while under the guise of military exercises. Right?

Re: WTF

[jmac_the_man]

And FOIA is a statute.

One that applies EXCLUSIVELY TO GOVERNMENT RECORDS. Not the records of individuals (even groups of individuals).that the government coerced out of them. You won't find a bigger Apple hater than me on Slashdot, but they're 100% right and these representatives are 100% wrong here.

As for all the other sophistry... well, I wouldn't have replied if I realized that it was DopeRatzo.

Re: WTF

[PopeRatzo]

One that applies EXCLUSIVELY TO GOVERNMENT RECORDS.

The EEO-1 data is a government record. It's data that Apple is supposed to (by law) supply to the Federal government.

They are not in compliance with the law.

Re: WTF

[jmac_the_man]

The EEO-1 data is a government record.

Government records are records ABOUT the government. FOIA exists so the people can inspect government records to find wrongdoing by the government. Apple's EEO statements have NOTHING to do with the government or potential government wrongdoing.

Re: WTF

[PopeRatzo]

Government records are records ABOUT the government. FOIA exists so the people can inspect government records to find wrongdoing by the government. Apple's EEO statements have NOTHING to do with the government or potential government wrongdoing.

When the government collects EEO statements, they become government records. It is quite common for those records to be then FOIA'd.

You'd Have to be an Idiot

[BECoole]

to voluntarily give up racial stats to politicians & lawyers.

Re:You'd Have to be an Idiot

[NatasRevol]

Well, it's the law...

Modern society at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not allowed to have too many white people in your organization! That is unacceptable! You must get rid of some of them because of their skin color!

Re:Modern society at its finest

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

But somehow, that's not racism...

Diversity? Of the CBC?

[bradley13]

The CBC, of course, has openly stated that they refuse entrance to people of other races. So their diversity is exactly zero.

Re:Diversity? Of the CBC?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Well, they are the Canadian Broadcasting Caucasians.

Re:Diversity? Of the CBC?

[PopeRatzo]

Are the CCC demanding to see employment records to make sure you're hiring enough Christians?

No, they're demanding federal money be spent on "Congressional Prayer Breakfasts".

Get rid of protection to increase diversity

[trout007]

The quickest way to increase diversity is to get rid of discrimination protection. It is very risky to hire someone from a protected group. If they are not a good fit for the company there is a substantial legal risk to firing them and overhead for carefully creating a paper trail to CYA. It is much easier to hire people from non-protective groups. If they don't work out you fire them and try someone else. Of course for businesses they like the H1-B's the most because if you fire them they get deported which really puts them in a position of power.

Re:Get rid of protection to increase diversity

[chipschap]

The quickest way to increase diversity is to get rid of discrimination protection. It is very risky to hire someone from a protected group.

File this under sad-but-true. The very laws and rules that are intended to protect a group can end up causing them harm.

I'm totally opposed to discrimination in any form. Hiring based on qualifications and competence--- period--- is, in my thinking, absolutely non-discriminatory.

If there are disadvantaged groups, tackle the problem at the source, not at the hiring table. If certain ethnic groups are not being hired in the ratios that might be expected, figure out why they are not becoming qualified in the first place and look for solutions to that. Is it economics? Culture? Something else?

For sure, hiring someone who is not qualified and/or competent, just to meet a demographic requirement, doesn't help anyone and only makes things worse.

Re:Get rid of protection to increase diversity

[trout007]

The only place I disagree with you is in government because there is no market to correct the discrimination. Since everyone is taxed then quotas should be enforced. It wouldn't be fair or safe to have an all white police deparment (or judges) over a minority community.

Re:Get rid of protection to increase diversity

[93 Escort Wagon]

The quickest way to increase diversity is to get rid of discrimination protection.

Yes, because that worked so well for the first 150 years America was a country...

Re:Get rid of protection to increase diversity

[dj245]

The quickest way to increase diversity is to get rid of discrimination protection. It is very risky to hire someone from a protected group. If they are not a good fit for the company there is a substantial legal risk to firing them and overhead for carefully creating a paper trail to CYA. It is much easier to hire people from non-protective groups. If they don't work out you fire them and try someone else. Of course for businesses they like the H1-B's the most because if you fire them they get deported which really puts them in a position of power.

There is a substantial risk in firing anyone. My company creates a paper trail for anyone who isn't performing. Making a bigger paper trail for someone in a protected group would be discrimination. We treat everybody the same. Not performing? We'll try to help them. If they can't help themselves, we start building a paper trail. The people who can't be bothered to help themselves usually make it pretty easy to document their ineptitude.

Re:Get rid of protection to increase diversity

[trout007]

Actually it was.

http://m.townhall.com/columnis...

Re:Get rid of protection to increase diversity

[ScentCone]

Yes, because that worked so well for the first 150 years America was a country...

Which is a completely specious, pointless comparison. Which you know.

So the question is, why would you compare present day things like the lowering of test standards to allow in people to meet an HR skin color quota with the exact opposite sort of segregation policy 50 years ago?

Re:Get rid of protection to increase diversity

[Anonymous Coward]

> It is very risky to hire someone from a protected group

This. The first startup I worked for went out of business because the woman who founded it wanted to hire only female engineers. We were just barely big enough for FMLA to apply, and after we had six of the nine female engineers, out of eleven total engineers, take their full twelve weeks off at least once, we missed several customer deadlines. We couldn't afford to hire more people, and the remaining people at work had to work a hell of a lot harder. Of course, when the women returned they also missed a ton work work because of their children. That is a good thing, because they should take care of their children, but it put the rest of us in a very bad position when you couldn't depend on over half of the team. It also meant that the rest of us couldn't take any vacation time. I twice lost deposits on cruises because a new mother took time off without notice. Of course we went out of business. I think our CEO learned from that lesson, because when I worked at her next startup, we hired based upon ability rather than sex.

Re:Get rid of protection to increase diversity

[chipschap]

Hiring based on qualifications and competence is not discriminatory hiring. It is completely blind to gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Are you just playing with words?

Re:Get rid of protection to increase diversity

[jez9999]

Yes, because that worked so well for the first 150 years America was a country...

Say what you want about slavery, but when it was in place black unemployment was at an all-time low.

Re:Get rid of protection to increase diversity

[Dog-Cow]

It is discriminatory. What it isn't is unfair. Any time you make a choice between multiple options, you are discriminating. It's the definition, really.

For the pedantic: it's only discrimination if you use some criteria, and not by, e.g., flipping a coin.

Re:Get rid of protection to increase diversity

[Solandri]

The quickest way to increase diversity is to get rid of discrimination protection. It is very risky to hire someone from a protected group.

File this under sad-but-true. The very laws and rules that are intended to protect a group can end up causing them harm.

I used to manage a medium-sized company (50+ employees) which the Bureau of Labor Statistics had selected as part of its data sample (it's how they generate things like employment statistics - unemployment rate, new jobs added, etc.). I thought it was really weird that we didn't care about gender when hiring or working, and the only reason I had to actually count the number of female employees was to fill out the montly BLS form.

You'll also note from that cover letter that "The BLS will use the information you provide for statistical purposes only and will hold the information in confidence to the full extent permitted by law. In accordance with the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (Title 5 of Public Law 107-347), the information you provide to the BLS will not be disclosed in identifiable form without your informed consent." I suspect the EEOC has similar restrictions, and this is just some folks in Congress trying to pressure a company to release the info directly, after they first tried to get the info from the EEOC and were told point blank that that would be illegal.

Re:Get rid of protection to increase diversity

[david_thornley]

In at least one situation is was found that race-norming a test relating to employment (including giving extra points to blacks) improved its predictive value.

I'm sure

[TsuruchiBrian]

I'm sure this subset of congress doesn't have more important things to do, like working on getting better schools in impoverished areas.

Apple is a for-profit corporation. They are not racist. They care about profit. If there were tons of qualified applicants of the right colors (whatever they may be), apple would hire them and profit from it. If you want a different distribution of colors of employees at apple, work on making those colors of people the best educated in STEM.

You could just try to pass a law forcing Apple to hire people they don't want to hire, but then they would probably end up like all the companies who no one cares what kind of diversity they have.

If diversity matters to you, work on diverse talent, not diverse employment. Furthermore, I would suggest the idea that diversity is more than just skin color and gender. Simply hiring people who look different doesn't guarantee that those people think differently.

Re:I'm sure

[k6mfw]

I'm sure this subset of congress doesn't have more important things to do, like working on getting better schools in impoverished areas.

I always thought this "companies should hire more African Americans" is bankrupted because many people in this demographic grew up in poor neighorhoods and poorly performing schools. By the time they are 18, they are no match to others that grew up in affluent neighborhoods (and with parents and their friends where they can learn customs and nuances of successful people in the tech industries). Of course they can start at the bottom taking courses at JC though difficult when having to work three minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet.

Apple is a for-profit corporation. They are not racist. They care about profit.

And many of these companies have billions in cash reserves but constantly shake down the system for more tax breaks or other means to avoid paying taxes. Result are places like East Palo Alto sitting between two wealthy companies that are virtually cities of their own.

Re:I'm sure

[fustakrakich]

Apple is a publicly traded corporation. Who they hire is their business. It is in the public interest to know their criteria for hiring. Public interest should take priority over trade secrets. We need to make some serious changes to the law, starting with the FOIA, it's like melted butter it's so soft. It was written to pacify so-called liberals, and it worked. There's no widespread demand to expand it and give it real teeth, with real penalties for violations.

I went to an iShop the other day. The whole thing, product and employees are a strict monoculture. Kinda weird and robotic and dystopian.

Re:I'm sure

[ScentCone]

Where as you, personally, always seek ways to pay more taxes, right? Yeah.

Re:I'm sure

[AmiMoJo]

You are naÃve if you think corporations motivated by profit can't have diversity issues. Perhaps not outright racism, but for example by having poor job advertising and networking a corporation can end up unintentionally reducing the number of candidates from certain groups.

It's not a binary thing, it's not a simple subject.

Re:I'm sure

[CrimsonAvenger]

I'm sure this subset of congress doesn't have more important things to do, like working on getting better schools in impoverished areas.

They may have more important things to do, but since schools are State-level, getting better schools isn't one of those things.

If you're concerned about the quality of your elementary/high schools, look to your State government for fixes.

Re:I'm sure

[serviscope_minor]

Apple is a for-profit corporation. They are not racist. They care about profit.

Aah yes, the old "people are rational so racism can't exist" argument, or a variation on the theme based on the magic of a free market. Thing is, if you have sufficiently dodgy axioms, you can reach any conclusion.

Humans aren't rational and companies are made of people.

Re:I'm sure

[Dog-Cow]

And many of these companies have billions in cash reserves but constantly shake down the system for more tax breaks or other means to avoid paying taxes. Result are places like East Palo Alto sitting between two wealthy companies that are virtually cities of their own.

Is that your way of vehemently agreeing with the claim you quoted?

Re:I'm sure

[Dog-Cow]

You seem to have no fucking clue what publicly-traded means and what responsibilities it logically obligates. The shareholders may have a right (depends on the type of stock they hold), but no one else does. You are clearly one of the under-performing idiots who need affirmative action to get a job as a Walmart greeter.

Re:I'm sure

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, we do have the right to make corporations comply with the norms of the community it effects, but they are rights we don't enforce. So please save your breath. Your style overwhelms your message, both of which only show you're just a schmuck! You know where to take it...

Re:I'm sure

[TsuruchiBrian]

I don't think you read my post very well. I'm saying that the "diversity issues" (as defined by society), are not the result of racism of the corporation. They are a result of the society we live in and unequal education given to people of different skin colors. Apple is simply hiring the people most suitable for their company. If we want Apple to be diverse, it is out job as a society to ensure that the pool of qualified applicants from which apple is choosing is diverse.

When you have certain groups of people going to terrible inner city schools, and other groups going to well funded schools, and better colleges, do you really expect their to be no difference when it comes time for apple to decide to hire?

Re:I'm sure

[TsuruchiBrian]

They may have more important things to do, but since schools are State-level, getting better schools isn't one of those things.

It used to be.

Now we have a Department of education, common core, and federal dollars going to state schools that decide to play by federal rules.

Re:I'm sure

[TsuruchiBrian]

Humans aren't rational and companies are made of people.

Aah yes, the old "corporations are people" argument, or a variation on the theme on the personhood of legal entities.

If anything Apple is racist against non-indian people. When you have a bunch of white people deciding through their hiring practices that indian people are better workers than any other ethnicity, (including other white people), then something is going, but it isn't racism.

Re:I'm sure

[serviscope_minor]

Aah yes, the old "corporations are people" argument, or a variation on the theme on the personhood of legal entities.

How on earth did you read it as that? Corporations are *made* of people, so corporations aren't going to somehow be rational when people aren't.

Re:I'm sure

[TsuruchiBrian]

Legislators and voters are people too. So they aren't going to be rational when voting for legislators nor making laws. You can do this ad infinitum, and it doesn't lead you to any solutions, so why bother.

Re:I'm sure

[serviscope_minor]

Legislators and voters are people too. So they aren't going to be rational when voting for legislators nor making laws. You can do this ad infinitum, and it doesn't lead you to any solutions, so why bother.

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Let me rephrase my original point:

Profit motive does not make corporations non racist. Racism is one of many irrational trait of *people*. Corporations are made of people. There is nothing in the structure to make people rational.

If the people making up a corporation are racist, then the hiring decisions of the company (i.e. the people within it) are racist.

Ergo profit does not preclude racism.

Re:I'm sure

[david_thornley]

I don't think you read GP's post very well. AmiMojo pointed out that some diversity issues are caused by corporations, which is correct, and you are saying that's wrong. You don't know that Apple is hiring the right people among the applicants, or that "most suitable" isn't discriminatory. "Cultural fit" is often an excuse for violating Equal Opportunity hiring laws, and we do know that Apple hasn't always conformed to the law. Obviously, if Apple were hiring without attention to race, they'd still have a very large disparity, but that doesn't mean they're clearly innocent.

Re:I'm sure

[TsuruchiBrian]

I literally have no idea what you're talking about.

No kidding...

Profit motive does not make corporations non racist. Racism is one of many irrational trait of *people*. Corporations are made of people. There is nothing in the structure to make people rational.

If the people making up a corporation are racist, then the hiring decisions of the company (i.e. the people within it) are racist.

This idea that "either people in a company are racist or they are not" is a false dichotomy. The racism of people, groups, companies, etc, fall along a spectrum.

Irrational decisions (e.g. hiring people based on race rather than performance) in general decrease profit. So if you look at the most profitable corporations, it makes sense that those would be the least racist corporations (i.e. they make the most rational decisions).

So no profit doesn't preclude racism, but it is evidence of rationality in decision making.

For example, being extremely poor doesn't preclude you from becoming a doctor. One might be tempted to say that "becoming a doctor and growing up in poverty are unrelated". But growing up in an affluent family sure does greatly increase the probability that you will become a brain surgeon.

In the same way when you look at doctors, you will see that a higher percentage of them are from affluent families than the normal population, if you look at profitable companies you will see that they are more rational than the normal population of companies.

Assuming that a profitable company is full of racist people is like assuming a doctor must have grown up in poverty.

Re:I'm sure

[TsuruchiBrian]

I re-read it, and I still think it misses the point I was making.

It's like if I said "The real cause of drug-related violence is the criminalization of drugs", and someone rebuts "Yeah but some drug addicts kill people in muggings."

This response fails to grasp that what I am saying is that the criminalization of drugs is also the cause of the muggings by addicts.

You don't know that Apple is hiring the right people among the applicants, or that "most suitable" isn't discriminatory.

I am absolutely sure Apple's hiring process is discriminatory. They are certainly discriminating based on talent, and even if they are discriminating based on race, it's discrimination against non-indian people.

I will say that if Apple were in the habit of passing up more qualified workers for less qualified workers of a different race, it would decrease their profitability. And given that they are one of the most profitable companies on the planet, I'm willing to bet that they are one of the least discriminatory.

"Cultural fit" is often an excuse for violating Equal Opportunity hiring laws, and we do know that Apple hasn't always conformed to the law.

I don't equate conformance with EOE laws with non-discriminatory hiring. For example, you can practice age discrimination by only hiring old people, and it is not in violation of the law. I would certainly not want to hire people who do not fit in the culture (e.g. homophobic people, racist people, sexist people, etc).

Obviously, if Apple were hiring without attention to race, they'd still have a very large disparity, but that doesn't mean they're clearly innocent.

I am not claiming that Apple isn't discriminating. I am saying that if we assumed Apple was unbiased, I think we would see something similar to their current demographic distribution.

If we assumed they were hiring with an affirmative action mentality, we would expect to see a microcosm of the United States.

If we assumed they were hiring with a white supremacist mentality, we probably wouldn't see so many south asians working there.

I don't think any employee demographic would be proof that the hiring process that resulted in it was completely non-discriminatory, but I think Apple's demographic comes close (unlike some other companies).

If you really want to catch some racist companies, I would go after the ones that are not hiring a bunch of indian people, despite the clear profit potential.

Re:I'm sure

[serviscope_minor]

You keep somehow massively getting the wrong end of the stick.

I'm not claiming there's a false dichotomy, I'm addressing the original claim that corporations don't behave in a racist way because of the profit motive. That requires the *people* within a corporation to rationally chase profit. However racism is an *irrational* trait of people. If people are irrational you cannot expect them to be rational.

So if you look at the most profitable corporations, it makes sense that those would be the least racist corporations

No, not even slightly. That would only work if the market is very efficient and the markets are of infinite size.

Let's take and old fashioned example first. The largest, richest and most powerful company to have ever existed in the world was the East India company. Wanna bet there was no racism there?

And now for a more modern example of why companies don't need to be good to be profitable and so therefore racism would have little effect.

Look at microsoft for example: for years they produced terrible products, but they had the market completely nailed down as a monopoly (and were conviceted for monopoly abuse) so they could do what they liked and still remain massively profitable. If they'd had flagrantly racist hiring practices it wouldn't have made a dent, becuase they weren't competing on the quality of their products.

Or if you prefer, efficient markets require rational actors. How on earth do you explain "Beats by Dre" under that model. They're profitable why? The headphones aren't cheaper. They're not better made. They don't sound better. About the only things in their favour is that they're heavy so people think they're well made and they have a famous name attached. They're very profitable without the need for a good product, so they don't need to hire good people.

Or let's say you're based in Helena, Montana. You could be massively, flagrantly racist against non cacusasian and it would have more or less no effect (5%?) because the popualtion has very little diversity.

Slo let's now take some HFT companies. Basically you need enough capital to get your server closer to the exchange than anyone else, to cut down on latency. That is the primary driving factor. Beyond that it makes much less difference who you hire (yes, I know some HFT people, no they ain't that impressive).

Those are just five examples.

You can at best make the claim that on average less racist companies are more profitable. That's believable, but the important thing is the scale of the effect. You'd have to provide evidence of scale rather than somplyplucking figures out of the air.

So no profit doesn't preclude racism, but it is evidence of rationality in decision making.

Not especially. It's some evidence of some better decision making than other people in the same area of business.

Assuming that a profitable company is full of racist people is like assuming a doctor must have grown up in poverty.

You're the one jumping to wild-ass extreme assumptions, not me.

My claim is that profit does not make companies non racist in hiring practices.

Re:I'm sure

[TsuruchiBrian]

You keep somehow massively getting the wrong end of the stick.
I'm not claiming there's a false dichotomy, I'm addressing the original claim that corporations don't behave in a racist way because of the profit motive. That requires the *people* within a corporation to rationally chase profit. However racism is an *irrational* trait of people. If people are irrational you cannot expect them to be rational.

So you are saying that everyone is equally racist?

No, not even slightly. That would only work if the market is very efficient and the markets are of infinite size.

So you are saying only perfect markets work at all? (i.e. no spectrum of market performance)?

Let's take and old fashioned example first. The largest, richest and most powerful company to have ever existed in the world was the East India company. Wanna bet there was no racism there?

Did you even read what I wrote? Did I say there was no racism at Apple? If you had read my post you would be comparing the East India company's level of racism to other companies from the same time and place. A *more* racist contemporary might have refrained from going to India at all due to racism.

Furthermore, do you *really* not think that being more ration and less racist gives a company a competitive advantage? If you don't accept this basic premise you will never accept any of the conclusions I make, and we can just stop this discussion right now.

Look at microsoft for example: for years they produced terrible products, but they had the market completely nailed down as a monopoly (and were conviceted for monopoly abuse) so they could do what they liked and still remain massively profitable. If they'd had flagrantly racist hiring practices it wouldn't have made a dent, becuase they weren't competing on the quality of their products.

You have to be more specific with your timeline. There were years where microsoft made "terrible" products, but there were no better alternatives (implying that their products were not so terrible at the time). Secondly, I don't think Microsoft would have been so successful in the first place if they were leaving all the best engineers of other races and genders to be scooped up by other companies.

If I said "people who go to MIT are really smart compared to people who go to community college", your counter example would be "There could be someone stupid at MIT because their parents were rich". This doesn't mean that what I am saying is wrong.

Or if you prefer, efficient markets require rational actors.

No... more efficient markets require more efficient actors. It's a spectrum.

Furthermore, the markets that corporations compete in is already far more rational than the market for headphones. Shareholders are better at analyzing profitability of companies than teenagers are at analyzing headphones.

Or let's say you're based in Helena, Montana. You could be massively, flagrantly racist against non cacusasian and it would have more or less no effect (5%?) because the popualtion has very little diversity.

In a population with limited diversity, there is limited opportunity to be racist. If Helena was 100% white, then you couldn't act on your racism at all, and that's why non-racist companies in Helena wouldn't have a competitive advantage.

Slo let's now take some HFT companies. Basically you need enough capital to get your server closer to the exchange than anyone else, to cut down on latency. That is the primary driving factor. Beyond that it makes much less difference who you hire (yes, I know some HFT people, no they ain't that impressive).

So what you are saying is that the people developing HFT algorithms are dummies, and it doesn't matter what race they are, so a company will be just as successful if they hire dumb white software engineers

Re:I'm sure

[david_thornley]

No, I think you're missing what he is saying. You took an absolutist position, that for-profit companies do not discriminate on race or other illegal criteria. In fact, there are companies that will practice discrimination that would be found illegal if it could be proven in court. They may not make as much money as they otherwise would, but in practice companies have a lot of inefficiencies.

Similarly, if you claimed that drug-related violence was due to the fact that those drugs are illegal, you'd be partly wrong. If nobody wanted those drugs enough to do anything illegal, there wouldn't be the violence. If some of the drugs made people homicidal, there would be drug-related violence despite legality. I am claiming that some companies practice illegal hiring practices (although I'm not going to name any publicly).

I'm not claiming that following Equal Opportunity Employment laws means no unfair discrimination. As you point out, it would be perfectly legal to hire only people between 40 and 65, inclusive, as a matter of policy. It would be perfectly legal to hire only left-handed people, since handedness is not on the list of protected classes. However, if a business does hire on the basis of youth, race, sex, etc., it is practicing unfair discrimination. The converse is not true.

Re:I'm sure

[TsuruchiBrian]

No, I think you're missing what he is saying.

He said "You are naÃve if you think corporations motivated by profit can't have diversity issues. Perhaps not outright racism, but for example by having poor job advertising and networking a corporation can end up unintentionally reducing the number of candidates from certain groups."

I was claiming that "diversity issues" is an arbitrary designation, and in most cases you must discriminate on the basis of race in order not to have "diversity issues" (i.e. hiring based on quotas). I was not contesting the idea that Apple has "diversity issues", I was saying that diversity issues are not evidence of racism. Furthermore the lack of "diversity issues" is probably a strong indication of (albeit legal) discrimination.

You took an absolutist position, that for-profit companies do not discriminate on race or other illegal criteria.

That is actually not what I said. I never said they didn't discriminate nor did I claim they follow discrimination laws.

What I said was that they are not racist. It was not intended to be an absolute statement, but one that is "basically" true.

For example:
Alice: Democrats are pedophiles
Me: Democrats are not pedophiles
Bob: Actually your absolutist statement that democrats are not pedophiles is wrong, because some are.

This does not mean that every single person in a for profit company is not racist, nor does it mean that there are never any instances of racism committed by individuals in that company. But I don;t think it is fair to characterize a whole company as racist merely because they may (and certainly do) have some racist individuals.

For example, I wouldn't say "The democratic party is racist", if I manage to find one or a few members of that party who are racist.

This is different than claiming something like "Planned parenthood supports women's rights". This would be true even if not all people involved with planned parenthood supported women's rights. The organization itself does.

I don't accept the notion that the total is merely the sim of the parts. All the proteins that make up our bodies are not alive, common sense might conclude that our cells, and whole body must also not be alive if it's made up entirely of non-living things. Obviously this isn't true generally.

Similarly, if you claimed that drug-related violence was due to the fact that those drugs are illegal, you'd be partly wrong. If nobody wanted those drugs enough to do anything illegal, there wouldn't be the violence. If some of the drugs made people homicidal, there would be drug-related violence despite legality.

I would say that it's not the drugs that make people homicidal. I've been around a lot of people on drugs, and it's not like you need to call the cops when you find someone on drugs because they are likely to kill someone. The people who kill others on drugs, are usually quite troubled even without the drugs.

I don't discount the theoretical possibility that some drugs really will cause anyone who takes them to become homicidal with a high degree of probability, but in reality I just don't think any drugs like that exist (yet). And should such a drug exist, I would certainly support making the use of such a drug illegal as a matter of public safety.

No I am not saying that every single instance of violence related to drugs was caused by the fact that they are illegal. I am saying that the overwhelming majority of violence caused by drugs is their illegality to the point that we might consider the other causes of drug related violence insignificant in comparison.

I am also saying that we should consider the racism of for-profit companies (especially the large and successful ones) to be nearly non-existent compared to the racism of individuals.

I am claiming that some companies practice illegal hiring practices (although I'm not going to name any publicly)

I don't doubt that they exist, just like I don't doubt that *some* people are caused to commit violence simply because of the effect of drugs.

Re:I'm sure

[serviscope_minor]

So you are saying that everyone is equally racist?

At this point, I'm saying you're an idiot. You seem to be intentionally misreading/flat out making stuff up about what I'm saying.

Re:I'm sure

[TsuruchiBrian]

You seem to be intentionally misreading/flat out making stuff up about what I'm saying.

When debating someone that is contradicting themself and/or has an incoherent line of reasoning, it's important to ask questions to find out what they are actually claiming. Notice that what I asked is what's known as a question.

At this point, I'm saying you're an idiot.

Name-calling? Did you really have no good rebuttals?

Re:I'm sure

[david_thornley]

I am claiming that companies can be racist, in that they can have unofficial policies that are discriminatory on the basis of race. There's lots of people who complain about the difficulty of getting a job when you're over 40 (which I didn't find a problem when I started dying my hair), and it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of age against anyone between 40 and 65.

There are going to be racist people at any company of reasonable size, but companies are not necessarily racist because of that. However, if they essentially do not hire qualified whites, say, the company is racist.

Re:I'm sure

[TsuruchiBrian]

I am claiming that companies can be racist, in that they can have unofficial policies that are discriminatory on the basis of race.

I guess it depends on what your definition of an "unofficial policy" is. If it's unofficial, how is it a policy? Did the CEO just instruct all the hiring managers to hire people of a certain race without actually writing it down? Or is it just something hiring managers are doing subconsciously?

There's lots of people who complain about the difficulty of getting a job when you're over 40 (which I didn't find a problem when I started dying my hair), and it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of age against anyone between 40 and 65.

I know at my work we hire lot's of people over 40, and on the whole, they (in my opinion) tend not to turn out so well. Not only do they require higher salaries, but they are often incredibly stubborn and are unwilling to learn to use new technologies.

So in my example, if you hired only people who were willing to embrace new technologies, you'd end up discriminating against older people, but not directly because of their age, but merely due to the correlation between age and lack of willingness to embrace new technologies.

There are going to be racist people at any company of reasonable size, but companies are not necessarily racist because of that.

A company could have *only* racist people working for it, but if it were diverse, then you might still maintain that diversity (black hiring managers only hiring black employees, asian hiring managers only hiring asian employees, etc.)

However, if they essentially do not hire qualified whites, say, the company is racist.

What I am saying is that the assumption that qualified candidates reflect the diversity of society as a whole is simply not true.

There just aren't as many women interested in software engineering as men. There are no doubt many reasons we would want to change that and many ways that we could try to change that, but it is just a fact as of right now. If a large enough company employed 50% women in it's software department, it is very likely that there was discrimination in order to achieve that.

If anything having a "perfectly" diverse employee demographic, for nearly every profession is evidence of racism, sexism, ageism, etc of some sort (legal or otherwise).

But I agree that if a company refuses to hire a particular demographic of otherwise qualified people simply based race, that's racism.

And I would expect that the company that does hire those qualified (and undervalued) workers then has a competitive advantage, compared to the companies paying a premium to hire overvalued workers of the preferred race.

It is because I actually believe that these stereotypes are generally false, that I believe that being rational rather than racist is a competitive advantage.

I don;t believe a company can be very successful by willfully hiring worse candidates and/or hiring equally qualified candidates for more money. It's just too easy for competitors to exploit such an obvious weakness, especially in a thriving market like technology.

I believe it is the lack of racism compared to other industries and to the past, that we see such a willingness to employ foreigners to such a high degree.

God damnit

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Stop it with this stupid "diversity" crap already. Not everyone is predisposed to like doing the same thing. It varies by race, sex, beliefs, interests, etc. Asking or even forcing the tech industry to have the same numbers of white/black/asian/etc and 50/50 male/female employes is just incredibly dumb and short-sighted.

Why are women under-represented in construction yards? Why is there a lack of men in nurses and flight attendants jobs? You will find discrepancies like that in all domains. Some are due to male chauvinism but for the most part I think women, in general, are more interested in particular types of jobs and the same goes for men. It's not about inequalities, it's just life. Get over it.

Complaining about diversity is like women complaining that guys prefer blondes or men complaining that women don't like their fat ass. Everyone is different, the population of the planet doesn't come from a dozen pre-made moulds to help you sort them all in neat little boxes afterward.

Re:God damnit

[Rockoon]

When it comes right down to it, there are two primary reasons why a large company would not have a more or less proportional population of diverse worker.

1) straight up racism - but we are told that corporations are greedy to a fault, not racist.
2) cultural differences - but to change this you must argue that cultural differences (aka diversity) is wrong, which is racism.

The idea that Apple or Google is racist is clearly absurd, so we are left with those criticizing Apple and Google as actually being the racists that demonstrably believe that some peoples cultures are wrong. They clearly are arguing that Black culture is wrong for not being nerdy enough, that Asian culture is wrong for being too nerdy, etc. So much for diversity.

American Liberalism is racism.

Re:God damnit

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Asian culture is wrong for being too nerdy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:God damnit

[PopeRatzo]

Stop it with this stupid "diversity" crap already. Not everyone is predisposed to like doing the same thing. It varies by race, sex, beliefs, interests, etc. Asking or even forcing the tech industry to have the same numbers of white/black/asian/etc and 50/50 male/female employes is just incredibly dumb and short-sighted.

Why do the very same egalitarians that are outraged by calls for diversity and demand a "meritocracy" suddenly piss down their legs whenever they hear about companies hiring people with H1B visas?

Re:God damnit

[godrik]

I do not know Apple's worker demographic. But at college level, we see wide variations. In CS majors, females only represent about 20% of the student population. Provided that female are also more likely socially to be the one to sacrifice their career for their family, it might be VERY hard to get to over 35% of female worker in your software business.

The issue with diversity in CS is not a college level problem. Only few female student register for the class and they do not really come to information sessions about the program. Overall, I'd say the root cause is much before college. It is in the gender stereotypes. I was in Barnes and Nobles last week and passed by the children's book section. One side was labeled boys books and had books about trains, cars and plane. The other was labeled girls books and was about princesses, fashion and poneys.

Re:God damnit

[Rockoon]

I was in Barnes and Nobles last week and passed by the children's book section. One side was labeled boys books and had books about trains, cars and plane. The other was labeled girls books and was about princesses, fashion and poneys.

You seem to think the B&N is trying to create a divide between the genders, when in reality it is just accepting and tolerant of the differences that already exists.

Any alarm about there being both a boys and girls section at B&N is just your intolerance showing through. You seem to be unwilling to tolerate a difference between boys and girls.

Re:God damnit

[Dutch Gun]

I'd only call it hypocrisy if the same people who complained about H1Bs depressing skilled labor wages didn't care about the flood of "undocumented workers" crossing our southern border and depressing unskilled labor wages. Both illegal immigration AND H1B visa abuse are wrong because it makes an end-run around our national sovereignty and immigration laws. Companies or individuals that abuse these policies are benefiting from the comfort, stability, and infrastructure of being located in the US (and paid for by US citizens), but are taking advantage of cheaper foreign labor at the cost of qualified US workers.

"Calls for diversity" are typically nothing more than politicized pandering. Unless there is evidence of intentional discrimination, there should be no government interference with who a US company hires among qualified US citizens. Moreover, if one particular person is hired over another because of race or sex (which is what quotas would entail), it's discrimination just the same. You can't trample individual rights to improve a society. I just don't think a greater good will come of it.

The correct solution here is to ensure there are enough qualified applicants of all types. And that means a lot of tough questions about how we can improve our inner-city societies and education. There are no quick or easy answers here. Frankly, it's a hell of a lot easier to just point at a company and imply there's racism/sexism going on simply because there aren't nearly as many qualified black or female candidates.

Re:God damnit

[llmc]

Or perhaps because women who have wanted to work in health or flight have been historically relegated to secondary roles.

Even with a cursory Google search you could read up and inform yourself about actual examples and why anti-discrimination laws we created (from 1971 no less!): http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2664&context=californialawreview

The fact is, as you've pointed out, that people naturally have different preferences. However, those preferences are at the same time shaped by one's cultural surrounding -- nature versus nurture. If one's culture explicitly discriminates who can do what based on traits that are unrelated to natural preference and competence, then the participation rates you claim to be evidence of preference are fundamentally unnatural.

This is not hard to understand.

Many people do in fact experience such discrimination. The effect of this discrimination is unknown, but that is the whole point of being open to understanding these issues. While there is no such thing as solving discrimination (because of the imperfect nature of humans), investigating these issues may in fact lead to better matching of individuals to productive and preferred roles in society.

That would be a net gain for society.

Re:God damnit

[shutdown -p now]

H1Bs are not foreign labor, since by definition they work here in US, and participate in the same labor market (and other markets - they have to rent or buy housing here & pay property taxes if they do, pay for their food and other things they consume & pay sales taxes on it etc).

And why do you think it's appropriate to not just allow, but outright force private companies to discriminate according to citizenship? Didn't you just say you're for meritocracy? Well, let the one with the most merit take the job. In fact, chances are good that they'll apply for citizenship as soon as they're eligible anyway.

Re:God damnit

[thinkwaitfast]

If I was really welcome on your lawn, you'd give me your address.

Re:God damnit

[Dog-Cow]

The Nursing profession has been trying for years to get more men in to the career. There are many patients who would prefer male nurses (for e.g. religious/modesty concerns), but can't get them because they are simply not available. It's not a matter of education, either. Nursing schools are trade schools. Practically anyone can attend. And you'd think your stereotypical male would want to join a profession that is (still) primarily female.

It goes to show that perhaps you are exactly right: different segments (however you demarcate) have different interests, and not much of anything we can do will change it.

Re:God damnit

[ebvwfbw]

They don't have enough trouble. That's how we end up with this crap. Let's find something to fix.

Re: Split.

[trout007]

Same thing as the "gender pay gap". If it was real all you would need to do is start a company consisting entirely of women and pay them 1/2 the gap to attract the best talent and then undercut your cometition. So if women really make 76% of what men make for the same job just start a company and pay them 88% of what men make and undercut the competition.

Listen all of y'all it's an Arbitrage!!

Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is being very niggardly about this. It should just release the records already.

Re:Wow.

[93 Escort Wagon]

Apple is being very niggardly about this. It should just release the records already.

Hopefully you are aware the word "niggardly" has nothing to do with race or stereotyping.

Re:Wow.

[ScentCone]

Tell that to the guy who lost his job in the DC city government for using it in exactly the right context and without a hint of irony, satire, or some sort of double entendre. Only in DC. Fired for other people's limited vocabulary.

Re:Social justice!

[trout007]

Yes. It's not like we have had 12+ years to teach and train people in our state run schools.

Re: Split.

[nukenerd]

all you would need to do is start a company consisting entirely of women

It has been tried. It usually ends in catfights and tears.

What about mixed races?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

What if someone is half-black, half-white? What about 75% black, 25% white? This whole diversity thing is just reverse racism in disguise.

Re:I'm too sexy for my labcoat, too sexy for my...

[trout007]

Only if you think getting up early commuting to a cubical to spend 8+ hours a day looking at a computer screen only to commute back home and do it again the next day to be a boring life.

Re:WTF Not Prejudice, Discrimination.

[Technician]

Using the definition of Discrimination, that needs to be called out for what it really is.
This Affirmative Action is by the action and expectations, is Discrimination based on race and gender. Get it right.

We need to end all discrimination.

All lives matter is correct.
All black lives matter is discriminatory because it is race based discriminatory protection by race.

United Negro College Fund is openly Discriminatory. It does by name and action, discriminate by race. Why are we allowing intentional race discrimination.
Affirmative Action is openly Discriminatory. It does by name and action, discriminate by race and gender. Why are we allowing intentional race and gender discrimination.
How long would a United Caucasian College Fund be allowed to exist if it's charter and campaign was exactly the same as the United Negro College Fund?

Help call out and end All race and gender discrimination.

Re:Idea

[alvinrod]

Because you can't take a bunch of kids that have grown up in dysfunctional family situation and have merely been passed through a failed educational system and magically expect that they'll be able to succeed at a college level in a fields that require a lot of study.

Your idea is like trying to put a roof on a house before you've erected the walls or even laid the foundation. If you want to see more minority representation, you're going to need to fix the underlying issues first. Otherwise you'll just end up spending a lot of effort for very little success whereas with a bottom-up approach, even if you don't have a lot of minorities majoring in the sciences, you'll have more that are attaining the kind of education to break the cycle of poverty.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Norway, the sickest country

[SuperKendall]

There needs to be more minorities because a society where certain minorities are largely absent from high end professions is not a healthy society.,

So that means every sort of insular culture in Europe (like Norway or Iceland) is not healthy?

Perhaps the unhealthy thing is propagating a society or ideology that allows for lower education standards for those of specific races and skin colors.

If you want to end racism, stop treating people differently by race... you'd think that would be pretty obvious but a lot of people have not yet figured that out.

Re:Norway, the sickest country

[quantaman]

There needs to be more minorities because a society where certain minorities are largely absent from high end professions is not a healthy society.,

So that means every sort of insular culture in Europe (like Norway or Iceland) is not healthy?

If they're discriminating against minorities I'd say yes.

If it's simply the case there's not many minorities, or the ones who are there aren't disadvantaged but simply haven't had the generation or two it takes to integrate into the economy I'd say no.

Perhaps the unhealthy thing is propagating a society or ideology that allows for lower education standards for those of specific races and skin colors.

If you want to end racism, stop treating people differently by race... you'd think that would be pretty obvious but a lot of people have not yet figured that out.

I think that's part of it. The other part is a lot of US schools have effectively segregated schools, and since schools are locally funded the black schools end up being extremely low quality schools immersed in a culture of underachievement and underclass that's hard to break.

I think simply allowing school choice would help a lot in allowing parents to break up that culture.

Re:Norway, the sickest country

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi there. I guess I a qualify as a straw-man argument since I came to this country some 20 years ago, was of the pale-white skin color, but lived in poverty in the shittiest of all neighborhoods, with shittiest schools. But somehow I managed to rise above that and now I'm a software developer with decent pay, having attended a public college with grant money (that is available to all poor people). The few people I knew from grammar school I do not even speak to. I think last time I saw one he was laid out across the hood of a police car being arrested for dealing. Most people I knew in High school are doing OK. They are all minority (pretty much every color but white), but got into business magnet program with me due to good grades. My high school had something like 37% graduation rate, but most of them went on to college. Yes not many of them work in IT, but most were not smart enough for CS degree, nor did they want to go into a field that is so challenging when they could just do business.

Oh and I suppose I should add I'm from NJ where schools are not locally funded. The state redistributes school money from wealthier districts to the poorer ones, which causes the property taxes in suburban neighborhoods to skyrocket (we talking 10 grand for single family house in some cases). Due to my life experience I hold the belief that there is no reason why being in a shitty school should hold you back unless you are a fuckin moron.

Re:Norway, the sickest country

[quantaman]

No not knowing anything about your circumstance I'd say you had two distinct advantages over your black classmates:

1) Your parents had enough education to help educate you and create the expectation that you would be going to college.

2) Being of a different ethnicity you were a bit of an outsider never internalized the idea that you were part of the black community that ended up stuck in that poor neighbourhood.

I think expectations and roles play a much bigger role than we realize. Quite simply a kid who thinks their education finishes after HS might never try to do more than finish, one who is told they're going to University will put in the work to be near the top of the class because they know that's where they're supposed to be.

For reference consider how critical motivation is to your work in IT? I know I can sometimes spend an hour or two solving a problem I could do in 5-10 minutes if I were intensely motivated and I suspect most have experienced the same. Imagine that effect applied to your entire education and you could see how being permanently disnengaged would turn you into a moron.

Re:Norway, the sickest country

[laurencetux]

The problem is The New Slavery hinges on

1 Must Smoke WEED!!
2 No Ghetto Child Left Out of Jail
3 Baby Daddies not Fathers
4 Street Smart not Book Smart

So what the Folks With Money need to do is have a program that rewards kids for graduating high school without a criminal record (maybe 15K and a scholarship for the first year of college??).

heck if you want to tech things maybe they could design a tablet that has zero pawn value and is loaded with a set of e-school books and other tools??

Re:Norway, the sickest country

[KGIII]

I'd hack that device to run a Linux distro of my choosing on it. Not because I am an ass (I am) but because there is, realistically, no such thing as something without pawn value. I'd have to prove it. Sure, shit is worthless but somebody will exchange cash for it if you look hard enough.

Re:Norway, the sickest country

[quantaman]

I can't argue with what happened in your personal experience but from this paper I found your experience was the exception, not the rule:

for blacks, school desegregation significantly increased both educational and occupational attainments, college quality and adult earnings, reduced the probability of incarceration, and improved adult health status; desegregation had no effects on whites across each of these outcomes.

That government is gone

[SuperKendall]

The government was complicit in slavery,

Not the government in Washington DC. They fought a rather large war to end slavery. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Re:That government is gone

[NatasRevol]

No, they fought a war so that federal rights > states rights, in spite of the constitution.

Re:That government is gone

[drinkypoo]

Not the government in Washington DC. They fought a rather large war to end slavery. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Even taking that for granted, which as you can see from siblings to this comment is not a foregone conclusion, they were for it (or at least stood by, watched, and reaped the economic benefits for the nation as a whole) before they were against it.

Re:That government is gone

[frank_adrian314159]

And, if you don't like it, you're free to try to leave again. This time, we Yankees probably wouldn't stop you.

Re:That government is gone

[NatasRevol]

Love your poor assumption.

Also, maybe if I don't like it, I'll try to change it. Maybe you should try thinking in more than black and white.

Re:That government is gone

[NicBenjamin]

Depends on the time period.

Immediately prior to the Civil War they actually bullied states into handing free black citizens over to southern slave-catchers.

Re:That government is gone

[david_thornley]

You might want to research the Fugitive Slave Act. I don't think the Federal government had any overt anti-slavery policy until Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation.

Re:That government is gone

[david_thornley]

Bingo. Secession was basically about slavery. The war was about a whole lot of things, and it was started by Confederate military action, not any Northern initiative. It became about slavery for diplomatic purposes (it was politically impossible for Britain in particular to join a war in support of slavery), resulted in the abolition of slavery, and that became one of those neat moral absolute statements that frequently get popular.

Re:Reverse Racism

[ThatsLoseNotLoose]

The goal is to make big companies with deep pockets more sue-able.

Jobs:Do you know how many black engineers we have?

[theodp]

From Steve Jobs' Passion for Diversity: "Can you help us hire black engineers?" he said. "Do you know how many black engineers we have?" Before I could say anything he shared a shockingly low number and confessed how poorly Apple was doing in finding black candidates. I'll skip the full exchange, but suffice it to say, I got an intimate peek into Steve's passion and energy. He was seriously upset at Apple's efforts in that area. His last words to me that day were, "If you have any ideas on how we can hire more black engineers, send me an email."

Re:WTF Not Prejudice, Discrimination.

[AmiMoJo]

Black lives matter is simply pointing out the discrimination - that black lives appear to matter less than white ones in some cases. It does not seek to exclude white lives or ask for special treatment, just equal treatment.

On the other hand, fake claims of reverse discrimination is discrimination, because it is designed up prevent black people getting equal treatment by addressing the existing deficit.

Wait a second...

[tlambert]

Wanna bet? I have sent out 350 resumes in the past 9 months, and I have only received one offer. I spent 5 years as a design, manufacturing, and quality engineer and no one even looked at me.

Wait a second...

The United States has MANUFACTURING? WFT?!?! When did that happen?

Re: Split.

[Foobar of Borg]

Wanna bet? I have sent out 350 resumes in the past 9 months, and I have only received one offer. I spent 5 years as a design, manufacturing, and quality engineer and no one even looked at me. Tech is hiring from overseas or new graduates with NO experience and they are being worked to death. Jobs abound my ads.

Geez! Maybe you're not getting any offers because you are a belligerent asshole!

Please don't stereotype us.

[tlambert]

Only if you think getting up early commuting to a cubical to spend 8+ hours a day looking at a computer screen only to commute back home and do it again the next day to be a boring life.

Please don't stereotype us. We occasionally also do group outings to watch the latest science fiction movies, on the company dime. We are not culturally bereft.

Re:LOL Murica

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a serious point. How is America going to move towards a post-racial society, if we keep track of people by race?

Ha ha ha ha.....

[argStyopa]

Dear Apple,

Please give us the employment data that you otherwise aren't in any way obligated to, so if it doesn't show the results we prefer, we can attack you publicly.

Thanks,
Stupid democrats

wish for mod, points. Insults and harms my daughte

[raymorris]

> If competence can be overridden by the color of someones skin than that only bolsters the idea that there are inferior races that need to be graded on a different scale.

I wish I could mod this up. It's infuriating that Jesse Jackson and the other race baiters tell my daughter that's she's too stupid to compete on her merits, that everyone should give her extra points to make it fair because black people like her aren't as good as white people.

My daughter is smarter and harder working than than you, Mr liberal whiner, and therefore more competent. Se doesn't need your pity, protection, or special favors. She needs you to get the heck out of the way so she can fix the mess you made because you refuse to do simple arithmetic and planning, instead thinking everything will work out if you wish hard enough.

Re:WTF Not Prejudice, Discrimination.

[Anonymous Coward]

That kind of discrimination is everywhere. As a guy who`s been a single parent for 15 years, I've seen a whole lot of single parents get help from "women's centers", but that sort of help wasn't available to me because I do not have a vagina.

Help should be help for those who need it, regardless of sex or race. Racist/sexist organisations like that shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Might be easier to find a unicorn

[RogueWarrior65]

Looks like somebody still believes that the number one company operates on something other than merit-based employment and compensation.

Re:Might be easier to find a unicorn

[serviscope_minor]

Hahah you believe people are rational!

Re:Might be easier to find a unicorn

[RogueWarrior65]

Silly me.

Re:LOL Murica

[russotto]

Pretty sure they've given up on "post-racial society" and would prefer "fuck you white guys" instead.

oh give me a break with the "slavery" excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell is it the job of the governement to tell private companies who they should hire?

The government was complicit in slavery, so the government must also be part of the solution.

As a Jewish person, I'm sick and tired of this sort of whinging. Is there ever an expiration date on it? Is there ever a point in time where people of your doctrine will stop pointing to slavery as an excuse for the unfair hardship of life and move on? We have. You've never been a slave, I've never been a slave. But my people have endured slavery of literally Biblical proportions, and more recently had national socialists in Europe try to eradicate us from the face of the earth. But guess what? We're laughing all the way to the bank because we've moved on, moved up, and gotten on with life. History is important to remember as a lesson in what has happened and what could happen again. But this horse is long since dead. Stop kicking it.

Apple's Data

[signingis]

It's Apple's data. Just because they collected it for the Feds doesn't mean it's belongs to the Feds.

Re:WTF Not Prejudice, Discrimination.

[tompaulco]

Black lives matter is simply pointing out the discrimination - that black lives appear to matter less than white ones in some cases. It does not seek to exclude white lives or ask for special treatment, just equal treatment.

Why don't they point out the discrimination that the whole nation goes crazy with demonstrations and public outcry when a cop kills a black guy, but when a cop kills a white guy, nobody really cares?

Re:Does anyone actually believe

[tompaulco]

Do people actually believe that Blacks are not hired because of their race?

Blacks are not hired for a number of reasons. Prejudice might be one of them, but it is probably more than overshadowed by white guilt which makes companies want to hire them more than whites. The other reasons for not hiring are lack of applicants, and also the fact that hiring a minority is more of a financial liability for a company because minorities are more likely to file wrongful termination or discrimination lawsuits.

Re:wish for mod, points. Insults and harms my daug

[KGIII]

I am mixed racially and have always thought that affirmative action was them telling me that I can not do it on my own and that I need help. No, I can do it just fine - thanks. I not only do not need help, I find such help offensive. There is no just reason for it - none. I was there during the heady days of the fight for equality. None of us, not one, wanted things like affirmative action. That came after the uproar when the movement was co-opted (some of whom are still in 'power' within the community and have tainted it forever) by people who were not interested in equality. I see the same thing happening to the feminist movement. They are no longer about equality. Once a group has advocated and has what it asked for there is no reason for it to exist. I suspect that this may have something to do with it.

Re:WTF Not Prejudice, Discrimination.

[shutdown -p now]

All black lives matter is discriminatory because it is race based discriminatory protection by race.

Did you take logic 101 in school or uni? "Black lives matter" does not imply "Only black lives matter", and consequently, does not imply "not all lives matter". One is a subset of the other. All lives matter, but this seems to be ignored particularly often for black lives, hence focusing the attention there.

Re:Does anyone actually believe

[localman]

No need to "believe" it when you can know it:

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873

Is there a lot more to this complex topic? Sure. But there is no question that simply being black (or in this case study, being assumed black) lowers your chances of getting hired.

Re:WTF Not Prejudice, Discrimination.

[AmiMoJo]

It's not just the mere killing of a black person that is the issue, it's the fact that some cops seem to want to shoot first and ask questions later. If you look at the videos that have emerged of these events, it's hard to justify fatally shooting anyone who is moving away from the cop or who is sat in a car and apparently unarmed. There appears to be an assumption by some that black people are dangerous and it's better to just murder them than to take the risk that they might have a concealed weapon.

It is that specific issue they seek to address. While there are other issues with the cops involving white people as well, it is entirely possible to address one issue without discriminating against the other ones. It's only discrimination if the actions of those calling for change want the change to be detrimental to white people.

Re: Split.

[maugle]

Let's try not to jump straight to blaming the victim. It's also possible it's due to the location he's in, or maybe he's right and he's getting passed over in favor of a fresh batch of exploitable college kids or H1Bs.

The Never Ending Agenda

[approachingZero]

You don't understand, the Congressional Black Caucus, #BlackLivesMatter, and all such incarnations of the same, have no interest in ending 'racism'. Follow the money, look at the results. Open your eyes.

diversified the president's office

[ne0n]

I present as evidence: racially diversifying the Presidency hasn't helped US gov't leadership much. It remains unclear why "Black Caucus" thinks the aggregate albedo of Apple's workforce in California has an effect on the company's efficiency, productivity or any other meaningful metric.

Not to mention that 99% of the people doing Apple's work are Chinese.

Why isn't there a "Congressional White Caucus"?

[Thing 1]

Why are people with racist names for their organizations seeking racist data?

Re:wish for mod, points. Insults and harms my daug

[NicBenjamin]

I really hate to be the one who breaks this to you, but affirmative action is the reason your daughter has a chance to get into Harvard.

I can say this conclusively because your name is Morris, not Chan. If they let people into Harvard purely on the merits, then no white people at all would ever get in because when white people hear a fifth grader ask "Mommy can I skip a grade in science?" they don't go "Thank God! She's finally showing some fucking ambition!" They think "Fuck! If I let her do this she'll try to skip a grade, her social development will be stunted, she'll be too small to make the basketball team, and she'll kill herself before she hits legal drinking age!"

Literally the only things she has going for her on her application are a) she's female, and b) they'll be tired of admitting Asians with 2400 SATs, 4.7 GPAs, and six courses to transfer in from the local community college.

It always stuns me that white guys (and they're almost always guys) think that the Affirmative Action programs implemented by Nixon, years before most of them were born, are still in place, with no changes whatsoever. It's like dude, do you have any idea how many Supreme Court decisions have been issued since then?

Re:wish for mod, points. Insults and harms my daug

[david_thornley]

Back when first introduced, there were good reasons for affirmative action. Unfortunately, it's been continued for a long time without proper examination. Sure, there's still a lot of problems that come with having a skin color other than the preferred one, and there's a lot of racial inequality, but there was no frippin' way affirmative action was going lead to racial equality by itself.

Re:wish for mod, points. Insults and harms my daug

[NicBenjamin]

And it's been changed a lot since it was first introduced. Quota systems were banned in '97, and systems that automatically granted points to minorities, were banned in 1997. Now they have to use very vague programs that consider the individual student.

Which basically means that they can discriminate against a) so-called perfect Asians (but only the ones who are on the low end of perfect), and b) rich-ass people whose kids only look good on paper because when Mommy paid thousand$ for a world trip the summer of Junior year it was a "Semester at Sea" and counted as college credit. But only for as long as it takes into account the individual circumstances of each student.

So what is missing here?

[Plumpaquatsch]

https://www.apple.com/diversit...

still a point system. see Fisher (2013)

[raymorris]

It's still a point system, race is just worth fewer points. There are other factors also worth points. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re:still a point system. see Fisher (2013)

[NicBenjamin]

Read your source. There's no point system.

Fisher and her team have tried to RetCon one onto the process, creating their own to explain admissions decisions, but the University does not involve points at all.