2,445 IBM Employees Openly Condemned IBM for Enabling Racist Regimes
techrights.org
techrights.org
Initiatives like this worry me that we'll end up like my previous employer where we were off-the-record instructed not to hire a white male for our open position.
I'm usually hard pressed to find people who disagree with the thought of "we should try to hire people other than white men in a white men dominated profession".
The issue comes when the unspoken (OP's "off the record") enforcement of this is willful hate towards those people.
But on the same side people just can't believe that the middle management and/or line level people responsible for some of these decisions are being malicious.
* - https://www.computerscience.org/resources/women-in-computer-...
* - https://www.payscale.com/compensation-today/2020/05/for-nati...
Isn't this not actually true? More families are unable to avoid needing two incomes.
My point is just as in there have been and are people that are willfully malicious and ONLY hire white men/women, it seems we have a hard time accepting there will be some willfully malicious enforcement of a policy such as "we need to make an effort to hire more outside of a gender or race group".
That doesn't make quotas the right solution. More creativity is required, and varies by situation. Which is why I always bristle at the outright rejection of calls for hiring a more diverse group of people without even pretending propose alternatives. Reinforcing the status quo means perpetuating the racism, sexism, etc.
This is the first page:
- why employers favor men
- women outnumber men in the paid workforce
- why employers favor men
- women rehired less than men
- if there is a real gender pay gap, why do firms hire men
(I will spare the readers from remaining five links, but trust me, nothing groundbreaking was there)
Again, this is not to say there's no push to hire men. It's just somewhere "in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"."
So I don't know how this proves anything either way.
At least on my recent memory, when Fenty Beauty first came on the scene it blew up extremely fast, as it was one of the first major makeup companies specifically catering to non-beige skin colors... the company was founded by the artist Rihanna, who identifies as black.
But in practice "drink more milk" means "drink less soda".
You would also assume that people drink their "max quota" of drinks a day, thus being forced to eliminate something to make room. There's always room for milk my friend.
The request is to hire non-whites and/or non-men.
The clearest way to enforce it is just to specify exactly that - it achieves the stated aims with no cognitive dissonance.
Honestly, I think this letter is quite weak. To see Trump as a racist is a result of medial smear campaigns. He might have a foul mouth, but I have different definition of what constitutes a racist. You can have countless reasons to dislike Trump, but he is no racist. Maybe the signers of this letters are.
* "they're animals"
* "We can't allow these people to invade our country"
* "Mexican judge"
* multiple accounts of him calling black peope "n-gg-rs"
* "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day."
* “When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor"
* The Central Park Five ad (never mind that they were innocent, a racist wrote it)
* literally settled out of court for racially discriminating as a landlord
* They don’t look like Indians to me.”
* "I was the only person of color that I saw at an executive level in my entire year with the Trump Organization"
* Baltimore and Atlanta are "infested"
* telling US citizens of color "go back to your countries"
* wanting to swap Puerto Rico (again, US citizens he represents) for Greenland because it's a "dirty" island, "showed deep animus to its people"
* birther conspiracy
* agreeing with a supporter in a townhall who said "we have a problem in this country; it’s called Muslims.”
* Trump: How do you stop illegal border crossers? Supporter: "Shoot them!" Trump laughs enthusiastically
* lied about watching "thousands and thousands of Muslims" celebrating 9/11
* tried to ban all Muslims from entering the country
* tons of promoting racists (Laura Loomer, Jayda Dransen, Sebastian Gorka, Jeannine Pirro, Joe Arpaio, Unite the Right
* many actual racists call him a fellow racist (Christchurch shooter, El Paso shooter, Pittsburgh synagogue shooter)
I don't know what your definition of racism is, but I would love to hear how none of these incidents qualify.
I can see that it is annoying but I don't get the hostility around this stuff. are there many thousands of white males not able to get a job... probably not (at least not due to this).
How else are we meant to have more diverse teams if we don't hire diversely? Personally I would take a theoretical 20% hit in productivity as part of male dominated environment to learn what a more diverse environment should look like.
Having this density of basically white men is often pretty toxic imho (fyi i am a white male) I see so many "harmless" jokes made by people who literally don't have enough experience to be respectful outside of their gender and race.
It also makes me sad that people say "its fine look we have Susan" or whatever.. no, Susan has learned to put up with your bullshit and keep her mouth closed.. and if you think "hey I put up with bullshit too" then that only means you agree your environment is toxic and no amount of white males is fixing it.
I know that bias is the next argument, but it is just as baseless.
Our parents did similar things, we eat similar foods, we grew up in similar houses.. I find it easier to predict their moods and behaviours etc.. cos they are like me.
However, that doesn't mean to say we are in any way right or better than any one else.
When i work with people who are different to me it often makes me feel somewhat outside of my comfort zone (not in any kind of major way - just like getting a new pair of slippers or something, it feels a little different to yesterday).
I just think we cannot help this at all.. so when i am asked to visualise a new start before they join.. who do i imagine, well mostly someone like me. i mean i have all sorts of practices techniques to mitigate this, but its inherently true, true of all people imho.
So we have lots of jobs and areas that are thick with white men.. everything is tailored to what their needs are. start times, lengths of holidays and breaks, how long is taken for parental leave after a child is born, even the temperature of most offices is tuned to middle aged white men.
We (white men) dont know what an inclusive environment is.. no single group of people does. so really we have to go for immersion therapy (or fake it till you make it).. we just have to kind of force a more diverse group of people into these roles and see what happens.. all the time trying to be respectful and accommodating.
I wanted to work with computers as it was something I saw my dad doing it when i was very young (its not this simple but it almost is).. if our daughters dont see their mothers working in IT why would they put any effort into learning it?
Its a chicken and egg scenario to a certain extent and this is basically the only route in we have to change the feedback loop imho. if someone comes up with another idea i am all ears.
I do actually work with many ethnicities and have come to the realization that they are all idiots. There are differences in representation between production and administration, but not because of bias or racism.
> so really we have to go for immersion therapy
No thanks. You are free to travel though.
> We (white men)
Jehovah's witnesses tried the same shtick once as they tried to include me in their believes, but we are no group. That would only lead to quarrels. Europe wasn't always as peaceful, even if everyone was pretty pink.
> if our daughters dont see their mothers working in IT
Honestly I think the situation got worse for women in the last 10 years. Through expectations placed upon them by others and themselves. Formerly it was a rarity but few really noticed it. Now their actions would be put under more scrutiny. Here bias does indeed play a role and some discussion emphasized that it apparently isn't normal for women to be in IT.
> we just have to kind of force a more diverse group
I fundamentally disagree that anybody needs to be forced. Freedom of association and that thing... Plus, that already happened countless times before and it will happen again.
>No thanks. You are free to travel though.
I am referring to large organisations having hiring policies that encourage or force more diverse hiring.. immersion in a more diverse workplace (but still representative of the area you live in)
>> if our daughters dont see their mothers working in IT
>Honestly I think the situation got worse for women in the last 10 years. Through expectations placed upon them by others and themselves. Formerly it was a rarity but few really noticed it. Now their actions would be put under more scrutiny. Here bias does indeed play a role and some discussion emphasized that it apparently isn't normal for women to be in IT.
So its bad but we wont bother trying to do anything about it?
>> we just have to kind of force a more diverse group
>I fundamentally disagree that anybody needs to be forced. Freedom of association and that thing... Plus, that already happened countless times before and it will happen again.
You totally have the freedom not to work at IBM though? whats your problem, just find somewhere that doesn't have and diversity policies, is roaring sausage fest then dive right in and never look back!
its not like any of this really restricts white males, its just some companies saying that's not what they want so there is an extra value to hiring something other than a white male.
You cannot persecute those with huge advantages, that's not persecution that's more like regression to the mean. calling it persecution is kind of embarrassing imho. i'm a big boy i can handle that someone who is less skilled of experienced but has a different perspective could be a better investment for an organisation - after all its possible to gain skills and experience.
Just like diverse candidates I also need a job. Just like diverse candidates I also need to house and feed my family. Just like diverse candidates I aspire to get promoted.
I can't get my head around why people think it's ok to not let me try for an opportunity because I'm a white man. I can't understand how people can't see this is wrong.
That's the same vibe I get from racists and sexists.
What is the fundamental difference between these essentialising, group-identity-based views?
The vibe you're detecting is prejudice. They are exhibiting prejudice against individuals on the basis of immutable traits like gender and ethnicity.
I may just be racist or sexist though.. however i dont know why i would give a shit if that was the case?
and i have not seen a single alternative posted by anyone here, so all the argumnts against seem rather hollow and just self serving. blocking making playing field fairer as you wont be the one to benefit from the increased fairness.
I also think that people are missing the point that the entire work environment is tuned to a specific group of people.. which is not healthy.
that specific group of people are not going to actively de-tune their environment for potential future hires that they dont even have metrics to measure how tuned they are.
the only solution i can see is to get those other people in, see what need changing, change that.. wait a full generation and re-evaluate.
How do propose getting more diversity without some kind of support or appreciation of the value of the under represented? and to those thinking of themselves before the wider picture this will always seem "unfair".
If you were watching over some kids and you had not noticed but for an hour one kid had been bullying other kids to achieve a huge lead over them in the game they were playing. so you step and stop the bullying.. great. but where is the incentive for the other kids to keep playing together if the historical effects of the bullying are not addressed?
Because many people endeavour to be better people because they care about other people.
> How do propose getting more diversity without some kind of support or appreciation of the value of the under represented?
You could improve diversity without appreciating their value, as well; following proscribed formulas to balance quotas doesn't guarantee that those applying the formula are going to reform their views.
I'd improve diversity by dismantling systemic barriers; like unequal access to education, which must including access to after-school support, quality food, and so on.
> but where is the incentive for the other kids to keep playing together if the historical effects of the bullying are not addressed?
Because they are kids, and many kids are quick to forgive and forge new relationships.
as i said elswhere in comments - i saw my dad being respected for an ability to do stuff with his computer (computers were not generally used in offices etc. at the time). my childs mind wanted to get some of that respect.. so i invested time learning and playing with computers.
I saw white dudes on tv doing everything - they were all the good guys (and even most of the bad guys) i grew up thinking i could do anything. i would love to be able to say the same for my daughter.
Are you going to tell her how you did it?
This seems like a real ends-justify-the-means dilema. I think what you're advocating for is fundamentally immoral. I accept it probably achieves the result we want, but we mustn't do it because it's wrong.
Or am I misreading; what, specifically, do you think is immoral here? Perhaps I'm confused.
> i would love to be able to say the same for my daughter.
I thought you were expressing support for no longer hiring white men, which is what the thread was about? I think that's immoral.
I think it's immoral to prejudice individuals upon their immutable traits, like ethnicity, sexuality, gender and so on; so we're probably in agreement.
Which has conducted illegal wars, and pulled out of nuclear talks with Iran.
This is a consequence of so many things...
Just some be surprised when people call you out on it.
Doesn't necessarily make what you say or do invalid in and of itself.
You forgot to answer the original question, though.
Moral calculus can be dangerous, but the numbers are so huge that it seems fair to me to put the 20th century communist regimes at the top of the list for most evil.
"[We petition you to prohibit] IBM and its employees from using any Trump owned or Trump branded properties for business purposes..."
Ugh. When did so many employees become fifth columns pushing a very narrow and minority political view? This is happening at many large companies lately.