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

[Anonymous]

I’m so sick of this underrepresentation/overrepresentation claims? Population racial quota is not always the proper representation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP is not taking the argument to the conclusion. Because Asians and whites are overrepresented at this company, they represent all Asians and all whites in this country at this firm. For this reason, it's no longer necessary to hire and promote more Asians and whites at this firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP I was responding to referred to discrimination of blacks in general not at this company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP is not taking the argument to the conclusion. Because Asians and whites are overrepresented at this company, they represent all Asians and all whites in this country at this firm. For this reason, it's no longer necessary to hire and promote more Asians and whites at this firm.

Why is it necessary to look at race at all when hiring and promoting? Why isn't it just about the most qualified?
Asians are VASTLY unrepresented in the NBA. Can you imagine the NBA saying they are only going to offer opportunities to Asian people, and will no longer consider prospective Black players?

[Anonymous]

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.

There’s this amazing thing called the Constitution that disagrees with your take on whether an private employer can prima facie discriminate against a racial minority.

The Asians, because I feel that probably needs to be spelled out for you

[Anonymous]

It’s not illegal for a private company to recruit minorities! You would have to prove that they no longer hire any Asians or whites to show discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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."

She left for a private equity job like nearly all junior bankers do. (This is why Goldman is trying so hard to hold onto them.)

Is that only ok for white people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP is not taking the argument to the conclusion. Because Asians and whites are overrepresented at this company, they represent all Asians and all whites in this country at this firm. For this reason, it's no longer necessary to hire and promote more Asians and whites at this firm.

Why is it necessary to look at race at all when hiring and promoting? Why isn't it just about the most qualified?
Asians are VASTLY unrepresented in the NBA. Can you imagine the NBA saying they are only going to offer opportunities to Asian people, and will no longer consider prospective Black players?

I believe the argument is that IQ distribution is similar in all race groups. And underrepresentation must be due to historical racial discrimination. This being race neutral won’t correct past wrong. reverse-discrimination is necessary until the expected outcome is achieved. Not my opinion. Just my understanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m Asian and I don’t have a problem with this.

The people who benefit from these types of programs are UMC blacks and Hispanics. There are a lot of them.

Then the imposter syndrome sets in...or maybe that group likes the handouts and becomes entitled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP is not taking the argument to the conclusion. Because Asians and whites are overrepresented at this company, they represent all Asians and all whites in this country at this firm. For this reason, it's no longer necessary to hire and promote more Asians and whites at this firm.

Why is it necessary to look at race at all when hiring and promoting? Why isn't it just about the most qualified?
Asians are VASTLY unrepresented in the NBA. Can you imagine the NBA saying they are only going to offer opportunities to Asian people, and will no longer consider prospective Black players?

You make this argument because you quietly believe your race is superior, so you think it will favor you and your children.

That is racism to the core.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP is not taking the argument to the conclusion. Because Asians and whites are overrepresented at this company, they represent all Asians and all whites in this country at this firm. For this reason, it's no longer necessary to hire and promote more Asians and whites at this firm.

Why is it necessary to look at race at all when hiring and promoting? Why isn't it just about the most qualified?
Asians are VASTLY unrepresented in the NBA. Can you imagine the NBA saying they are only going to offer opportunities to Asian people, and will no longer consider prospective Black players?

You make this argument because you quietly believe your race is superior, so you think it will favor you and your children.

That is racism to the core.

You don't even know what race I am.

[Anonymous]

If you don't like this, send an email to Pfizer. Ranting on an anonymous forum isn't helping you - unless you just want to vent your grievances.

[Anonymous]

I know a blue-eyed blonde whose American parents moved to South America to work for a Fortune 500 company, which is why she was born and grew up there (with, of course, summers in Maine and college on the East Coast).

She has won multiple fellowships for Hispanic/Latina women, because she is a Hispanic (i.e., Spanish-speaking) Latina (i.e., someone born and raised in Latin America).

I think of her whenever I read debates on scholarships and fellowships like this one.

[Anonymous]

I'm Asian and I understand why programs like this exist. Are you a white person calling this program to increase underrepresented minorities in these companies racist? Of course you are. #whiteprivilege

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don’t know the meaning of the words you’re using. Protected “classification” is not a thing.

Suspect classification is a protected classification under the Equal Protection clause. Get over yourself.