Apparently she - a black - doesn’t like dealing with too many white people or too many men.
Does anyone have a better cite than Right Wing News?
CNN’s article is rather less inflammatory but highlights her apparent sexism as well as racism.
I don’t usually do the “name that fallacy” thing but this seems like a good place for it because the fallacy isn’t obvious and it is interesting that it fits.
You’re committing the fallacy of composition: Assuming that the best set of employees is the one consisting only of employees each of whom, individually, is the best person for the job.
Think of sports teams. Does the best team necessarily have to have all the best players in it? No–some less-than-best players may still make for the best team given the right coach and team synergies etc.
Similarly, even if the best person for the job on each hiring occasion was a white man, this doesn’t mean that having a policy of diversity will result in having a less-than-best team in the end, even if it means sometimes hiring people who are not, in race-blind terms, the “best person for the job.”
CEO does business with the people she prefers. There ought to be a law against that.
“a black”?!
This is supposed to be a free country. She should be able to do business with the people she prefers. If she doesn’t like white people, so what, that’s her choice. She just has to realize that it may be bad for business.
Whoosh?
If I saw a management team consisting entirely of white males, I would not conclude that they are always choosing the best person for the job – I would conclude that they are always choosing the best white male for the job.
Too many is different than entirely.
True, but the second quote in the OP includes a quotation from Brewer, “The entire other side of the table was all Caucasian male.”
I like how the OP asks if anyone has a better cite than RightWingNews.com, and then immediately provides a better cite himself.
A distinction which the rag linked to in the OP does not seem to understand:
It is, of course, entirely unsurprising that a member of a minority pointing out a seeming example of prejudice is, herself, immediately branded a racist by the yellow press.
Also, I’d like to echo gigi’s comment.
Since the two were linked, I don’t see how CNN’s is better than RWN’s.
The OP is a little unclear; I could have just as easily written the same exact response to the OP - your post just happened to be the one I used.
I agree with the point you make.
Are you saying that a member of a majority cannot be the subject of racism or sexism?
Well, I’d give even chances that the next random thing I pull out of my ass would qualify.
PC police run amok. They don’t even try to argue that white dudes aren’t the devil. They just cry “racist!”
Quartz why are you such a tedious wanker for. Just get to the point, you are a white male presumably who has a problem with minoriteies that get all uppity and above their station?
Uh, no. It’s actually flat out illegal to not do business with someone because of their race.
The question here is more complicated than that. Does it count as discrimination against people for their race if you use race as evidence of racist hiring practices?
I mean, it is bad evidence on its own, I’ll admit. There are plenty of reasons why a staff may wind up all white that are not caused by racism. And I would argue assuming otherwise is indeed a form of racism.
But is it the type of racism that we have made illegal?
I concur with your sentiment–if you are talking about the white dudes crying racism. There’s a way of addressing the issue without flying off the handle about racism. They could actually try to see both sides.
In a way, I guess you can argue that they are being PC police, just not in the usual direction. How dare she even imply that a supplier with only white people could be evidence of racist hiring practices!
As far as I can tell, she’s not said she’s going to fire any supplier. She’s just said that she plans on talking with them about it. She’s not jumping to conclusions.
And as for diverse hiring practices–it’s a touchy subject. What you’re seeing her is reverse discrimination–but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Reverse discrimination is not the same thing as discrimination against the majority. It is discrimination as an attempt to “reverse” other forms of discrimination.
Yes, in an ideal world, this is bad. But when one thing discriminates against people, discriminating the other direction at the appropriate levels can restore things back to normal.
Yes, if you overdo it, you wind up with racism against the majority, and that can be a problem, too. But it’s all a balance, and you can’t fix an unbalanced scale by always adding the same thing to both sides.
Once you do have a balanced scale, though, you can’t continue unbalancing it either direction.
Emphasis mine.
Note how she, the CEO of a fairly large company, is just “a black”, but the men she “doesn’t like dealing with” are at least people. And that’s exactly when I stopped caring about the matter presented in the OP.
There is a difference in the articles. The CNN article explains how they like to nudge suppliers into having more diverse sales teams and quotes her saying she planned to call the supplier. The right wing stuff says she planned to fire the supplier. Maybe there’s other info anywhere but I see no evidence of that from the original quote. The right wing sites added that to make it more inflammatory.
What I get from the CNN article is that she does business with everyone but let’s them know she wants to see diversity in their sales teams.
What I get from the right wing articles is that she refuses to do business with whites and males because she’s racist and sexist and poor white males have it tough enough already.