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

[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?

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.

This is true because athletic abilities are 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 DCUM opinion. Just DCUM fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Totally rational behavior on her part and she is indeed the target demographic. Hispanic and Latina are not ethnic designations.

[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.

No. That is not the logical conclusion. They have one program aimed at increasing diversity. That is not the same thing as no longer hiring white and Asian employees.

[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?

That’s not what is happening here. More analogous might be an Asian/white recruiting program or special program to attract Asian/white players. Maybe the Asian/white players should try to get such programs with the NBA if they would like to see that diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

We have no idea who this person is or their race. Likely it is a racebaiting troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

This is true because athletic abilities are 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 DCUM opinion. Just DCUM fact.

The NBA, NFL and MLB used to be exclusively white. When was Pfizer exclusively Black and Hispanic?

[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?

That’s not what is happening here. More analogous might be an Asian/white recruiting program or special program to attract Asian/white players. Maybe the Asian/white players should try to get such programs with the NBA if they would like to see that diversity.

Why are you bringing "whites" into this? There are currently, and there historically have been, whites in the NBA. There's only been a handful of Asian players.

But to your point, why should it be on Asians to "get such programs" with the NBA? Were these recruiting programs with Pfizer created because low income Blacks and Hispanics "got with" Pfizer to create them?

[Anonymous]

As an Asian American, I find it infuriating that all Asians are lumped into one category. If you drill down into the data, the income and education outcomes are vastly different among Asian ethnic groups. The Hmong, for example, have some of the highest rates of poverty and lowest rates of educational attainment of any ethnic or racial group in the country, including Black and Hispanic groups. OTOH, Indian Americans on average far outpace Whites and other Asian ethnic groups.

[Anonymous]

At least Pfizer is transparent about their selection goals. Some of the scholarships my kid considered applying to said nothing about race but when you looked at winners from previous years, they were nearly all one race. It discouraged her from applying to some scholarships and I couldn’t blame her.

[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."

I love that! I wonder if she needed to switch out her fake eyelashes too when she was called back into the office?

[Anonymous]

Whine privilege.

[Anonymous]

I have no problem with this. In certain fields African Americans and Latin Americans are disproportionately under-represented & this can have a disparate impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s their money, they can give it to whomever they wish. If they only wanted to give it to rich white kids from the DC metro, I would be okay with it. I cannot stand anyone who tells anyone else how they can spend their money.

Not when you have Federal contract(s) with the US government.

Even the Federal government is trying to increase diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s their money, they can give it to whomever they wish. If they only wanted to give it to rich white kids from the DC metro, I would be okay with it. I cannot stand anyone who tells anyone else how they can spend their money.

Not when you have Federal contract(s) with the US government.

Even the Federal government is trying to increase diversity.

Via Executive Order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Strategic-Plan-to-Advance-Diversity-Equity-Inclusion-and-Accessibility-in-the-Federal-Workforce-11.23.21.pdf

[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.

bamboo ceiling. Maybe pfizer should have a program to promote Asian Americans to executive positions.