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: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 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.

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:

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 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.

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

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:

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: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 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.