Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Sep 2016 21:29 UTC
Apple

Mic.com has obtained a long list of e-mails from primarily female Apple employees (but also a few male employees), detailing a sexist culture inside the company that nobody seems to want to address. The 50 pages of e-mails were handed to Mic by an Apple employee, and obviously, all people involved have been anonymised.

"With such love for a company that does so much good, it is with a heavy heart that I declare my resignation from Apple," a former employee wrote in an email obtained by Mic. "Despite all attempts to seek justice within this corporation, the cries of several minority employees about the toxic and oppressive environment have gone unanswered. I have witnessed the complete and utter disenfranchising of the voices of men and women of color and the fault lies not only in the direct management staff but in the response of those tasked with protecting employee rights. I write this letter hoping to highlight the areas that these departments have failed to properly support employees and as such have hence left Apple, Inc. culpable for various EEOC and ethical violations."

According to Claire*, "several people" who have quit, citing a "white, male, Christian, misogynist, sexist environment," were not given exit interviews. "Their departure is being written up as a positive attrition," she told Mic.

This obviously - but sadly - doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Silicon Valley is an inherently toxic environment dominated by white males, and despite all the talk from Tim Cook and various company bloggers, Apple is not the special diversity flowerchild farting rainbows and puking unicorn dust it claims to be. I mean, this is a company who considers having a Canadian speaking on stage during an event as "diversity".

From these emails, a picture emerges of a company culture actively trying to get women to leave, actively preventing them from getting into mid-level and top-level leadership positions. From everything I've ever heard about Silicon Valley culture - this is par for the course, no matter the company.

Thread beginning with comment 634519
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Sat 17th Sep 2016 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by ddc_"
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

OK, I guess I'll have to explain in more detail. First, there was a sharp increase in "hate crimes" during June. It peaked on the day after results of BREXIT vote were announced. After that it declined, but eventually totaled in 42% increase over previous year. NPCC's press release notes:¹
<blockquote>The main type of offence seen during this two week period is violence against the person, which is primarily harassment, common assault and other violence (verbal abuse, spitting and ‘barging’). The second and third most prevalent incidents were public order offences, followed by criminal damage.</blockquote>
Now, that does not sound inherently racist. It sounds like a lot of angry people doing bad things. That is the statistics from police force.

Next, there are articles you've linked connecting the increased "hate crime" rate to "racism" using anecdotal evidence [of xenophobia but not racism, which already sets doubt about the credability of publication]. That includes various vague statements which are pretty much summed up by the following quote:²
<blockquote>Many of the alleged perpetrators cited the decision to leave the EU explicitly.</blockquote>
What exactly is "many"? None of your articles give precise numbers within those "hate crimes." They basically state that and continue with examples.

On September 7 NPCC released another statement saying:⁴
<blockquote>The latest returns from August 5 – 18 2016 show 2778 hate crimes and incidents. This is a decrease of 479 offences on the previous fortnight but it is a 14 per cent increase on the equivalent period in 2015.</blockquote>

Another NPCC release of interest:⁴
<blockquote>We have seen a significant rise in the reporting of hate crime and urge victims to continue to come forward.
[...]
As a result, we are seeing significant rises in reporting of hate crime and there were 12,845 convictions last year, which is a 4.7% increase on the previous year.</blockquote>
So your source of statistical information specifically notes that the rise in "hate crime" rate is due to increased number of reports, not increased number of crimes. But the most interesting part is that monotonic increase in hate crimes before BREXIT. If we account for this 4.7% yearly increase, the absolute percentages from two reports above turn into relative 36% for June and 9% for August. So even if we ignore NPCC's opinion on reporting rate increase, essentially the lsting effect of BREXIT is no more then 9% increase. (I won't be particularly amazed if that number will go down yet further.)

Now why were we discussing this? Yes, because of this quote:

Brexit proves you wrong there. It passed by a slim majority, and not all voting on racist issues, yet the amount of hate crimes and racist incidents has risen a hell of a lot since the vote, [...]

So, what do we have here? There was a slim majority on the side that was primarily motivated by xenophobic reasons, and the outcome is 9% increase. That proves absolutely nothing.

¹ http://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/hate-crime-undermines-the-diver...
² http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-eu-referendum...
³ http://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/tackling-hate-crime-remains-a-p...
http://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/we-will-work-with-others-across...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[11]: Comment by ddc_
by Vanders on Sat 17th Sep 2016 10:30 in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by ddc_"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, did you just suggest that a 9% increase is not statistically significant? The Leave campaign only one by a couple of points. 9% is not some sort of statistical slight of hand. It directly supports the statement you're so desperately trying to disprove.

It passed by a slim majority, and not all voting on racist issues, yet the amount of hate crimes and racist incidents has risen a hell of a lot since the vote, [...]

1) It passed by a slim majority.
2) There has been a rise in hate crime since the vote.

You're twisting in the wind.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[12]: Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Sat 17th Sep 2016 12:21 in reply to "RE[11]: Comment by ddc_"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

Sorry, did you just suggest that a 9% increase is not statistically significant? The Leave campaign only one by a couple of points. 9% is not some sort of statistical slight of hand. It directly supports the statement you're so desperately trying to disprove.

First, yes, I suggest that it is not statistically significant because it is less then inter-month fluctuation, as reported by the same source.
Second, I suggest that 9% increase is not a change that turn non-"toxic" environment into "toxic".
Third, I suggest that the figures are actually declining, so 9% is not even the stable result. Most likely next point will be yet lower, and it may pretty much be possible that lasting effect will be statistically insignificant in context of normal annual growth.

You're twisting in the wind.

Nope. That statement was supposed to prove me wrong on my statement:
Intolerant environment only forms when most part of the group exhibits intollerance towards the same set of factors. [...] Minorities aren't really capable of forcing their culture onto the whole group unless the group is particularly receptive towards the culture in question.

So, what do we have?

1. According to polls, 2 weeks before election 48% of voters were concerned with immigration, and the figure was rising by 10% monthly.¹ So almost majority of British voters voted against immigration. Provided that example "hate crimes" included statements against immigration and thus the very political position of those 48% of voters is taken for "hate crimes," that is 48% of potential "hate criminals."

2. The changes in "hate crimes" within two months timeframe are:

2.1. More "hate crimes" which would be unreported are actually reported,² which indicates that raw figures are statistically biased towards increase.

2.2. The net increase in this rather short timeframe is 14% and rapidly declining,³ which means that even not accounting for annual growth and bias from 2.1. the increase is not a game changer as implied above. And the timeframe is too short to hint the stable value: political saturation does not dissipate after two month, and there are still significant saturation efforts ongoing. Hell, most of media hysteria on "hate crimes" itself saturates the situation.

So what do we have?
1) It passed by a slim majority.

About 48% of populace were concerned with immigration two weeks before the vote, and the figure was rising. So the situation was at most 2% away from the point when, according to my statement, the xenophobic attitude may become dominant in UK.

2) There has been a rise in hate crime since the vote.

Even with that idiotic definition of the "hate crime" and even under assumption that 100% of "hate crimes" were xenopobic in nature, there are 2778 xenophobic incidents per two weeks, which is 75006 incidents per year or 0.1151988941% of "hate crime" per UK citizen per year. That is 0.0345231147% incidents per UK citizen per year more then in 2015, not accounting for normal annual growth. And that in a country where 48% of population would be "hate crime" offenders if they merely express their view. By no means it is not statistically significant change in UK environment.

So how exactly does it prove my statement above wrong?

¹ https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3748...
² http://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/we-will-work-with-others-across...
³ http://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/tackling-hate-crime-remains-a-p...

Edited 2016-09-17 12:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2