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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.