Pfizer excludes Asian, white applicants from 9-year scholarship program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they concentrated on income of the family rather than race, this way they could help poor students of all races. And yes, this would enable them to increase URM participation while not excluding poor Asian and White candidates.

However - I am a-ok with this too. Good for Pfizer.

- Asian-American.

So is it OK for a POC from a rich family in Potomac MD that attended Sidwell and go on Princeton to apply while a poor white kid who lives in Annandale can't apply?

+1. It's not okay. It should be income-based.

This is correct. It also opens the door for "Elizabeth Warren-like" behavior if you know what I mean...it is a slippery slope that creates racialized resentment and asks kids to dig deep into the family tree for someone who fits the bill regardless of the privilege they have. This is not the correct path.

But the point is to increase racial diversity not increase income diversity (which may be a different scholarship). Sure, some wealthier POC might get it, but do you not think they faces discrimination on the basis of their color regardless of wealth? They do. Also, representation matters. Having POC in the workforce encourages more (nobody wants to be the only one).

I’m white and totally support this.

Do you think Asians face discrimination (or god forbid even hate crimes where they are beaten or killed) regardless of their wealth?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Available to undergraduate students in their junior year, the program will offer an initial 10-week summer internship, two years of full-time employment after undergraduate graduation, a fully paid two-year MBA, MPH or MS Statistics program, another summer internship between the first and second years of the chosen master’s program, and finally, employment with Pfizer after graduation.

Applicants must also meet Pfizer’s goals of “increasing the pipeline for Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic and Native Americans.” This leaves out Asian and white applicants, raising discrimination concerns among observers.

Asian Americans make up just 6.1% of the U.S. population, lower than Hispanic and Latino Americans (18.9%) and African Americans (13.6%). The non-Hispanic, non-Latino white population makes up 59.3%.

Heriot said the program has a “clear case of liability” under federal law. That includes the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits racial discrimination in contracting, and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in employment.

Pfizer also described itself as an “equal opportunity employer.” In response to minorities “not included” in the program, the company said it has “multiple opportunities” available throughout the year.

https://news.yahoo.com/pfizer-excludes-asian-white-applicants-184451504.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Were I Asian or white, I doubt I'd want to work for such a racist firm harming me, my relatives, my kids.

Since I'm not, I am just ashamed by it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Available to undergraduate students in their junior year, the program will offer an initial 10-week summer internship, two years of full-time employment after undergraduate graduation, a fully paid two-year MBA, MPH or MS Statistics program, another summer internship between the first and second years of the chosen master’s program, and finally, employment with Pfizer after graduation.

Applicants must also meet Pfizer’s goals of “increasing the pipeline for Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic and Native Americans.” This leaves out Asian and white applicants, raising discrimination concerns among observers.

Asian Americans make up just 6.1% of the U.S. population, lower than Hispanic and Latino Americans (18.9%) and African Americans (13.6%). The non-Hispanic, non-Latino white population makes up 59.3%.

Heriot said the program has a “clear case of liability” under federal law. That includes the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits racial discrimination in contracting, and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in employment.

Pfizer also described itself as an “equal opportunity employer.” In response to minorities “not included” in the program, the company said it has “multiple opportunities” available throughout the year.

https://news.yahoo.com/pfizer-excludes-asian-white-applicants-184451504.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Now keep going with your race baiting and ask yourself what percentage of Pfizer employees are Asian. If its more than 6%, they are overrepresented. If White employees >59% they are overrepresented.

My understanding is that Pfizer employees are 13% Asian....2x their gen pop rep. AA are 9-10%, so underrepresented.

[Anonymous]

I have a problem with this. Everyone should have a problem with it.

It’s a discriminatory policy, plain and simple. No matter how some of you PPs want to spin it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a problem with this. Everyone should have a problem with it.

It’s a discriminatory policy, plain and simple. No matter how some of you PPs want to spin it.

Your post might as well read, "I have a problem with this. And everyone should agree with me."

Do you walk about the world with such a close-minded, arrogant attitude?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a problem with this. Everyone should have a problem with it.

It’s a discriminatory policy, plain and simple. No matter how some of you PPs want to spin it.

Your post might as well read, "I have a problem with this. And everyone should agree with me."

Do you walk about the world with such a close-minded, arrogant attitude?

You come across as close-minded and arrogant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i am asian and this is not ok, it should be all minorities

So you don't mind the discrimination, it is just that you want to be among those being favored. Got it.

[Anonymous]

I think the idea that “race blind” is the same as being non-racist was always an escape hatch of sorts for white supremacy.

[Anonymous]

So at what point are African-Americans and other U are in required to actually meet the same criteria for admissions to higher education and job opportunities? If it is especially neutral, in terms of hiring the best candidate, at what point does it no longer makes sense to say that we need to make up for past sins, which of course were a gracious. Like the egregious sins against the Japanese through the Korematsu time? And, oh by the way, if underrepresented minorities are required to have far lower threshold, and have entry points with far fewer criteria checked, when will we be able to call it like it is, being transparent about that? Or will it always be racist to say that, shockingly, when standards are lowered for entire races, that, not surprisingly, the outcomes differ, not due to any race schism but because the entry standards for lowered?

[Anonymous]

Actually private companies are not allowed to discriminate based on race-sad that you do not know this.

This is blatant discrimination. I'm so sick of it. Companies who hire based on social justice will find out the hard way why so many of these hires have been overlooked. Go research what Google found out when they tried to increase the URM college pipeline- many of them cant do the work.

I hope all companies that hire based on race or sex or anything other than qualifications fail.

[Anonymous]

https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/08/tiktok-star-leaves-goldman-sachs

"When she joined her new employer, Vincent says she was greeted with an invitation to work from anywhere during August: "They were like go and enjoy your life, take your laptop that we’re going to provide you, go!" She also gets a week off at Christmas.

Vincent says her former employer was stricken by staff exits and that the work was getting "kinda boring."

In a previous video, she lamented the need to change her nails when she was called back into the office after the pandemic."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually private companies are not allowed to discriminate based on race-sad that you do not know this.

This is blatant discrimination. I'm so sick of it. Companies who hire based on social justice will find out the hard way why so many of these hires have been overlooked. Go research what Google found out when they tried to increase the URM college pipeline- many of them cant do the work.

I hope all companies that hire based on race or sex or anything other than qualifications fail.

Source? What do you mean they can't do the work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Companies who value diversity have to come up with ways to recruit the groups that are underrepresented in their companies. This policy is actually based on numbers, not some nefarious factor like racism.

They are a private company. It is their right.

You are probably the same poster who is always saying how horrible it is for Asians to try to gain admittance to college. And I say this as someone coming from a family who is half Asian.

Try not to see everything through the lens of racism against your group.

That's not how protected classifications work under the constitution. Take a con law class.

+1 would it be ok for them to only say, "only people under 35 can apply" or "only Asian people can apply"?

Similar thing happened with MoCo college, and they immediately took it down. Doesn't matter if it's a public college or a private company. Race (and age) based discrimination in the work place is against the law.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1075910.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually private companies are not allowed to discriminate based on race-sad that you do not know this.

This is blatant discrimination. I'm so sick of it. Companies who hire based on social justice will find out the hard way why so many of these hires have been overlooked. Go research what Google found out when they tried to increase the URM college pipeline- many of them cant do the work.

I hope all companies that hire based on race or sex or anything other than qualifications fail.

Source? What do you mean they can't do the work?

DP.. I assume it means that they aren't up to the task.

But, I'm curious about ^PP's post about "Google found out".. cite your source? I'm genuinely curious about this. I used to work for Google.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they concentrated on income of the family rather than race, this way they could help poor students of all races. And yes, this would enable them to increase URM participation while not excluding poor Asian and White candidates.

However - I am a-ok with this too. Good for Pfizer.

- Asian-American.

So is it OK for a POC from a rich family in Potomac MD that attended Sidwell and go on Princeton to apply while a poor white kid who lives in Annandale can't apply?

+1. It's not okay. It should be income-based.

This is correct. It also opens the door for "Elizabeth Warren-like" behavior if you know what I mean...it is a slippery slope that creates racialized resentment and asks kids to dig deep into the family tree for someone who fits the bill regardless of the privilege they have. This is not the correct path.

But the point is to increase racial diversity not increase income diversity (which may be a different scholarship). Sure, some wealthier POC might get it, but do you not think they faces discrimination on the basis of their color regardless of wealth? They do. Also, representation matters. Having POC in the workforce encourages more (nobody wants to be the only one).

I’m white and totally support this.

Do you think Asians face discrimination (or god forbid even hate crimes where they are beaten or killed) regardless of their wealth?

In the workplace? Not so much. Asians are over represented at this company.