Apple-diversity-01

Following Apple CEO Tim Cook’s announcement last month that the company would soon begin providing diversity data, today the company is releasing its first report. While disclosing numbers on the gender and ethnicity of its employees, CEO Tim Cook has also published a letter alongside the report on the company’s website (full version below).

In the letter, Cook highlights some of the progress the company has made in recent years, but also notes that he’s “not satisfied with the numbers” and that Apple plans to do more to improve them. 

Apple is committed to transparency, which is why we are publishing statistics about the race and gender makeup of our company. Let me say up front: As CEO, I’m not satisfied with the numbers on this page. They’re not new to us, and we’ve been working hard for quite some time to improve them. We are making progress, and we’re committed to being as innovative in advancing diversity as we are in developing our products…

Apple is also a sponsor of the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest LGBT rights organization, as well as the National Center for Women & Information Technology, which is encouraging young women to get involved in technology and the sciences. The work we do with these groups is meaningful and inspiring. We know we can do more, and we will.

Apple’s report shows that 7 out of 10 of its employees worldwide are currently male while its workforce in the US is made up of 55% white, 15% Asian, 11% Hispanic, and 7% Black. Another 2% identify as more than one ethnicity while the remaining 9 percent chose not to declare. The report also provides a breakdown of U.S. race and ethnicity in tech, non-tech, and leadership roles:

Along with the data published today, Apple has posted stories from employees and a new video on its www.apple.com/diversity website:

Last month during the Sun Valley conference in Idaho, Tim Cook told reporters that Apple would soon begin releasing diversity data on its workforce.

Screen Shot 2014-08-12 at 12.15.30 PM

Cook’s full letter published today is below:

A Message from Tim Cook.

At Apple, our 98,000 employees share a passion for products that change people’s lives, and from the very earliest days we have known that diversity is critical to our success. We believe deeply that inclusion inspires innovation.

Our definition of diversity goes far beyond the traditional categories of race, gender, and ethnicity. It includes personal qualities that usually go unmeasured, like sexual orientation, veteran status, and disabilities. Who we are, where we come from, and what we’ve experienced influence the way we perceive issues and solve problems. We believe in celebrating that diversity and investing in it.

Apple is committed to transparency, which is why we are publishing statistics about the race and gender makeup of our company. Let me say up front: As CEO, I’m not satisfied with the numbers on this page. They’re not new to us, and we’ve been working hard for quite some time to improve them. We are making progress, and we’re committed to being as innovative in advancing diversity as we are in developing our products.

Inclusion and diversity have been a focus for me throughout my time at Apple, and they’re among my top priorities as CEO. I’m proud to work alongside the many senior executives we’ve hired and promoted in the past few years, including Eddy Cue and Angela Ahrendts, Lisa Jackson and Denise Young-Smith. The talented leaders on my staff come from around the world, and they each bring a unique point of view based on their experience and heritage. And our board of directors is stronger than ever with the addition of Sue Wagner, who was elected in July.

I receive emails from customers around the world, and a name that comes up often is Kim Paulk. She’s a Specialist at the Apple Store on West 14th Street in Manhattan. Kim has a medical condition that has impaired her vision and hearing since she was a child. Our customers rave about Kim’s service, and they say she embodies the best characteristics of Apple. Her guide dog, Gemma, is affectionately known around the store as the “seeing iDog.”

When we think of diversity, we think of individuals like Kim. She inspires her coworkers and her customers as well.

We also think of Walter Freeman, who leads a procurement team here in Cupertino and was recently recognized by the National Minority Supplier Development Council. Last year, Walter’s team provided over $3 billion in business opportunities with Apple to more than 7,000 small businesses in the western United States.

Both Walter and Kim exemplify what we value in diversity. Not only do they enrich the experience of their coworkers and make our business stronger, but they extend the benefits of Apple’s diversity to our customers, into our supply chain and the broader economy. And there are many more people at Apple doing the same.

Above all, when we think of the diversity of our team, we think of the values and ideas they bring with them as individuals. Ideas drive the innovation that makes Apple unique, and they deliver the level of excellence our customers have come to expect.

Beyond the work we do creating innovative tools for our customers, improving education is one of the best ways in which Apple can have a meaningful impact on society. We recently pledged $100 million to President Obama’s ConnectED initiative to bring cutting-edge technologies to economically disadvantaged schools. Eighty percent of the student population in the schools we will equip and support are from groups currently underrepresented in our industry.

Apple is also a sponsor of the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest LGBT rights organization, as well as the National Center for Women & Information Technology, which is encouraging young women to get involved in technology and the sciences. The work we do with these groups is meaningful and inspiring. We know we can do more, and we will.

This summer marks the anniversary of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 — an opportunity to reflect on the progress of the past half-century and acknowledge the work that remains to be done. When he introduced the bill in June 1963, President Kennedy urged Congress to pass it “for the one plain, proud and priceless quality that unites us all as Americans: a sense of justice.”

All around the world, our team at Apple is united in the belief that being different makes us better. We know that each generation has a responsibility to build upon the gains of the past, expanding the rights and freedoms we enjoy to the many who are stillstriving for justice.

Together, we are committed to diversity within our company and the advancement of equality and human rights everywhere.

Tim

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

68 Responses to “Apple releases promised diversity data: 55% white in US, 7 out of 10 male”

      • Eli Matar says:

        Thank you. You probably should care also.
        How would you feel if you have a gay brother who’s really great at what he does, but cant get the job because of his private life.
        Or your mom can’t get a job at the grocery or drug store because she’s a woman.

        Like

      • If they’re skilled & talented, fine. But let’s make a report to appease whiny douches. Whoop-de-doo.

        Like

      • Your welcome. i care about getting a job because of my abilities. Not whether there is a shortage of blacks, or gays or women. I know, I was turned down a job before because of my color. So, don’t give these minority sob stories. You work hard and fight for what you want. You want a handout? Go get in the government cheese line.

        Like

      • Or how should I feel I did not get the job even though I scored higher and had higher test scores ect., because your gay or purple brother was signed on because he was a percentage point of a pie chart. If you high based on discrimination to fight discrimination. Do you want your doctor working on you to be the best of the best or a percentage point? I’m sorry but this policy is crap. I do not want the Dr. that is there because some old rich white guy wants to show world he feels bad about a past he, I, or you were never part of. End of rant.

        Like

      • Dean Har says:

        Steve Pounder, it’s actually a pretty complicated issue. Even being a doctor isn’t completely based on merit . For instance, a good classroom setting MCAT course can cost between $2400-$3000. Private lessons are thousands more. Because preparing for the MCAT can be pretty damn expensive, some people choose just to spend $150 for the books and study without help.

        – So who’s typically getting the higher score? Of course it’s the kid who got lessons from actual MCAT experts.
        – Which kid is paying for these expensive lessons? The son/daughter of that rich white old dude you were talking about.
        – Who’s most likely to self-study? The black or hispanic kid.

        Minorities are already underrepresented in college. Now you’re (unintentionally) marginalizing an already marginalized group. That’s why for med schools admission, a minority with a 3.7 GPA and 35 MCAT score will have a higher chance of acceptance than a white kid with a 3.7 GPA and 35 MCAT score. Yes you can also consider that discrimination, but it’s more superficial for whites while minorities have to face a more embedded form. Chances are, the minority from The Bronx had to work harder to get those same exact stats as the wealthy kid from Upper East Side Manhattan.

        There has been a lot of research that shows that a higher parent income means more educated and successful children and even things like less teen pregnancies (and yes this goes for ALL races). So when you combine this with the fact that whites ALREADY have the highest income and minorities the lowest, you realize you’ve just created a social structure where the rich will continue to be rich and the poor, poor.

        You’re right that it’s not really fair one way or the other, but one IS more unfair than the other.

        Like

    • I do too…. If you don’t it’s your problem !

      Like

      • I don’t have a problem. Apparently you do along with Apple. People like you feel like you got show that you’re diverse, that you’re ok with minorities. Shut up with this PC crap! As a black American I feel you should hire the people most qualified for the job. Who cares about your diversity statistics? Not me. If you care, good for you. Big deal!

        Like

      • Are you allowed to say “Black American”?
        Isn’t that racist to say in USA?
        Because I commented on another thread about “black” and apaprently that wasn’t politically correct enough and my comment got deleted.
        Then I retyped as “African American” and that barely didn’t make it either?

        But I’m glad that blacks can just say “black” without it meaning anything derogatory :)

        Like

    • I agree Robert, who cares unless it can be proven that ‘real prejudice’ exists; then it would be an issue.

      Like

      • herb02135go says:

        The numbers will probably be used in a lawsuit.

        Some purple dude who couldn’t do the work will claim it was a hostile environment because there were so few other purple dudes.

        Why are companies bothering to put this out there?

        Like

    • Tony Bowens says:

      I care as well.
      As much as everyone likes to pretend we live in a world where this doesn’t matter diversity in the tech industry is a large issue.

      Discrimination exists in both subtle and not so subtle ways in a highly profitable industry overwhelmingly dominated by white men.

      I’d have people look shocked when I’ve turned out to be black at a job interview because I don’t sound black on the phone and don’t have a “black” name.

      And a good friend of mine , who has a Stanford degree in Computer Science was told “oh good you can speak with the Janitor.” when he listed that he was fluent in spanish on his resume.

      Women and black people are extensively under represented and being transparent about that fact is a key first step in working toward figuring out why that’s the case.

      Sticking your head in the sand and saying “who cares” may be the current American mantra, but nothing will ever improve until this country learns to have a real conversation about race.

      I don’t buy the argument that having a discussion about an obvious issue immediately leads to calls for tokenism but at the same time when a company the size of Google manages to only have 2% black employees there is more than then simply “hiring the right person”

      Like

      • Who sticking their head in the sand? Me, because I don’t want people to just see me for my color?! Don’t be a fool. What I don’t care about is being put in this corporate race category. You might be ok with that, I’m not.

        Like

      • Tony Bowens says:

        Well 1. It’s Voluntary. Thus the undeclared section.

        And 2. Yes I do want it acknowledged that my background isn’t the same as everyone else’s. It’s not everything but it’s part of my identity and I don’t want that wiped away into one homogenous culture where everything different about me is stamped out as irrelevant.

        Like

      • So, they are doing this just to show that you have a different background? Who’s head is in the sand now?

        Like

      • thejuanald says:

        If you look at Apple’s statistics, black people are over represented in the non-tech field, about equally represented in tech, and under-represented in leadership. I guarantee if you average that out by number of black employees overall at Apple, you will see that they are represented about equal with the population (about 7% of Americans are black). This is probably actually really high because I doubt 100% of black people are actually interested in the tech field.

        Take the example of women in the tech field using easy to use numbers. Say the entire population of people is 1000, half of that are women. Women are notoriously not interested in the tech field, so, of those 500 women, say 100 of them (20% and I bet that’s high) are interested while 300 men are (60% and I bet that’s low). Now say there are 100 tech positions. If we are supposed to keep things equal, that means 50 of those jobs would go to women and 50 to men. Do you see the problem here? That means 50% of the women interested in the position would get the job while 16.7% of men get the job. I bet some of those 250 other men are way more qualified than some of those 50 women but they are out of jobs because they had to hire 50 women even though the pool for women was so small. The point is, you have to hire based on skill, not on percentages and it seems like people are swaying towards hiring based off of gender and racial percentages these days more than skill.

        To your point though, I’m hispanic and I have had my share of discrimination, and that’s a bad thing. True discrimination should be addressed. This stuff, nah that’s just silly.

        Like

      • nsxrebel says:

        well said thejuanald

        Like

      • iSRS says:

        Tony, this is an excellent post. Personally, my attitude may come across as “who cares?” But you point out my real view. We shouldn’t have to care. We should be able to hire the best. If the best happen to be primarily one gender, or race, etc. then we need to identify why that is, and address it. Are more men, historically, predisposed to the sciences, technology in particular over women? Yes. So we need to address why that is, and we will see the job field reflect that. Can’t have 50% of the company’s DBAs be female if the total population of DBAs (for example) is 15%.

        Like

    • I thought we were long past the concept of affirmative action? just hire the best. Not the best woman, not the best gay, not the best white guy, not the best indian……just the best. Now get back to work!

      Like

    • Dean Har says:

      Hi Robert, feel free to leave whenever you’re ready

      Like

    • stickyicky97 says:

      the mainstream media has been having a field day with these stats. They think 55% whites is horrific. I wonder if the same people think that 80% of athletes in the NBA and NFL being black is also horrific? Blacks are good at sports and whites like technology and gadgets. What’s wrong with that. You cannot force diversity. Actually you can, but you’ll get an inferior workforce. If the NBA/NFL forced teams to add more white players, there would be a downgrade in play. It works the same way in the tech and business world. I’m sick of the affirmative action and preferential treatment of minorities.

      Like

  1. nickd717 says:

    That’s pretty freaking diverse, especially in comparison to other tech companies and considering the fact that the vast majority of engineers are men. Congrats to Apple, not that this should really matter unless there’s evidence of active discrimination.

    Like

    • ‘Not that this should really matter unless there’s evidence of active discrimination.’

      This part of your statement is for me, the only thing that should matter. As with most companies, can you get the job done is the most important to a company’s bottom line.

      Like

  2. It’s sad we’re still in a world where this matters. Instead of whether or not the PERSON is simply the most qualified for the position. Companies feeling pressure to hire based on race to correct numbers actually feel cornered now when they have to choose between A and B. Even if A is more qualified, they may hire B to fill a quota.

    By no means is this an attack on any race. I just worry that the focus is moving away from whether or not hiring practices focus on the candidacy of person rather than their race. As long as a company isn’t DECLINING based on race and taking an inferior white male candidate or something, statistics really shouldn’t matter.

    This is always blown out of proportion. Yeah there are companies out there that discriminate, and they should pay for it and be governed. However, needing to maintain a 20 20 20 20 20 work force or whatever just seems silly politics.

    Like

  3. iSRS says:

    I applaud that they are putting this out there, drawing attention, etc.

    Unfortunately, without additional data (what is the racial background by role, compared to those numbers for those entering the associated field at a University level?), being unhappy with these results doesn’t tell me anything. What should the numbers look like? How is Apple doing compared to the available resources.

    Most importantly, I want, with any company, the best. I could care less about gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. if you are the best at what you do.

    Like

    • To me personally, whether or not Apple is putting out these facts, is unimportant.

      I agree with you that the most important fact is, are the people hired qualified to do their jobs.

      When I go to an Apple store and am looking for answers, I just go up to the first available helper and ask them for the help that I need. If this person sounds like they know what they are talking about, I continue with them, if not I thank them for their help and look for someone else to help me. Some of the people are white, some are black, some are hispanic, asian, etc. I look to all of them as people who are supposed to know about Apples products. I really don’t care about their color, race, religion, political views, etc. If when I approach them for help, if they come off with an attitude, I just walk away from them and find someone else.

      Like

      • Dean Har says:

        Great anecdote. It’s too bad everyone in the world isn’t Daniel A Gross

        While I agree in that I don’t feel like it was necessary for Apple to post this diversity data, I think it’s an injustice do be so dismissive of discrimination in the work field. It still exists. Let’s not be fooled into believing that we’re in a completely progressive society with fair and equally accessible opportunities. Have you guys ever heard of nepotism? That exists too and is a bigger problem than some of you may think.

        And to be honest, I feel like some of these comments illustrates the exact problem we’re dealing with. Why in the world is diversifying your workforce synonymous with hiring less qualified individuals? If you have a standout applicant that’s miles above all others, then the decision is easy, the most qualified gets it. But that’s hardly ever the case! Almost always (from my experience anyway) the decision is extremely difficult after narrowing the applicants based on stats and experience. If all things still the same after we interview, we’ll give the edge to the woman/minority with absolutely no qualms or regrets. As if having qualified minorities and women somehow decreased our team’s productivity…. ridiculous. Not to mention offensive.

        Like

      • thejuanald says:

        Dean, that’s not at all what anyone is saying. What people are saying is that, especially in the tech, science, and engineering fields things like gender swing way towards male. Men are just more interested in those fields than women, so why should the percentage of men and women in the field be equal? There is this comparison that doesn’t make sense. People seem to think that since half the population is women, then positions in those fields that I stated should be 50% women, even though interest in those fields swings way more towards men. I’d go so far as to say 80-90% of people interested in computer science or, say, chemical engineering are men. This is based off my undergraduate and graduate school program at two separate schools where there was maximum 2 or 3 women in courses such as quantum mechanics and separations.

        Why should the field be 50% men and women when there are so few women interested in the field? Because of this need to diversify and reach an impossible, arbitrary percentage of diversity, basically any woman who wants the job will get it, no matter if she was a C student or an A student. That’s where the problem lies.

        Now, the issue of getting women and minorities interested in science and tech is a completely different story. We should be working hard to get everyone interested in those fields from a very early age. That’s the real way to end the diversity disparity.

        Like

      • Dean Har says:

        thejuanald, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Cook said they were aiming for 50% female and 25/25/25/25 white/hispanic/asian/black. More diverse doesn’t mean equal proportions.

        You’re absolutely right about there being fewer women interested in tech. But specifically in Apple’s Board of Leaders, some of the non-tech positions you have are CEO, Retail and Online Stores, Chief Financial Officer, Design, Worldwide Marketing, General Counsel, and Operations. These positions are not tech/engineering based and yet you only have ONE female. Why?

        Like

      • thejuanald says:

        The amount of diversity shouldn’t be a number one goal. It’s to hire the most qualified person and over time, the diversity will even out to about the same as the populous if you don’t have discriminatory hiring processes and the gender/race is well enough interested in the position. That certainly looks to be the case here at Apple. The non-tech positions seem to fit the diversity of the populous fairly well, and in the first column, white people are represented accurately to their representation in the general populous and hispanic and black people are over-represented. I guarantee if you average that out by number of black employees overall at Apple, you will see that they are represented about equal with the population (about 7% of Americans are black)

        As to your other point, it has to do with the number of women in the leadership role. Yes, there aren’t that many women who have leadership roles in companies, but to say that a company should just hire more women in leadership would be a bad thing because there really aren’t that many. What needs to happen is women need to be taught leadership and if they are the most qualified for the job, they should get it. This can be done through training internally very easily.

        Like

  4. routsis77 says:

    Transparency? Really? Let us see the balance between Gay men, Gay women, Bisexuals as well… Why? Because the store I worked was one big gay fest… the minority was heterosexuals… is that normal? I know most came from GAP but come on! We talk about diversity and we don’t look at the entire picture? Also, we barely had older people working, yet they bragged about how Apple is the only in the world who will give older people a chance to work as part of the team. That was total BS. Just saying, if you want to be transparent and open, let’s see the numbers, all of them!

    Like

    • You have bigger personal issues than this forum can resolve.

      Like

    • Well…. how does it feel to be a minority ?

      Like

      • Jack Gnasty says:

        Ahh, so you are some kind of ‘minority’. Angry at the world. And rather than wanting a perceived problem go away, you’d rather other people suffer too… Big of you. Angry little thing aren’t you?!

        To answer your question, most of us white male heterosexual conservative Christians could give two hoots about about being a minority in any situation. We don’t define ourselves by being white, or being heterosexual, or our politics, or religion. (In fact, anybody who defines themselves by the color of their skin, black or white or brown, is probably a real asshole.) And we certainly don’t consider ourselves victims of anything regardless of how many others have insulted, offended, or even assaulted. It’s called self confidence.

        Employers hire confident people. They don’t hire twitchy victims that lack confidence and that will probably cause problems in the future.

        Like

      • Dean Har says:

        “Angry at the world. And rather than wanting a perceived problem go away, you’d rather other people suffer too… Angry little thing aren’t you?”

        So this is how you perceive minorities? “twitchy victims that lack confidence and that will probably cause problems in the future”…. Well done.

        Like

      • Jack Gnasty says:

        Dean – Not at all. I’m implying Ciro is a twitchy victim that lacks confidence. Not all ‘minorities’ carry a cross and see themselves as victims.

        Like

      • Dean Har says:

        Eh well, it’s great if minorities don’t consider themselves as victims but they in fact are. Why else would immigrants straight from Africa be among the most educated groups in the United States (with specifically Nigerians taking the title as the MOST educated people in the United States beating Asians and Whites, per US Cenus Bureau) while you have African-Americans consistently among the least educated, even though they share the exact same ancestors. I know people like you probably don’t like to hear things like this, but it’s because the effects of the slave era are still present in today’s black culture: poor neighborhoods and little family emphasis on education. Yeah illegal education during the slave era happened hundreds of years ago, but cultural values pass down, especially when schools in poor neighborhoods still suck.

        Of course career/job-seekers shouldn’t present themselves as “twitchy victims,” but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re still victims.

        Like

  5. herb02135go says:

    Numbers don’t tell the whole story.

    Let’s see the demographics for the communications – related positions.
    That’s a field that’s about 3/4 female. Or are we only counting work sectors where there are mostly males?

    Like

  6. Funny, here in Canada it’s actually illegal for a company to collect this kind of demographic data about its employees. I guess they don’t want companies checking off ethnic scorecards or something.
    I had a friend who used to work in HR at Old Navy Canada (I think, it could have been one of the other US chains), and she had to fend off multiple requests from the US parent corp for this kind of data. I think they wanted to brag about their diversity worldwide.

    Like

    • I agree with you Kevin, it is kind of silly. I also think Canada has a good idea about not collecting that type of date. Personally, I think it kind of divides people instead of bringing them together.

      Like

  7. Jack Gnasty says:

    “Diversity” is a weapon used against white men, pure and simple. The concept is not a two way street and is only discussed in instances regarding predominantly white male environments.

    Like

    • YU No says:

      I totally agree with this, very well expressed.

      Like

    • thejuanald says:

      I thought from your other post you aren’t a victim. The victimized white male is a big thing nowadays. (by the way, I’m hispanic and agree that nobody should care about race/gender/sexual preference in hiring and should only hire based on skill)

      Like

      • Jack Gnasty says:

        And THAT is the absolute essence of this discussion, individuals vs entire groups. I am not a victim, I do not perceive myself as one. It’s a simple mindset, does the world happen to me, or do I happen to the world? There’s a distinction between feeling and thinking like a victim versus being victimized. While I have certainly experienced racial slurs and assaults simply because I am white, it does not effect me beyond the moment because my identity is not tied to being white. If you call a gay man with a victim mentality a fag, it ruins his day or week or year because it’s an assault on his identity. Being gay is who he is. That’s what he has been taught throughout his life, ‘you’re gay, life is going to be tough, everything that happens to you is because you’re gay’. It’s insane. If I’m called a cracker or a yankee or a right winger I chuckle, tell the person to fuck off, and I don’t think much of it after that. I’m not calling a lawyer. I’m not retaliating. And I am not projecting the actions of one idiot onto an entire group. We have to draw a distinction between groups and real individual people.

        These people who push ‘diversity’ on the other hand, not only do they foster the victim mindset and the twitchy unconfident personalities, but in turn they have now created an enemy, the white male, for all to blame and resent. You can’t have a victim class without another class doing the victimizing, right? It’s BS. In the end, none of it helps either. Since the victim mindset identifies more with the group and class, personal accomplishments mean less to them and do little to dis-spell notions of victimization. Oprah Winfrey, multi multi billionaire still out there fighting as if she’s in chains. In spite of extreme success throughout her entire life, white males are the enemy.

        Like

      • @Jack,
        good point about Oprah, I had the feeling she was racist, but wasn’t sure if it was just me noticing.

        Like

    • Dean Har says:

      Well that’s not really a “secret”. The fact is white men dominant the top positions and best paying jobs. I’m not gonna say that they don’t deserve those positions, but I am saying that there are other equally qualified individuals that could do them just as well.

      Could an educated and qualified woman successively execute Tim Cook’s job? Yes. Probably won’t happen anytime soon though.

      Like

      • Jack Gnasty says:

        You assume. But there probably isn’t another person with Tim Cook’s qualifications. Tim Cook is the real genius behind Apple, and he is the reason they are as successful as they are. The supply chain he has managed for some time now is the real success.

        And you bring up another interesting point, men and women being the same… Men and women are not the same. Our bodies are different, our brains are different, and our views of the world are different. We communicate differently. We think differently. We don’t even navigate a car the same way. So why in hell would anyone assume that we could simply interchange men and women and expect similar results? I am sure there are some women suited for big leadership, but most are not. I am not going to get too particular in this because I really am not in the mood for an onslaught of crying and insults. I will simply say men and women excel at different things and women should concentrate on being women versus trying to be men. They are missing out on life.

        Like

      • Dear Jack,
        I agree with most things you say about race, but not about Tim Cook.
        He’s made sure that his presentations are without lust. Maps scandal that was released. Beats acquisition for way too much money. Firing of top level execs, like Forstall.
        If these are qualifications for genius, then I’m a demi-god.

        Like

  8. ‘Only 3 out of 10 workers at Apple are female’ – OKAY. Sounds completely fair to me. I don’t hear men complaining about their prejudice getting into the beauty industry. Women generally don’t enjoy technology as much as men, so I don’t get why their interests should be expected to be the same. The assumption is ignorant. I don’t think Apple bears any prejudice whatsoever and these numbers mirror that fairly.

    Like

    • Jack Gnasty says:

      Couldn’t agree more.
      Women in general are more communicative. They are social. Look at your facebook wall and take a tally of who posts the most… WOMEN. They like to communicate, they are more extroverted. Sitting in a cube farm and coding away is not an extroverted task. ERGO: The majority of women are not attracted to the tech sector. Unfortunately it doesn’t fit into the narrative that ‘diversity’ clowns push.

      Like

  9. I don’t understand the methodology behind all of this. You hire the best people for the job regardless of skin color, race, etc… To do anything less only serves to hurt yourself and the company.

    Now with all of this propaganda is just going to entice people to hire the wrong candidate to meet stated or unstated diversity goals to make themselves look like a team player to the corporate big wigs all while hurting the company overall.

    Like

  10. thejuanald says:

    I don’t get it, it looks as if the make up of the company coincides with the diversity of the population. It sways a little towards white and asian in the leadership, but that’s to be expected.

    As a hispanic male, I never understood the idea of hiring solely based on race and ethnicity. If a more qualified white person gets bumped from a job for a less qualified hispanic (or other ethnicity) person, that’s a shame. The same goes the other way as well. The most qualified person should get the job. Period.

    The gender roles are another issue. If 7 out of 10 people working at Apple are male and they are the most qualified people, then that’s the way it should be. If there was discrimination, that’s a problem. The issue is that a much smaller percentage of women are interested in tech fields than men. For that much smaller pool to be expected to have 50% of the jobs in a field is silly. The same goes with jobs that women are more interested in such as social work and nursing. A much smaller percentage of men want to be social workers and nurses, so they are represented much less in those fields. People would be incredibly angry if men started demanding that 50% of those fields be men, even though only a small percentage of men want to do that job. That would skew the demographic to be that nearly any man who is interested in that field would be able to find a job just because he was a man, regardless of his qualifications. (As a note, I am just using nursing and social work as examples, I didn’t look up the actual values and they may not be what as skewed in favor of women as I stated. I was merely using those positions as an example in relation to the small amount of women interested in tech and engineering fields)

    The way to get equal women and men in the field is to figure out ways to make fields that are generally less interesting to women more interesting. That is done by getting women interested at a young age in school.

    Like

  11. tg337 says:

    Why don’t we ask Tim to show us his underwear too? It seems to me that it’s very relevant to this discussion, because it would be just as stupid.

    They should say only this: we hire the most qualified people for the job. Period. Not we should hire more gay or Asian or white or black or purple people or cats just because the chart doesn’t look so good… What?!
    Do you think Steve thought “damn we don’t have a gay dude” so the next day he hired Tim. No. He thought “damn this guy is really good at what he does so I’ll hire him”.

    Like

  12. Go ahead and report the numbers if it makes people feel good about their ‘identity’. Just don’t hire and make business decisions based on the numbers. Ability and quality of fit are the only important metrics when hiring. The hiring process should be colorblind.

    Like

  13. Jerry Donel says:

    I’m NOT impressed. Tim Cook say’s he believes in being innovative in advancing diversity — yet all these years he has nothing to report besides the status quo, 55% white, 7 out of 10 male?? How about cutting the crap — stop hiding behind the nonsense that talented people of color can’t be found in the USA; send your new hotshot HR executive out and find the people to hire and stop accepting the same old faces who walk in the door because they are privileged to have friends at Apple. I for one am going to think of all this nonsense the next time you want me to buy Apple products — and I will ACT on the evidence that you claim to be “progress”.

    Like

    • Are you sure about this?
      Hiring should be about qualifications, not skin colour. If 55% are white and the rest are Chinese/Black/Hispanic, thats just an indication that white people in general are better suited to work in the tech industry that to work at McDonalds and railroads.

      Like

  14. Apple success = 70% male workforce. Simple maths, simple solutions, great gadgets!

    Like

  15. Moises Agudo says:

    Figures many white males would be in here with their rhetorical BS. I applied for a job at APPLE and was turned down for no apparent reason. Most corporations in America operate this way. What gets me the most is that Hispanics are the largest minority in America and yet they hire more Asians. One last thing, I’ve been in the hardware business since 1989, and the software business since 1996. I still want an answer from APPLE as to why I wasn’t hired?

    Like

    • thejuanald says:

      Because you weren’t the most qualified person for that particular job, or you didn’t fit in the position. To say that you should be hired for the position because you’re hispanic is silly. You do know there’s so many qualified people out there now that if your resume or application had one thing in it they didn’t like they would toss it out immediately, right?

      I’m hispanic and I have an MS in Biomedical Engineering and when I graduated I applied to hundreds of jobs and only a small handful even contacted me back at all. Of those, even fewer wanted interviews. I eventually got a job, but it’s not really where I want to be. I will use it as industry experience and move on, but the point is, you cannot ever expect a corporation to give you a response as to why they didn’t hire you from your resume, or even from an interview. The most you will get is “Unfortunately, we are not able to move forward with your candidacy at this time. Your resume will remain active in our database,” and maybe some comment about you not fitting the role.

      As to you playing the race card, that’s just silly.

      Like

    • Jack Gnasty says:

      Judging by your strange incoherent response, they probably did not like you personally. You most likely rubbed them the wrong way, and they went with the more likeable confident person. You won’t get a response from them, because they would prefer to interact with nicer people.

      That’s the truth you asked for.

      Like