Apple Releases 2015 EEO-1 Diversity Data Over Weekend (qz.com)

theodp writes: Just days after it came under fire for dismissing a call for diversity as "unduly burdensome and not necessary," Apple quietly released its 2015 EEO-1 diversity report (dated 10/6/2015, reflects the 8/1 payroll). Like other tech companies' diversity disclosures, Apple's EEO-1 raw numbers can't really be reconciled to the percentages based on undisclosed raw numbers that grace the infographic-heavy diversity progress narrative CEO Tim Cook spoke to last August. As to why they keep two sets of diversity books, Apple explains, "The EEO-1 has not kept pace with changes in industry or the American workforce over the past half century. We believe the information we report elsewhere on this site is a far more accurate reflection of our progress toward diversity." Taking this stance allows Apple CEO Tim Cook to boast that "in the United States, we hired more than 2,200 Black employees — a 50 percent increase over last year," while ignoring Apple's EEO-1 report, which indicates that Black employees showed a year-over-year net increase of only 1,475 employees and accounted for only 1.9% of the 4,333 YOY net increase in "Professionals" at Apple (White employees accounted for 50.6%, Asian for 42.1%). If you want to check the math, Apple's EEO-1 data (typed in from the content-copy-not-allowed 2015 and 2014 PDFs) and additional charts can be found in this Tableau workbook.

Comments

Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that whites are already underrepresented at Apple compared to their share of the US population, should Asians be terminated so more people of other colors (and whites) can be hired?

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Diversity = no white males

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, in fields dominated by women (education, childcare, nursing, human resources) we see practically zero push for diversity in order to hire more men.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Under-represented to what? To their percentage in the state population? The country? The continent? The world?

State or country. White a probably under-represented. Hire more White!

The world? Fire all the Jews and hire only Asian from now on.

Diversity is stupid. This representation bullshit is trash. Put it where it belong with all the other SJW non-sense.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[ILongForDarkness]

Exactly fewer Asians. Not sure how it is/was in the US of 'eh but in Canada they used to, if not still do, have quotas for number of visas available and from which countries/regions. Given how large the Asian population is in most metro areas I'm guessing they don't do it anymore (T.O. ~37% Asian, Vancouver 48%), though that could just be a simple matter of doing it but allocating the visas more fairly based on population of the region. Maybe tell Apple, Google and MS they can have the H1-Bs they want but only from Africa, South America and Europe.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Move the goal posts much? What do you mean 'underrepresented in all of tech?' which tech? computer hw engineering? sw engineering? web design? mobile applications? etc., etc.etc.

As the OP noted, whites as a group are underrepresented at Apple (as are potentially other 'populations based on non-functional group attributes') so it seems its the Asians that need to be dumped to increase the ratio of other underrepresented groups'.

Of course it goes without saying that the under the agenda of those with an axe to grind the definition of 'diversity' means everyone but 'non-white males'...

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

A world where SJWism is correctly identified as a bigoted hate cult sounds quite nice to those of us grounded in reality.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[russotto]

Or giving preference to white individuals. But I think diversity is about being underrepresented in the field. Are white individuals underrepresented in all of tech?

Oh, yes, it's even worse than the numbers indicate; the racial diversity numbers are given only for US nationals, and most tech companies include a considerable number of employees on work visas; most of those employees are non-white.

But, what we white people lack in numbers, we make up for in deviltry. We are, after all, the original sin and the source of all evil.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[ShanghaiBill]

And yet, in fields dominated by women (education, childcare, nursing, human resources) we see practically zero push for diversity in order to hire more men.

Actually, there is a push to get more men involved in early education. Boys, and especially black boys, tend to do significantly better if their teachers are male, and girls do no worse. Female teachers are four times as likely to refer boys to be medically evaluated for HDD. Males teachers are more likely to make the kid run some laps around the playground.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

You also might notice, women aren't making a huge push for "diversity" across other male dominated fields, like garbage truck driver. I don't see Google throwing around millions of dollars to train girls how to be welders. This shit isn't about diversity, it's about driving wages down across the board.

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the alternative is the type of shit that constantly gets touted here, I'll take a SJW any day.

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[SuperKendall]

Ask me how I know you're a bigot.

Doesn't make it right, no matter the target.

Hate ends when everyone learns to stop hating... you included.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Ol Olsoc]

Actually, there is a push to get more men involved in early education. Boys, and especially black boys, tend to do significantly better if their teachers are male, and girls do no worse. Female teachers are four times as likely to refer boys to be medically evaluated for HDD. Males teachers are more likely to make the kid run some laps around the playground.

Of course young students need a male influence. It's a little difficult to imagine that the male is needed only for insemination purposes.

But you see, a male in a field like teaching is automatically assumed to be a pedophile, and in secondary education, considered a sure bet to be into underage girls.

Of course this is not true, and there are female pedophiles as well, but as a wise man once told me, Perception is indistinguishable from truth if everyone hold that perception.

If ladies think that seeing a photo of a playboy model's face or a dongle joke keeps them out of a field, they need to try the experience all of the mothers telling everyone that "There's something a little odd about that Mr Smith don't you think? I mean why would a grown man want to teach first graders?" And so it starts. It will take a societal change that isn't going to happen any time soon. There is no amount of money that they could pay me to be in a field where the "customers, and probably half the co-workers would assume I was using the classroom as a sexual partner procurement venue.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, any push to get more men involved in education is useless as long as the mere accusation of misconduct results in the male teacher losing their job and having their life ruined even when no evidence is present and all sane people agree it's a baseless accusation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04/10/bc-teacher-suing-false-accusations_n_7042732.html

http://jezebel.com/5802627/teachers-life-upended-by-false-molestation-accusation

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you'll take the bigoted hate cult of SJWism over people pointing out that all racism and sexism is bad and harms all people.

Gotcha.

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with being an SJW is that it's only a matter of time before the other SJWs turn on you because you fell on the wrong side of their latest crusade, or you didn't "do enough" to support their current agenda.

In fact, it's quite funny to watch the stupid bastards tear each other apart like hungry dogs trapped in a kennel.

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[hambone142]

"Diversity" means *my idea* diversity, not your idea of diversity.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me clarify what I meant in http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8631669&cid=51326475
Also, I think my post was misunderstood given that it's modded down.

The person I replied to mentioned, "should Asians be terminated so more people of other colors (and whites) can be hired?"
I replied, "Or giving preference to white individuals"
I think I was thinking not terminated, but given preference. Like if we were to actually give like an affirmative action type thing to white individuals.
Shove that issue aside and let's focus on why the ratios are what they are. Is there a reason why Apple has so many Asians hired relative to the U.S. population (assuming this is only factoring in the U.S. population)? Is discrimination happening? Or are there social reasons for what is happening? Has a push for diversity actually skewed the results so far that it ended up like this (probably not)? Other questions go here, etc.

In other words, we should be asking questions and finding out why things are as they are, and if there are actually any problems at all. Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't. I don't know.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[epyT-R]

Education is a minefield for men nowadays. It's gynocentric as hell.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

The quote you are responding to doesn't say there is no push, it just said we never see it. I think this is a reasonable point. The narrative is that tech is keeping some groups out, but I dare you to go talk to a group of teachers or nurses and even hint that they are in their field for any reason other than that they are self-sacrificing altruists.

We should at least consider that the issue is more about where women are being drawn to as much as where they are being excluded from.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is a push to get more men involved in early education.

For clarification, by "push", we mean that occasionally people mumble "Yeah that might be nice," before continuing "but I think that misses the real point that we need to legislate for more women to be appointed to..."

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Dog-Cow]

There's a push to get men into nursing. For pragmatic reasons, though, not social-crusader type reasons.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

The recent study done by the department for education in the UK got zero publicity.

It showed that female teachers mark a test result down by 3-4% simply because it has a boy's name on it.

There was no corresponding effect for male teachers - they marked fairly.

No-one seemed to ask the obvious question: why have we allowed feminists to take over the education system and actively damage the prospect of young boys?

Follow up question: what do we intend to do about it? I'm guessing the answer is... nothing.. cos reasons.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[thesandtiger]

There are also efforts to get more men involved in nursing.

These dudes who say "men aren't being recruited" are intentionally pushing an agenda and ignoring reality to do so.

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[loufoque]

Why don't female teachers recommend SSDs instead? Much more efficient!

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[loufoque]

When hiring, whites (jews excluded) will attempt to not discriminate based on race, but will still have a slight bias to prefer other whites.
Other races, however, will outright prefer hiring the same race as them.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, in fields dominated by women (education, childcare, nursing, human resources) we see practically zero push for diversity in order to hire more men.

Actually, there is a push to get more men involved in early education. Boys, and especially black boys, tend to do significantly better if their teachers are male, and girls do no worse. Female teachers are four times as likely to refer boys to be medically evaluated for HDD. Males teachers are more likely to make the kid run some laps around the playground.

Except it's done for practical reasons (ie. as it should be), not for the sake of "diversity" / social justice.

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[AmiMoJo]

How do you get from "it would be nice if you had a more representative workforce" to "it would be nice if you had an unrepresentative workforce that excludes white males"?

Opposition to diversity = feelings of inadequacy, because you know you suck too much to compete without an advantage. Look, you can't even form a reasoned, logical argument!

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the advantage is "not being white" then there should be some frustration.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Plumpaquatsch]

And yet, in fields dominated by women (education, childcare, nursing, human resources) we see practically zero push for diversity in order to hire more men.

Let me guess: you got your job because of a push to hire more blind people.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Plumpaquatsch]

I don't see Google throwing around millions of dollars to train girls how to be welders.

I don't see them spending a single cent for males to be welders either. If that's the best you can do...

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are trivially wrong, and a simple google search demonstrates this.

There ARE organizations out there lobbying and advocating for more male involvement in the early childhood education and nursing fields. As those are the two that get trotted out *constantly*.

Go google "gender diversity in /field/" where /field/ is one of: education, childcare, nursing, hr.

You will find scholarly articles, trade journals, organizations, and advocacy groups for all of them littering the first few pages of results.

You happen to HEAR about the "gender diversity in tech" push because it impacts you directly. That doesn't mean it ONLY exists in tech - it just means you live in a little, sheltered bubble and ignore everything else in the world around you that doesn't have a direct impact on you.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[AmiMoJo]

Are those two statements connected? Are you saying that being allegedly gynocentric makes it a minefield for men?

In the UK the experience has been that if you work to get rid of the stigma, much of it from other men, the problem corrects.

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, it's racist and and awful practice either way. Hiring someone solely because they are white is just as dumb as hiring someone solely because they aren't.

The solution to an unfair advantage of hiring based on what race the applicant is, is not to start hiring based on what race the applicant isn't.
The solution is to not have race (or gender, or religion or hair color or insert under-reprensented here) even be in there at all.
It would be great if a person's resume wouldn't have their name on it and all interviews were kept anonymous so as to prevent any perceived bias, so that way a person was judged on experience/competency alone, but I don't see that happening.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please say you are not really that stupid.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[tlhIngan]

You also might notice, women aren't making a huge push for "diversity" across other male dominated fields, like garbage truck driver. I don't see Google throwing around millions of dollars to train girls how to be welders. This shit isn't about diversity, it's about driving wages down across the board.

Well, if you're going to be specific like that, perhaps not. But among professional drivers (notably, truck drivers) there is an increase in female drivers. And the work is hard.

And Google doesn't need to increase female welders - welders aren't a part of Google's business. Though, there is a push for more women in trades, including welding.

And other male-dominated fields, like aviation, are making strides attracting females, including into mechanics and pilots, both of whom are in the low single digit percentages. There are a few well known groups dedicated to getting more women into aviation, and they're starting young these days by attracting them as kids.

Of course, one of the biggest issues is stereotypes remain - teachers are female, as are nurses, while doctors and mechanics are male. It's hard to beat since it's been culturally ingrained since birth and reinforced through tv shows, books, etc.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

I think specifically the problem with education is that some parents - often mothers, but not always - fear that a male teacher is a pedophile or otherwise unsavory. Obviously, this is a stigma that should be removed, but I disagree that much of it is from other men, at least in education. In fields like nursing I could see men being the source of more of the stigma.

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, it's racist and and awful practice either way. Hiring someone solely because they are white is just as dumb as hiring someone solely because they aren't.

Yes, I agree. Of course, you and I both know that that's NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE ANYWAY, and you're just setting up idiotic straw men to try and convince yourself that your objections are rooted in anything other than a pernicious brand of racism.

What you are alleging is, essentially, that Google commando teams are descending on random inner city neighborhoods, snatching up dozens of young black people, and installing them in Principal Software Engineer positions, regardless of their qualifications, education, and aptitude.

What is ACTUALLY happening is, companies are:
1) Making more of an effort to reach out to underrepresented communities - to find, and encourage, the talented people in those communities.
2) Instituting educational programs that will foster interest in the topics within these under-represented communities.
3) Actually finding that some people, given the opportunity and the training which institutional repression has limited their access to, will pursue careers in the tech field and succeed.

Please explain how this harms you in any way. Nobody is being "given a job" because they are black. Nobody is being "given a job" because they are a woman. Companies in a field which has been historically hostile to some minorities are making an effort to reach out and include those people, and welcome them. And you know what? It's the *right* thing to do. But apparently in your eyes, justice should be blind ONLY when the programs in question aren't providing you with an advantage.

Toughen up buttercup. If you can't compete and are being replaced by an abducted, high school dropout foundling from the inner city of Detroit, maybe it's time to go work at McDonald's and leave the tech industry behind.

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain how this harms you in any way. Nobody is being "given a job" because they are black. Nobody is being "given a job" because they are a woman.

How's life on Mars been treating you? Do the caves keep you warm? I'm guessing they don't, which is why you've had your hands over your ears the entire time. Is it the dust storms that makes you keep your eyes shut or is the red sky just that dreary?

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain how this harms you in any way. Nobody is being "given a job" because they are black. Nobody is being "given a job" because they are a woman.

Because when people say "Diversity" they don't mean equality in opportunity (e.g. applicants), they mean is equality in results (e.g. employees).

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ad hominem. Try again, champ.

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because when people say "Diversity" they don't mean equality in opportunity (e.g. applicants), they mean is equality in results (e.g. employees).

Again, you're making up straw men. Show me an honest to god instance of how a company's pursuit of diversity has harmed you. Not rhetoric, a specific instance where a job was given to an unqualified black guy or woman, instead of to you, the presumably far more qualified and incredibly disadvantaged white guy.

If you can't do it, then you should have the decency to admit that what motivates you is - even if you don't like to admit it - racism. A fear that some black, female, hispanic, asian, disabled, or queer person is going to somehow STEAL UR JERBS.

If you had two brain cells to rub together, you would understand that - absent some scientific evidence that says "people of african descent are just genetically predisposed to hate technology," then it's a short, logical leap to understand that "equality of results" (employees) and "equality of opportunity" (applicants) are closely related, and that you can't have the former without the latter. In a completely "blind" society where everybody is equal, any given profession should largely reflect the demographic makeup of the population. Since that's dramatically NOT the case here, then I'd love to hear your thoughts on why this distortion is occurring. Are black people incapable of using computers? Do they have some sort of genetic flaw that makes them avoid tech jobs? Or is the educational and economic system largely geared towards excluding them in favor of the white majority?

My money's on the third option. But I'd love to hear your actual reasoning, not just vaguely related rhetoric you're parroting from someone else here on Slashdot because you think it makes you sound clever.

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, you're making up straw men. Show me an honest to god instance of how a company's pursuit of diversity has harmed you. Not rhetoric, a specific instance where a job was given to an unqualified black guy or woman, instead of to you, the presumably far more qualified and incredibly disadvantaged white guy.

So I shouldn't care about something unless I'm personally affected? That sounds rather selfish

If you had two brain cells to rub together...

Nice Ad hominem

... is the educational and economic system largely geared towards excluding them in favor of the white majority?

My money's on the third option.

OK, let's go with that. So a business should hire/interview someone, who is (unfairly) underqualified because of the educational system?

But I'd love to hear your actual reasoning, not just vaguely related rhetoric you're parroting from someone else here on Slashdot because you think it makes you sound clever.

This starting to get a bit heated, so let's take a step back. The issue seems to be the vague definition of 'equality'. This could be what causes a lot of disagreements as people are thinking different definitions. Equal to what? The average population? Then Caucasians would have an unfair advantage. Equal amounts of race applicants per job opening? Then Caucasians have an unfair disadvantage.
Let's say your company has a job opening? Who do you interview? Who do you hire?

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I shouldn't care about something unless I'm personally affected? That sounds rather selfish

No, you should care about something that is *actually happening*, not fanciful notions of how unfair life could be that you read about here on Slashdot. I've asked for a citation of a documented instance where companies are being forced to hire underqualified candidates in preference to presumably more-qualified (or just white) applicants. You huffed and puffed, and provided nothing.

OK, let's go with that. So a business should hire/interview someone, who is (unfairly) underqualified because of the educational system?

Where have I said that, at all? You're trying to twist my comments to be "hire unqualified people! Steal our JERBS!" because that's the ONLY reason you can think of for someone to be in favor of broader outreach programs. I'll go so far as to say that they SHOULD even be encouraged to participate in programs where under-served minorities are offered opportunities for better education and exposure to the industry. Which is exactly what's happening here. Apple isn't saying, "We don't have enough black people, so we're going to just hire rando black dudes from South Central." They're saying, "In order to increase our diversity, we're going to actively try to find and hire more qualified black people, AND help fund programs where young black people can get more education and exposure in related fields, so that maybe someday, they'll grow up to be qualified applicants, and increase the pool of qualified applicants."

You keep repeating that this amounts to "hiring unqualified" people - and I'll once more challenge you to provide me with a single documented instance of that happening. You haven't yet, and I don't expect you to now, but... surprise me.

Equal to what? The average population? Then Caucasians would have an unfair advantage. Equal amounts of race applicants per job opening? Then Caucasians have an unfair disadvantage.

The premise of "diversity" is that a company's workforce should be generally reflective of the society that company is a part of. And, unless you have some hard scientific data that supports the notion that certain groups of people are inherently, genetically unsuited to do technical work, then it's a reasonable starting point to begin with. Let's assume you have a 50/30/20 percentage breakdown in your population - 50% white, 30% asian, 20% black. If your workforce is 60% white, 38% asian, and 2% black, then it demands the question of why: why are black people such a small portion of that workforce? There are plenty of possible explanations:

Possible hypotheses:
1) Black people are inherently incapable of doing technical work.
2) Black people are being discouraged from applying to these jobs.
3) Black people are being ignored when they do apply to these jobs.
4) Black people are applying in vast numbers, but they are, on the whole, underqualified and unsuitable for the position.
5) Black people are inherently disinterested in doing technical work.

Of these, only #1 is a *definitive* proof that racism is not a problem. #2, 3 are overt racism. #4 points to a failure in the educational system - which could be due to funding, or institutional racism. And for #5, it's unlikely you're going to find a genetic basis for it, which means that it's more social construct than genetic imperative.

Feel free to add to the list of hypotheses. But please do note that most of them are not objective proof of inherent bias - most are consequences of discriminatory social and hiring policies.

Now, to address your questions:

Then Caucasians would have an unfair advantage.

Why? It seems like you're putting words in someone's mouth here. If you had the 50/30/20 population breakdown I proposed above, given a "fair" distribution of education across the population, you

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[epyT-R]

Only if you buy into the idea that it's all men's fault and women have no agency, which is a load of crap. Women are just able to impose their own social and psychological dominance on men.

Re:Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[epyT-R]

Are you saying that women can't impose stigma about men? I would point out all those morning talk shows hosted by women as examples of a casually misandric culture, much of it created by feminism. That dynamic prevails in schools now, and it disadvantages boys by treating them and expecting them to behave like girls.

Re: Need to replace Asians with everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you should care about something that is *actually happening*, not fanciful notions of how unfair life could be that you read about here on Slashdot. I've asked for a citation of a documented instance where companies are being forced to hire underqualified candidates in preference to presumably more-qualified (or just white) applicants. You huffed and puffed, and provided nothing.

Maybe that's it though. In my anecdotal experience as someone in technology, I can't even remember the last time we hired a white male, so reading articles like this makes it seem like something In my anecdotal experience is still "not good enough" and people will never be happy.

Why [would that give Caucasians an unfair advantage]?

If the applicants are reflective of the population, and more of the population is Caucasian, there are more applications by Caucasians and (all other things being equal) a higher likelihood that the one chosen would be Caucasian.

It seems like you're putting words in someone's mouth here. If you had the 50/30/20 population breakdown I proposed above, given a "fair" distribution of education across the population, you would expect to see local variations in the applicant pool for a single job, but over time, and given a large industry, you'd expect your workforce to be roughly reflective of that society

Right that's the possible different idea of 'equality'.
Would 50/30/20 in the workforce be equal since the population is 50/30/20? (what you're saying)
Do you go by the breakdown of the people that use your product/service instead of population?
As a very different definition, would it be 33/33/33 since they are equal to each other?

Also, they ignore various positions. You could have a breakdown of 50/30/20 in the company but the 50 is manager/vp level, 30 mid and 20 grunt-level. I doubt people would be happy with that. I'm sure the idea is that it should be 50/30/20 across all of those, but then what of areas where there is only one person such as CEO, or to stay tech focused, CTO?

As a cis white male

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect a beer from my Asian colleagues for taking the brunt of the scapegoating.

Why is this important?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is why this is even an issue in the first place, and why does a corporation need to collect and record a persons race? Is it really any of their fucking business?

Re:Why is this important?

[Kohath]

Because dividing people is one of the routes to power. Here's the plan:

1. Find a population of people who are doing adequately. Not perfectly, but they're getting by.

2. Divide them into 2 groups. Encourage one group to hate the other. Hatred between the groups can be based on
- Fictional stories
- True stories of bad things that happened to people who died a very long time ago
- Envy
- Minor problems hyped up into a major drama
- Entitlement mentality
- Or something else. It's not hard. People hating each other is built into human nature.

3. Lead (or "organize") one of the groups against the other. Viola! You're the leader, you have power. Now you can use your power to demand payments -- which you'll get to keep a large part of.

That's what "organizers" do. They're fighting for you!

That's why employees must be categorized by ethnicity.

Re:Why is this important?

[Kohath]

Furthermore, there's a certain word you will want to use when encouraging people to hate each other. Hatred makes people want to hurt their enemies. But people don't like to think of themselves as evil. And intending to harm others seems evil to people (because it is). So you need a way to make it good to hurt people rather than evil.

Fortunately for you, there's a ready-made concept that solves your problem perfectly: justice. You can hurt whomever you wish and still call yourself a hero simply by declaring it justice. There's nothing quite like justice to quiet the nagging voices of morals and ethics.

Re:Why is this important?

[0100010001010011]

2. Give one of them a red lab coat.

Re:Why is this important?

[gfxguy]

Agreed - as long as there's equal opportunity, the results don't mean jack, and will never, on their own, be proof of a lack of opportunity.

Re:Why is this important?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, how I miss Better Off Ted

-LaurenC

Re:Why is this important?

[chihowa]

It's also a classic strategy for the ruling class to keep attention away from their own misdeeds and weaken the population's ability to effectively criticize or hold them accountable: Divide and rule. In more recent history, the British Empire were masters at it (with some of their instigated divisions still raging), but it's been consistently throughout history.

Re:Why is this important?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, wait, are you saying we should be against justice? Set up some kind of injustice league, if you will?

Re:Why is this important?

[Kohath]

When hurting people is called justice and not hurting people is called injustice, a good person should side with not hurting people, regardless of the label and any surrounding storytelling. Because hurting people is evil.

Outrageous

[Trogre]

How dare Apple call something that is unduly burdensome and not necessary, "unduly burdensome and not necessary".

Re:Outrageous

[sectokia]

How dare they hire people based on race rather than skills and ability, that is the government's job, not theirs!

Re:Outrageous

[Ol Olsoc]

Apple Princess In Charge can't create, and now it appears can't count. Maybe Princess should take his crap somewhere else, more rewarding like Sri Lanka?

You seem to be fixated on thinking about him as a Disney Princess, eh?

No one cares about that shit any more. 'cept you and Kim Davis.

Re:Outrageous

[AmiMoJo]

Burdensome and unnecessary* for them perhaps, but so are many laws, regulations, safety standards etc. We still expect them to make the effort.

* Actually diversity benefits companies, so really they are just wasting money by sucking at it.

Re:Outrageous

[LifesABeach]

Sorry American, your to Stupid to know; just ask the princess.

Re:Outrageous

[LifesABeach]

Sorry American, you're to Stupid to know; just ask the princess. (Damn spell checkers. An American product?)

Re:Outrageous

[Ol Olsoc]

Sorry American, your to Stupid to know; just ask the princess.

Sorry American, you're to Stupid to know; just ask the princess. (Damn spell checkers. An American product?)

Congratulations, LifesABeach - you've got more than one mistake in there, and still missing one of them.

Thank you kindly for the laugh.

WHO CARES?!

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of drek is this - IZ APPL HIRIN THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF COLORED PEOPLES?!

Did they hire the right people for the job? Are they qualified candidates? Did they practice REAL diversity and hire from outside the normal channels that show great promise but might not have all the standard academic credentials?

Do we really want a COLOR BLIND society or are we just reinstituting segregationist policies because Apple doesn't have enough "colored water fountains"

Re:WHO CARES?!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Did they practice REAL diversity and hire from outside the normal channels that show great promise but might not have all the standard academic credentials?

Now that would be interesting to see if they hired anyone who wasn't from a top 5 program. We all know there are a lot of talented geeks who don't always shine in academic settings, but get it done in "real life". Is Apple hiring those guys, or letting them go to a competitor?

Re:WHO CARES?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we really want a COLOR BLIND society or are we just reinstituting segregationist policies because Apple doesn't have enough "colored water fountains"

yes, but the shakedown artists and race baiters who are the ones who harp on this shit certainly don't.

Re:WHO CARES?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you heard? Color blindness is now racism.

Where the hell is the article?

[Fwipp]

I clicked every dang link in that summary and couldn't figure out what the source article was. If this is your own personal research, have the decency to sum it up in a blog post instead of jamming it into the slashdot summary.

Re:Where the hell is the article?

[AHuxley]

Its in the (qz.com) after the word Weekend.
http://qz.com/594920/apples-mo...

we hired more than 2,200 Black employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done as we all know how hard it is to find a monkey trained at math.

Re: we hired more than 2,200 Black employees

[amiga3D]

See, it's shitstains like you that cause the problems. If we could just get the bigots to shut the fuck up and quit agitating everyone maybe we could fix some things but nooooooooooooo! Dickweeds like you pop out of the woodwork like cockroaches every single time. We've got you idiots on one side and Jesse and Al on the other.

Re: we hired more than 2,200 Black employees

[LifesABeach]

Prove it by getting a job at Apple? How about joining the zombie chorus that all Americans are all Dumb Asses. Just like Princess Timmy does.

Re: we hired more than 2,200 Black employees

[amiga3D]

So you think trying to hire qualified minorities is the same as trying to find monkeys that can do math? Really?

Re: we hired more than 2,200 Black employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that's raciest. Everyone knows there's significantly more qualified minorities than there are blacks who can do math. But they are musical, aren't they?

Re: we hired more than 2,200 Black employees

[amiga3D]

Die already. Just die.

Re: we hired more than 2,200 Black employees

[LifesABeach]

Best thing to do is not feed the A/C, it will move on.

"Quietly". Please stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does every second article need to have this useless buzz-word for many months now.
Dear Slashdot, please stop using it.
Your client base.

Re:"Quietly". Please stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's code for "someone had to work this weekend/holiday and write an article"

Percentage of colored editors at slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many you guys got?

Just curious since it seems to be so important to you...

How about female editors?

Race? Gender?

[youngone]

I don't care about the whole diversity thing, and apparently neither does my employer, because when they wanted to show us how inclusive they are as an employer, and how they employ people of all races they sent five white middle aged males to tell us. Oh, how the women and various ethnic groups laughed.

Re:Race? Gender?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because white males, unlike males of any other race or etnicity, are completely unable to explain inclusiveness if there are no token-vagina's and people of colour to help them along? Is that what you're implying? Because that would be immeasurably stupid.

Re: Race? Gender?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's totally acceptable to make jokes about white men who aren't 20-somethings?

Who were these men and why were they chosen to give that talk? Did they have some special qualifications? Is their race, gender, or (especially around here) age a disqualifier for being able to speak on a topic?

See, I usually laugh when the diversity speech is always given by minorities who were obviously selected for the task because of their skin color. They're usually the same ones who were selected for their actual jobs because of their skin color too. I notice that people of any race who are qualified for their positions usually don't want to have much to do with that nonsense.

For crying out loud

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we go again...a story about 'racism' or something spun as a 'diversity' issue...seriously why not just call the report the '2015 EEO-1 racism report'? Or would that be too obvious as to what stick those with an agenda are trying to smack them with now.

I'm no lover of Apple but this is just stupid.

How about we have a report that identifies the 'number of qualified applicants hired' or is that not all that matters. In fact I find it racist to even be asked what 'race'/creed/gender/age (as opposed to 'amount of experience with x') or other 'non-functional attribute' I am that has nothing to do with the skill set needed to do the job.

Gathering data on this is racist out of the box. Can we quit with this 'diversity' crap already!

How would hiring Tiger Woods count?

[dsmatthews9379]

Given he is Afro-Asian? Does he get counted as 0.5 of a black person? i.e. What minority do you count or favour?

This idea of race is increasingly becoming irrelevant.

If you want a better metric, for the purpose of mitigating disadvantage, you should count every employee multiplied by a factor between 0 and 1 based on the economic and academic status of their parents.

what are they supposed to be?

[ooloorie]

White employees accounted for 50.6%, Asian for 42.1%

So, what are those numbers even "supposed" to be? The "white" percentage is way below US population averages, and likely between US customer demographics. Depending on how big Apple is in Asia, the current statistics may well represent Apple's worldwide customer base.

Can some progressive expert in the calculus of intersectionality and race explain what the percentages ought to be and why?

Re:what are they supposed to be?

[gfxguy]

.... what the percentages ought to be and why?

Pondering the implications of using such a metric for hiring... and it's not pretty.

Pure polemic

[gnasher719]

theodp, what you write is pure polemic. So Apple "dismissed a call for diversity". Here's the actual text of the rejected proposal at the last shareholder meeting:

"Shareholders request that the Board of Directors adopt an accelerated recruitment policy requiring Apple Inc. (the âoeCompanyâ) to increase the diversity of senior management and its board of directors, two bodies that presently fails to adequately represent diversity (particularly Hispanic, African-American, Native-American and other people of color)."

So Apple is supposed to create new senior management or board positions or fire existing senior management or board members, in order to hire "people of color" (strange enough, an expression that you wouldn't dare using in the UK).

Re:Pure polemic

[gfxguy]

My dad says "colored" to refer to black people... it makes me cringe, but he's a remnant of his generation (raised in the 1930s). But then in PC America, calling black people black instead of "African Americans" makes a lot of other people cringe. It makes me cringe when the news refers to blacks in other countries as "African Americans."

So, yeah, in PC America, the demographics in a company must match the demographics of the country, otherwise they're "racists." Nobody wants equal opportunity any more... they weren't happy with the results.

I had a black social studies teacher in middle school who insisted the only way to equality was to have 50% black representation in congress. Yes, people actually think that way.

Re:Pure polemic

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad says "colored" to refer to black people... it makes me cringe, but he's a remnant of his generation (raised in the 1930s)..

And yet the NAACP (http://www.naacp.org/), the "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" uses this term. Please email them, tell them to stop, how it makes you "cringe", then post the response here. please?

Re:Pure polemic

[gfxguy]

I know, but black people consider the use of the word "colored" to be racist, and I agree - it's as if white people are "normal," and other races are colored. It only makes me cringe because I know he only uses it to be anti-pc. NAACP is caught up in their own PC.

Arsenio Hall had a joke way back when that the reason they don't change NAACP to NAAAA is because people would call it "nah."

What can a company do?

[AHuxley]

Staff need to be found on merit so they can design the future. Consumers pay a lot for branding over very low production costs and ensure a great profit.
That takes real skills and smarts. Good branding and profits per device needs the best staff.
How to get the very best people for the job?
Find people who have had access to study and who had the freedom to learn to like and enjoy further education.
Good new reading material, small class sizes, new equipment, professional teachers who could advance learning rather than teach how to just pass state and federal testing.
Once the few region of educational excellence in a nation have been mapped out, focus recruiting within the very best of the best over every generation.
People who have had the pleasure and time to enjoy history and can project into the future wants of the average consumer. Then place new advanced products on any production lines that ensure a good profit growth.
Finally have a sales team to tell the world about the joy of working with good design. Smart staff can play a charismatic role in keeping the media well away from the production lines and any questions about gov crypto trap doors.
Just as the role of taxation was considered so should any nations further educational demands on a company.

Apple seems to hire them

[SuperKendall]

From the few people I know who have worked at Apple, Apple does not just hire from the top schools at all or those with a heavy academic background only...

I'm thinking Google must hire pretty much anyone at this point too, I think at one point they only hired PHd's but there's no way they could expand as they have keeping up that kind of criteria.

How about they start hiring some mentally disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many they have now. Not all of us are geniuses, the median iq is 100. Apple should hire to reflect that - all people, not based on skin color, but on what's inside.

They said how many they hired.

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't say how many they fired.

A Timely Response to Shareholders

[Anonymous Coward]

Shareholders recently voted on whether Apple should release this info or not. It seems that enough wanted to see it that the company made it so. Nice to see them respond to the shareholder's vote in such a timely manner.

As for whether it's useful? I guess we'll see.

Let's fast-forward to

[RightwingNutjob]

when the animal rights nutters and the diversity nutters decide to join forces and hire a thousand monkeys to crank out our code for us. Oh wait...

50% homos

[Anonymous Coward]

I call this: Mission Accomplished!

Unduly burdensome and not necessary ..

[tetraverse]

It isn't the function of a commercial company to fix societies diversity issues. Apple is there to make money for the investors. People should get promoted depending on merit and not just to fill some quota.

Re:Unduly burdensome and not necessary ..

[Anonymous Coward]

> People should get promoted depending on merit

In the upper echelons of corporate America, I think the case could be made that this isn't really happening with or without the PC quota nonsense.

Re:How about they start hiring some mentally disab

[gfxguy]

I think some of the decisions they've made in the past indicate they already have.

If Apple wants to show diversity

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they make more iPhones in black?

Bad Whites, Stop It

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this only happening in white countries? Seriously you don't see asian/black/indian/etc countires doing this bullshit.

If white people are so fucking awful then why do people come to our predominately white countries in droves? And why do they complain when they get here? I do not understand.

Moreover why are companies hiring "token" unqualified minorities, or women, or ANYONE for that matter that is not qualified. If this was the health care profession we would put our foot down and say FUCK THAT the janitor is not doing my quadruple bypass but because it's "tech" we're all a bunch of fucking pussies about it.

I was asked if I would mentor people at my job, my response is why are they hiring unqualified people in the first place, this isn't an adult daycare. Didn't even get an answer...

TJ Rodgers on Diversity

[forbin_meet_hal]

(Of course, he's talking about the board versus the general employee base.) "Choosing a Board of Directors based on race and gender is a lousy way to run a company. Cypress will never do it. Furthermore, we will never be pressured into it, because bowing to well-meaning, special-interest groups is an immoral way to run a company, given all the people it would hurt. We simply cannot allow arbitrary rules to be forced on us by organizations that lack business expertise. I would rather be labeled as a person who is unkind to religious groups than as a coward who harms his employees and investors by mindlessly following high-sounding, but false, standards of right and wrong." More here: http://www.cypress.com/documen...