This sounds like a great idea on paper, but with Apple being based in California who has some of the most strict anti-discrimination laws, this seems to violate the Unruh act by deciding who can attend strictly by sex? Is this not illegal? Wouldn’t they have covered themselves better by saying underserved?
Yep. It's clearly in violation of the 1974 modification to section 51,
>“All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
If they would want equality, it should be symmetric (for example 2 women, 2 men, or 1 woman, 1 man, and 1 any gender). This is clear discrimination against men (though not the first one that we have seen in the past few years).
Have a sit back and think for a moment, honestly, about what you're trying to achieve with this comment.
Does it reflect a genuine worry that men are being excluded from the software industry? Does it stem from a belief that there are too many programs targeting women in software? Or maybe it's a belief that any gender-targeted support programs are fundamentally immoral?
I think, if you're honest with yourself, you'll realise that your goal isn't really to help or support anyone, or to end gender inequality, but instead to take the opportunity to engage in a little bit of reflexive and unhelpful "look how much men are discriminated against" complaining.
Not the author of the previous post, but I wholeheartedly support them, so I would also like to address your question.
When you ask, "Does it reflect a genuine worry that men are being excluded from the software industry?", the answer is, no of course not. I don't think we worry that men are being excluded from the industry. What I worry about is that the tool to correct the perceived gender imbalance is inherently sexist. I can't imagine how one can believe that sexual discrimination in any form is bad and at the same time discriminate against applicants on the basis of their gender. It does not matter that the tech industry is currently dominated by males — fighting a wrong (gender inequality on a large scale) with another wrong (sexual discrimination on a small scale) feels... well... not right.
>I can't imagine how one can believe that sexual discrimination in any form is bad and at the same time discriminate against applicants on the basis of their gender.
Read the SCOTUS cases on point, in particular read the University of Michigan cases. The issues you raise are discussed at length, especially in reference to past harms and studies on what it would take to correct these past harms. All such affirmative action cases I am aware of, if upheld (and not all are upheld), the courts acknowledge these are temporary measures to address historical discrimination to level the playing field.
In other words if a certain race, religion or sex has been historically and systematically discriminated against, the effects of that discrimination are not cured by removing the discriminatory laws on its own. I don’t necessarily wholly agree with all these studies but I also can’t say playing fields are self leveling.
The effect of support for women in tech is too often to hand resources to people who are already very privileged. A recent example is a reception held for women in CS from Stanford, to help them have more equal access to careers in technology.
Correcting historical injustice is important and necessary, but to do so through the courts is at variance with a basic principle of human rights: that we are considered as individuals before the law, not as members of one or another group (always one of many possible groups).
I am 34. I was raised in an era (esp. mid-90s) where we were taught color-blindness, gender-blindness, non-discrimination as the proper ways to approach eradicating sexism and racism. All are equal, and have equal protections under the law.
In the 2000s, it seems this message is changing. It is not enough to assume everyone can achieve the same levels of success. The emerging idea now is that those groups who show a statistical deficit are to be given extra opportunity that is not afforded to others.
The problem is that directly conflicts with what I and (I assume) others from my generation were taught and internalized. Hence the pushback. It is discrimination, plain and simple.
Yes, yes, yes, god, yes, I am from about the same demographic, and I have also internalized the message about plain and simple equality and celebrating individual merit. I am in a perpetual sense of bewilderment caused by the change in the message.
I am 35 and completely agree with the taught “color-blindness, gender-blindness” etc. I literally had no concept of race until leaving school. I feel like since this time we’ve actually gone backwards.
Apple and honestly most corporations doesn't care either.
This is a pr move to help with their image as their sales and public relations are on a downward slide (and microsoft is on the upward swing).
I'm not saying anything about this program in moral way.But I dislike the idea that's corporations are benevolent. Apple could do more for everyone if they paid their fair share of taxes.
Corporate groups are ultimately made up of individuals. When Apple or any other company pushes a particular policy, that decision is taken by one of more individuals in that company – people who decided that this was a thing that they wanted to do. There are many reasons that they might decide to do those things – positive PR is definitely an influencing factor on that, but so is the substantial effect of individuals promoting ideas that they think are right.
You portray this as an internal group at Apple is sitting around with a discussion along the lines of "Well, our sales are slipping – how can we boost our image? Let's have a developer event for women" – as if that ever happened or even makes sense.
Corporations are not benevolent and do not have the public's best interests at heart. This does not mean that they are incapable of positive actions independent of the effect that they might have on sales.
And indeed Apple should probably be paying more in tax. I agree with that – but it doesn't affect whether the action in question is a "PR move" or not.
Corporations are made up of people, but they are not people and do not act as individuals.
Also yes conversations like "Well, our sales are slipping – how can we boost our image? Let's have a developer event for women" actually do happen all the time and it doesn't have to be women, it can be anything to help get PR like holidays or awareness months.
What they said was that "This is clear discrimination against men", which is true. The program discriminates against men. You might think that's a good thing, but if you do you should argue that. Responding to a statement of fact with accusations about the motives behind the statement doesn't do any good.
Yes, this is "discrimination against men" in the strict sense of discrimination. And I want to know what they hope to achieve by pointing out this very obvious truth. We see exactly this sort of comment all the time, and I want to know what the motivations for it are.
I'm not sure why you think there must be some sinister motive here. The comment chain was
P1: Does this violate some California law by deciding who can attend based on sex?
P2: The third member of your team may be any gender
P3: It's still discrimination based on sex
It seems pretty clear to me the "motivation" for the comment was to respond to P2's implication that this isn't discrimination.
You clearly don't actually "want to know what the motivations for it are", but to attribute motives to the commenter yourself.
> I think, if you're honest with yourself, you'll realise that your goal isn't really to help or support anyone, or to end gender inequality, but instead to take the opportunity to engage in a little bit of reflexive and unhelpful "look how much men are discriminated against" complaining.
If you dare to make such a comment on HN you must support statements with research or answer the question "Says who?". Based on other comments this practice appears to be unlawful, and rightfully so.
The Supreme Court is pretty famous for acknowledging in affirmative action cases, that sometimes to actually effect equality in society, temporary, special rules need to be implemented to cure past systematic discriminations that were codified into law.
You are not wrong it is discrimination/reverse discrimination, at least the courts admit that much.
I will agree that there are less women in software, but there are so many STEM programs/funds out there that are specifically targeting women. There are more women doctors then men doctors, are there initiatives in place to promote more men in medicine?
The U.S has just seen the proportion of female medical students top 50%, but since we are talking about leadership roles, are you sure you want to make medicine your example?
The top leadership positions in medicine remain predominantly male. Only 15% of department chairs are women, and 16% of medical school deans are female. The American Medical Colleges say that over the last decade, women in academic medicine have received only 30% of new tenured positions.
Medicine also includes positions like nursing. If you want to create a world that's pure 50/50 then you would want there to be programs to get men into nursing programs.
This is cool! What I would really like to see from Apple, however, is for them to leverage their retail facilities to make this kind of training more accessible around the world.
With Today at Apple (https://www.apple.com/today/), they already have the technical infrastructure in place as well.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18537211