|
|
|
|
|
|
by clipsy
47 days ago
|
|
|
That sounds simplistic and worthy of criticism in some ways, but how is it "textbook racial discrimination"? You're jumping from "they were required to interview a person of color" to "they discriminated against white people" without demonstrating the latter, and judging by the statistical overrepresentation of white people in powerful roles it doesn't hold water. All this does is force the hiring manager to interview a more diverse set of candidates; the expectation is still that the most qualified will ultimately be hired. Edit: Actually, it does deserve criticism for assuming that there are white people and men in the interview pool, regardless of the fact that this is almost certainly true; a better approach (similar to what my own employer does) would be to require that the interview pool included candidates of at least two races and of both genders (or "at least two gender identities," if you prefer). Statistically, though, I'm not sure it makes a significant difference. Nevertheless, fair point. |
|
|
1. Apple posts a job, interviews a white guy and wants to make an offer
2. Diversity quota not met, interview a person of color
3. At this point if you hire the person of color the white person didn't get the job purely because of their race. This is textbook racial discrimination.
4. If you decide to hire the white person anyway, then you interviewed the black person purely for performative reasons.
The only possible outcomes to this system are discrimination based on immutable characteristics or purely performative interviews that waste everyone's time.
>the statistical overrepresentation of white people in powerful roles
This is also completely wrong:
https://www.apple.com/diversity/
White people are actually UNDER represented because there is so much discrimination against them now.
This over-representation thing is a myth which never made sense in the first place.
In 1992 the USA was 76% white (not evenly distributed, many states were actually 90+%), and every year since then we have dramatically increased diversity, but the diversity has not come with a uniform distribution. Much of it has been illegal border crossings or people imported for very specific types of work visas. Expecting companies' racial distributions to perfectly match these huge changes in demographics was a completely impossible task that can only be accomplished with outright discrimination. For example from 1992 -> 1999 the Hispanic population increased by 40%, but many Hispanics who came to the US were not educated in Computer Science and ended up working in industries like construction. If that's true then why is it reasonable to expect that Apple's (or any other company/institution) representation of Hispanics should automatically increase to match their new share of the population?
Also an interesting aside: Apple has since scrubbed ESG reports from their site and no longer publish nearly as much diversity information, likely because they have discriminated so heavily and much of what they are doing would not hold up in court.