6 ms·

Apple opposes investor calls to end its DEI efforts

45 points by pyb 2y ago

zapzupnz 2y ago
I know it's technically unrelated, but… > We strive to create a culture of belonging and > Tim Cook personally donates $1million to the Trump inaugural fund (not quoted from the article) just don't sit together properly in my mind. The fish rots from the head.
- Niksko 2y ago
  I get what you're saying, but it's merely because Trump has shown that he's easy to manipulate and can basically be bought. If it were any other Republican coming into office this wouldn't be happening. Not to spout off too much, but as usual, the right shows that all of their nonsense posturing is just projection. "Drain the swamp, stop government corruption", and yet the powerful are literally buying Trump's support.
  - sumedh 2y ago
    > because Trump has shown that he's easy to manipulate If he is easy to manipulate then why didnt Democrats manipulate him and then win the election?
    - verdverm 2y ago
      Harris certainly baited and manipulated Trump on the national debate stage There were/are a lot of people manipulating him on the Republican side which outweighs anything the Democrats could have done
      - sumedh 2y ago
        > Harris certainly baited and manipulated Trump on the national debate stage and yet she lost, so who baited who?
        verdverm 2y ago
        Harris baited Trump on the debate stage, the later outcome does not change this fact, as that was determined by other factors and around 100k voters
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]
- garbagewoman 2y ago
  Nobody is expecting you to support them, they are a corporation and do not need your support.
- olliej 2y ago
  "Bay Area progressive politics" - you mean "don't bias your hiring in favor of male employees"? or do you mean "don't bias your hiring in favor of straight people?" Maybe we should just go back to the days where we should just not hire black Americans or women into tech? Maybe go back to a time where only a few tech companies actually did that, and those that did then had to literally create there own banks, because even when a tech company did employ someone, and paid them the same amount as a white man, the banks would not let those employees get mortgages? Maybe go back to firing people because they're gay or trans? Would that make you feel better?
  - schmidp 2y ago
    I can’t speak for OP, but my feeling is that many people think it went too far and hiring is still sexist, racist just in the other direction. I believe that in an ideal world, race and sexual orientation should not be seen as something negative and just be an attribute, an attribute completely irrelevant for hiring.
    - rat87 2y ago
      Right but we are far from that world and statistics show that we are very far from such a post sexist post racist world and that despite nice words companies are still not hiring that many canidates who are women or members of some minority ethnic groups for high paying engineering jobs.
    - olliej 2y ago
      Again, DEI does not mean "hire less qualified people from group X", it mean "don't bias your hiring of less or equally competent candidates in favor of men". It is not "sexist/racist in the other direction" - though I'm sure some people can make it such - however, let's be clear here, if it _were_ racist/sexist in the other direction, and you want it to be removed, you're saying "both paths are sexist/racist and I just prefer the old sexist/racist path that gave an advantage to people who are straight, cis, white, and/or men". It's really not the most compelling argument to say "I just wish we got to benefit from the biases we used to have". The problem is lots of people are use to a default world in which being a man, or being white, etc means that if all other things are equal they will be selected. They see anything other than choose the "equally performing" white dude by default as reverse racism. Couple this with the well documented history of women and minorities being judged more critically for the same work, and you get the "non-racist" world where worse performing candidates are hired because they're "equal" and a better culture fit. You can see the same thing retroactively: a woman or minority figure who subsequently performs below the level expected is blamed on "DEI", yet no one questions the hiring of a sub-performing non-minority. Weird right? lackluster minority employees only ever get their jobs because of DEI, lackluster non-minorities are just a thing that happens some times. You're right, it would be great to not consider gender, race, etc - and certainly when I've interviewed people it has never figured into the process, but companies need to have some kind of mechanism to compensate for all the employees that do (you can happily find countless examples on HN of people openly admitting they consider women inferior devs, they dismiss certain races and castes, lgbt candidates, or people with the wrong religion. DEI programs exist so that those bigots can't pollute the entire recruitment process. Those are the bigots who complain most, yet seem completely unaware that they are the entire reason DEI programs are necessary. The moment you say "I don't think group X can do the job as group Y", you've immediately said there needs to be an external mechanism to mitigate the advantage you are giving to group Y. That's what DEI is: a hamfisted, but sadly necessary, unless you have a better idea, mechanism to stop people from biasing the recruitment process. Seriously. If you think DEI is bad, I want you to think about every "bad" coworker you've had and see if there's any bias in what you blame for them being hired. If you look at the news today, everytime anything goes wrong, and there is a minority involved anywhere, even if they were objectively not at fault, the bigot circle jerk does nothing but blame DEI. Lots of people want to go back to the "good old days", because they were immensely privileged in those days, you could get and stay married easier - because women could not have bank accounts, and were functionally owned by their family or husband. Remember a women could not divorce her husband for beating her, nor for raping her, because by definition spousal rape was impossible. So yeah, I understand why lots of men want to go back in time, life was objectively easier for them. Those men just don't give a shit about it being harder for literally every one else, which is why I don't give a shit about their opinion. If you think DEI is the reason you can't get a job, maybe the problem is just that you're broadcasting "I'm a bigot" and no one wants to work with someone who is saying "I have no respect for my coworkers unless they're the same race, gender, religion, etc as me and will not treat them as people". Or of course, maybe it's just dunning-kreuger: you're too low skill to understand you're lower skill than the people being selected over you.
wiskinator 2y ago
Good on them. I truly don’t understand how people can be against furthering diversity in a mostly homogeneous sector of society (corporate tech).
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  It's funny how virtually nobody you go up to to ask what they don't like about DEI has an actually coherent explanation. In my experience if you press for a tangible answer it ends in 90% of cases with them repeating soundbites and then awkwardly trying to change the subject (despite gladly and loudly bringing it up to begin with) and 10% with some openly racist/anti-gay/anti-trans mask off statement.
  - ENGNR 2y ago
    It’s bullshit. It means more interviews for people they know they won’t hire to meet a quota which wastes their time, and when someone from a minority is hired the perception might be that they weren’t actually qualified, even if they were. Plus as a straight white guy - am I really so bad? The world seems pretty fair. I’ve never done anything sexist or racist in the workplace (quite the opposite) and haven’t even seen it happen. Why do I have to have it worse off every step of the way just because I was born this way. End the BS and let’s get some work done.
    - jdlshore 2y ago
      I’m a straight white guy, and I see unfairness all around me, primarily rigged in favor of straight white guys like me, and in favor of people who are wealthy.
      - ENGNR 2y ago
        You should blow the whistle, because that’s illegal. And leave the rest of us who are nowhere near that to live a regular life without having to enforce sexist/racist policies.
- 2y ago
znpy 2y ago
This is probably the kind of thing that should be settled in court via a class action by shareholders. Otherwise it’s mostly endless words on words.
Timber-6539 2y ago
Now that I think of it, DEI was a successor to CSR. With this chapter gone the next "CSR" primed to take over is Going Green.
- superb_dev 2y ago
  What is CSR?
  - ErikBjare 2y ago
    Corporate Social Responsibility
  - Timber-6539 2y ago
    Stands for Corporate Social Responsibility. It was popular in the 90s/2000s. https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/history-of-corporate-social-responsibility/ https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/history-of-corporate-soci...
not_your_vase 2y ago
Personally I welcome the removal of DEI, but I find the way it is done pretty disgusting. Companies do it only because they expect to gain some favors with the incoming government. They wouldn't even think of doing this if the other party won - and this two-facedness just makes me frown. Of course Apple has their own agenda also. But this shows me at least some consistency and some spine in their internal government and corporate policies, even if I disagree with them.
w10-1 2y ago
Apple opposed all 4 shareholder proposals. They all seem political: DEI, AI ethics, child sex abuse, and charitable giving. It's hard to imagine: one of the largest companies in the world, devices literally used actively by over a billion people, incorporating the most advanced hardware and software trends, with both value and growth investors -- and these are the only shareholder proposals? They must be really, really well run.
- etempleton 2y ago
  They are from a conservative think tank. It is political activism, nothing more.
mmonaghan 2y ago
I have my qualms with how most DEI programs are implemented but a bigger question about Apple and Meta (and others) is why you'd want to mess with company operations when they've been doing incredibly well? Love it or hate it, these companies have had historic success while implementing DEI, CSR, and many other programs for social good. Again, while I do have issues with what DEI means in today's workplace, can't argue with how successful these companies have been at hiring and making money.

45 points by pyb 2y ago

I know it's technically unrelated, but… > We strive to create a culture of belonging and > Tim Cook personally donates $1million to the Trump inaugural fund (not quoted from the article) just don't sit together properly in my mind. The fish rots from the head.

Niksko 2y ago
I get what you're saying, but it's merely because Trump has shown that he's easy to manipulate and can basically be bought. If it were any other Republican coming into office this wouldn't be happening. Not to spout off too much, but as usual, the right shows that all of their nonsense posturing is just projection. "Drain the swamp, stop government corruption", and yet the powerful are literally buying Trump's support.
- sumedh 2y ago
  > because Trump has shown that he's easy to manipulate If he is easy to manipulate then why didnt Democrats manipulate him and then win the election?
  - verdverm 2y ago
    Harris certainly baited and manipulated Trump on the national debate stage There were/are a lot of people manipulating him on the Republican side which outweighs anything the Democrats could have done
    - sumedh 2y ago
      > Harris certainly baited and manipulated Trump on the national debate stage and yet she lost, so who baited who?
      - verdverm 2y ago
        Harris baited Trump on the debate stage, the later outcome does not change this fact, as that was determined by other factors and around 100k voters

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

[flagged]

garbagewoman 2y ago
Nobody is expecting you to support them, they are a corporation and do not need your support.
olliej 2y ago
"Bay Area progressive politics" - you mean "don't bias your hiring in favor of male employees"? or do you mean "don't bias your hiring in favor of straight people?" Maybe we should just go back to the days where we should just not hire black Americans or women into tech? Maybe go back to a time where only a few tech companies actually did that, and those that did then had to literally create there own banks, because even when a tech company did employ someone, and paid them the same amount as a white man, the banks would not let those employees get mortgages? Maybe go back to firing people because they're gay or trans? Would that make you feel better?
- schmidp 2y ago
  I can’t speak for OP, but my feeling is that many people think it went too far and hiring is still sexist, racist just in the other direction. I believe that in an ideal world, race and sexual orientation should not be seen as something negative and just be an attribute, an attribute completely irrelevant for hiring.
  - rat87 2y ago
    Right but we are far from that world and statistics show that we are very far from such a post sexist post racist world and that despite nice words companies are still not hiring that many canidates who are women or members of some minority ethnic groups for high paying engineering jobs.
  - olliej 2y ago
    Again, DEI does not mean "hire less qualified people from group X", it mean "don't bias your hiring of less or equally competent candidates in favor of men". It is not "sexist/racist in the other direction" - though I'm sure some people can make it such - however, let's be clear here, if it _were_ racist/sexist in the other direction, and you want it to be removed, you're saying "both paths are sexist/racist and I just prefer the old sexist/racist path that gave an advantage to people who are straight, cis, white, and/or men". It's really not the most compelling argument to say "I just wish we got to benefit from the biases we used to have". The problem is lots of people are use to a default world in which being a man, or being white, etc means that if all other things are equal they will be selected. They see anything other than choose the "equally performing" white dude by default as reverse racism. Couple this with the well documented history of women and minorities being judged more critically for the same work, and you get the "non-racist" world where worse performing candidates are hired because they're "equal" and a better culture fit. You can see the same thing retroactively: a woman or minority figure who subsequently performs below the level expected is blamed on "DEI", yet no one questions the hiring of a sub-performing non-minority. Weird right? lackluster minority employees only ever get their jobs because of DEI, lackluster non-minorities are just a thing that happens some times. You're right, it would be great to not consider gender, race, etc - and certainly when I've interviewed people it has never figured into the process, but companies need to have some kind of mechanism to compensate for all the employees that do (you can happily find countless examples on HN of people openly admitting they consider women inferior devs, they dismiss certain races and castes, lgbt candidates, or people with the wrong religion. DEI programs exist so that those bigots can't pollute the entire recruitment process. Those are the bigots who complain most, yet seem completely unaware that they are the entire reason DEI programs are necessary. The moment you say "I don't think group X can do the job as group Y", you've immediately said there needs to be an external mechanism to mitigate the advantage you are giving to group Y. That's what DEI is: a hamfisted, but sadly necessary, unless you have a better idea, mechanism to stop people from biasing the recruitment process. Seriously. If you think DEI is bad, I want you to think about every "bad" coworker you've had and see if there's any bias in what you blame for them being hired. If you look at the news today, everytime anything goes wrong, and there is a minority involved anywhere, even if they were objectively not at fault, the bigot circle jerk does nothing but blame DEI. Lots of people want to go back to the "good old days", because they were immensely privileged in those days, you could get and stay married easier - because women could not have bank accounts, and were functionally owned by their family or husband. Remember a women could not divorce her husband for beating her, nor for raping her, because by definition spousal rape was impossible. So yeah, I understand why lots of men want to go back in time, life was objectively easier for them. Those men just don't give a shit about it being harder for literally every one else, which is why I don't give a shit about their opinion. If you think DEI is the reason you can't get a job, maybe the problem is just that you're broadcasting "I'm a bigot" and no one wants to work with someone who is saying "I have no respect for my coworkers unless they're the same race, gender, religion, etc as me and will not treat them as people". Or of course, maybe it's just dunning-kreuger: you're too low skill to understand you're lower skill than the people being selected over you.

wiskinator 2y ago

Good on them. I truly don’t understand how people can be against furthering diversity in a mostly homogeneous sector of society (corporate tech).

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
It's funny how virtually nobody you go up to to ask what they don't like about DEI has an actually coherent explanation. In my experience if you press for a tangible answer it ends in 90% of cases with them repeating soundbites and then awkwardly trying to change the subject (despite gladly and loudly bringing it up to begin with) and 10% with some openly racist/anti-gay/anti-trans mask off statement.
- ENGNR 2y ago
  It’s bullshit. It means more interviews for people they know they won’t hire to meet a quota which wastes their time, and when someone from a minority is hired the perception might be that they weren’t actually qualified, even if they were. Plus as a straight white guy - am I really so bad? The world seems pretty fair. I’ve never done anything sexist or racist in the workplace (quite the opposite) and haven’t even seen it happen. Why do I have to have it worse off every step of the way just because I was born this way. End the BS and let’s get some work done.
  - jdlshore 2y ago
    I’m a straight white guy, and I see unfairness all around me, primarily rigged in favor of straight white guys like me, and in favor of people who are wealthy.
    - ENGNR 2y ago
      You should blow the whistle, because that’s illegal. And leave the rest of us who are nowhere near that to live a regular life without having to enforce sexist/racist policies.
2y ago

znpy 2y ago

This is probably the kind of thing that should be settled in court via a class action by shareholders. Otherwise it’s mostly endless words on words.

Timber-6539 2y ago

Now that I think of it, DEI was a successor to CSR. With this chapter gone the next "CSR" primed to take over is Going Green.

superb_dev 2y ago
What is CSR?
- ErikBjare 2y ago
  Corporate Social Responsibility
- Timber-6539 2y ago
  Stands for Corporate Social Responsibility. It was popular in the 90s/2000s. https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/history-of-corporate-social-responsibility/ https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/history-of-corporate-soci...

not_your_vase 2y ago

Personally I welcome the removal of DEI, but I find the way it is done pretty disgusting. Companies do it only because they expect to gain some favors with the incoming government. They wouldn't even think of doing this if the other party won - and this two-facedness just makes me frown. Of course Apple has their own agenda also. But this shows me at least some consistency and some spine in their internal government and corporate policies, even if I disagree with them.

w10-1 2y ago

Apple opposed all 4 shareholder proposals. They all seem political: DEI, AI ethics, child sex abuse, and charitable giving. It's hard to imagine: one of the largest companies in the world, devices literally used actively by over a billion people, incorporating the most advanced hardware and software trends, with both value and growth investors -- and these are the only shareholder proposals? They must be really, really well run.

etempleton 2y ago
They are from a conservative think tank. It is political activism, nothing more.

mmonaghan 2y ago

I have my qualms with how most DEI programs are implemented but a bigger question about Apple and Meta (and others) is why you'd want to mess with company operations when they've been doing incredibly well? Love it or hate it, these companies have had historic success while implementing DEI, CSR, and many other programs for social good. Again, while I do have issues with what DEI means in today's workplace, can't argue with how successful these companies have been at hiring and making money.