I don’t mean me personally. I don’t want to work for Apple and I am not technically inclined anyway. I mean that Asians are grossly overrepresented in tech and grossly underrepresented elsewhere.
How many white Danes do they have? I bet white Danes are disgracefully few in Apple. I wouldn’t particular mind to get a job at Apple, provided of course they don’t expect me to work too hard. It’ll be good for their diversity quota.
I wonder what the diversity is at the publication the OP cites,PC Magazine?
They probably have some sales opportunities for you. 
I recently had to deal with an RFP from a very large company for some software contracting. The very first requirement was that we had to meet a large list of diversity requirements. We had to report the exact number of LGBT workers we had, along with how many latino, hispanic, female, and black employees we had. If we get the contract, we are required to file a monthly report with them updating those statistics. Furthermore, if we aren’t the sole supplier but outsource some work or material, we are responsible for collecting monthly reports from all of those companies and collating their 'diversity numbers with ours. Extra points are granted in the RFP if any company in the chain is owned by a woman, a minority, or an LGBT individual.
Recently our company has been sending around bulletins advertising how great it is to ‘come out’ as an LGBT individual, and how many resources the company has that can help ‘out’ individuals, etc. When they first came around, I thought it was just the company trying to do a good thing, but in light of all these diversity requirements, the ‘out’ campaign looks a little more questionable - it’s obviously beneficial to the company to increase its numbers of LGBT workers, and it can’t count them if they aren’t out. So the company is pushing them to come out, even though that might cause other social problems for the employee.
Has the U.S. government imposed some diversity rules on contractors? A company isn’t going to go to this kind of effort to track and report these things unless there is big money on the line somewhere. I’m assuming that our customer has its own diversity matrix to fill out and report to someone else, and is just passing the requirement on to us - as we will have to pass it on to our supply chain if we do business with them. It’s like a giant cascade of time sucking idiocy.
No wonder global productivity is slowing - we’re wasting far too much time and effort on this stuff.
Not exactly. Obama signed an executive order last month prohibiting discrimination against LGBT employees of federal contractors. So apparently your employers are just trying to be accommodating to minority employees. What a bunch of time-wasting idiots. :dubious:
There’s a pretty big difference between ‘accomodating LGBT individuals’ (which I am very much in favor of), and having diversity quotas that give advantages to suppliers who happen to be owned by LGBT individuals or which have a higher percentage of LGBT employees.
And you don’t have a problem with the company pressuring LGBT employees to out themselves so that they can be counted in the diversity quota?
Um, I’m honestly trying to figure out what you’re envisioning here.
Are you thinking of companies sending out a general memo that says, “All LGBT employees, please publicly state yourself as such for our quota”? That would be amusing, but hardly effective.
Are you thinking of managers going up to random employees and saying, “Jones, I noticed you glance at Smith’s butt last week; you claim to be heterosexual, but I suggest you tell the truth”?
Are you thinking of employers trolling Facebook or Grindr or whatever looking for signs of their employees engaging in same sex lovin’?
I just don’t get it.
I still like this idea of they who’s going to get disowned, excommunicated, lose his kids and become a public laughing stock…but comes out anyway because the company newsletter suggested it.
Obviously I haven’t seen the RFP you’re referring to, so I don’t know if there were actual quotas involved. Does it actually say “your workforce must be 10% openly gay”? Seems unlikely.
Consider the extra 10% of Asians to be part of America making up for the racism of the past 
Are you sure about that?
I wasn’t able to get much in a quick Google search, but this article said 9.39% of lawyers are Asian. Or almost double their representation in the population as a whole. This article said 5.3% of Congress is Asian, which is about what you’d expect. About 40% of the students at UC Berkley are Asian, compared to 29% white.
What do you mean by “invisible”?
I’d pretend to be gay, if I could get a raise out of it. I’d explain away the wife and kid, though…
The ABA uses Census data in keeping track of diversity in the profession, and its numbers are much lower.
The number of Asian-Americans in Congress is an all time high. It might reflect a trend of growth, but it appears to be more of an outlier.
Dunno what Berkeley has to do with anything.
Seems like a legal minefield to me; if there was ANY subsequent discriminatory behavior toward anyone who came out as a result of this pressure, the company could potentially be on the hook for it.
Or for the White people who would never study CompSci. 
There is some interesting discussion to be had about the issue of meritocracy and the number of Asians in the University of California system.
Affirmative action in California, as in much of the rest of the country, has become a subject of considerable controversy, especially when it comes to the increasingly competitive task of college admissions. There have been a considerable number of Californians arguing against affirmative action, and arguing that college admissions for the state system should be based on merit, and specifically on things like SAT scores and high school GPA.
The problem is that, when people think of the term “affirmative action,” and of the idea that criteria other than grades should be considered, they often focus their attention on African Americans and Latinos. Whites, in particular, have become hostile to affirmative action because they believe that it privileges blacks and Latinos at the expense of whites. Those who feel this way often argue in favor of an academic meritocracy, arguing that using test scores alone is a more fair method of admitting people to college than using nebulous criteria like leadership, or community service, or racial and ethnic background.
But some studies have found that, when confronted with the numerical over-representation of Asians within the UC system, many white Californians—surprise, surprise—suddenly find that maybe simply relying on test scores isn’t such a good idea after all.
As this summary notes:
What do we want?
ACADEMIC MERITOCRACY
When do we want it?
WHENEVER WE DON’T HAVE TO COMPETE AGAINST ASIANS!
I hope petards actually enjoy hoisting, because they have a lot of that in their future.
That’s one of the things that has irked me for quite a while. “Diversity” doesn’t mean real diversity, meeting different kinds of people with different ideas, and being a global family, it means pigeonholing people into a small number of categories and assigning quotas to them.
It might be really cool to have an engineer on the team who grew up on a farm in North Dakota in the middle of nowhere and is very proud of his Finnish ancestry and rural experiences. That sort of guy could inject some interesting ideas into development. But because Finns are “white”, that counts for nothing to HR.
Likewise, getting some Uber-devout Mormons hired at a party-culture firm in Key West might really make it more diverse in a real eye-opening and potentially life-changing way. But if they are white, it counts for nothing on paper.
What
The
Hell
LGBT isn’t really LGBT anymore, it’s LGBTQ + other letters du jour. Asexual! Polyamory! Genderqueer! I’m-not-sure-exactly-what-I-am-but-I-am-not-sexually-normal! Do people who are into B&D count as sexual minorities? Can I get hired as a “diverse” choice if I am a gentleman who doesn’t prefer blondes?
How did they measure who was LGBT or not? Was it simply a survey checkoff, or did you (or HR, etc.) go and do on-the-spot assessments or background checks to identify who was and who was not straight? “Yeah, Bill Jones in Cube 456 was wearing a pink shirt and had that ‘look’, totally gay, <makes mark on form>. John Robinson in Cube 422 marked Gay on the form, but I saw him kissing a lady outside. Not gay.”