Most places use the word "diversity" for a variety of people of different races all thinking exactly the same thing.

What always gets me is the outright lie that many people accept that diversity is a good thing in and of itself. That's total nonsense. In the end, what MUST happen is for people - even of different backgrounds and opinions - to come together and set aside their differences to do what is right. Diversity MIGHT be useful so as to expose a variety of viewpoints so that they can be considered, but diversity is not the end goal - uniformity is. Only a uniform justice system is effective. Only a uniform set of values can define a community or nation. Only the uniform treatment of individuals (regardless of race, class, etc.) can underpin true freedom and natural rights.

Progressives want to hold up "diversity" because it divides people and segments them into individual groups they can control and conquer. It's how they've acquired their power over the last 50+ years and the only way they can hold onto it. Embracing diversity is really code for the moral right to treat everyone differently - excusing some because of their position or influence while condemning others because of their ideals. Embracing diversity as an end goal can have only one effect: to poison the cause of true liberty.

So was she fired for not thinking diversely enough? Or for not having the Apple party line memorized adequately?
Surely not for putting her foot in her mouth, since that is a daily occurrence for rational thought challenged liberals regardless of their job title.

I admit that not a penny of my resources have gone to pay her salary.

Is it possible for all people to come together in a trade-centered world? The island of Hispaniola is instructive.

The Dominican Republic was formed when the Spanish established Santo Domingo as an active trade center in the Caribbean. The people there became "rich" by island-economy standards, and continue to thrive.
.
Conversely Haitians long ago made the conscious decision to reject the emerging trade-centered world, instead opting to (quoting from the program) "celebrate their blackness." We all know how Haiti, a nation that still believes in witch doctors and voodoo, is among the poorest nations on earth. So why is this?

A book called, Dark Star Safari tells of a once young and idealistic Peace Corps volunteer who went back to Africa to see how the people had fared in villages where he had worked hard to improve their lot in life a decade or two earlier. He was very shocked and dismayed to find the answer was, not very much. In one village where a pump was installed to bring water to the village so that the tribe's women did not have to trudge in a conga line to bring water from a stream a half-mile away every morning, the women were now doing exactly that. At some point the pump (or was it the electricity?) had failed and the tribe - disinterested in finding a remedy - simply went back to their old ways. The same was true for another village that was supplied with light, so they could see at night. At some point, the light bulb(s) had failed and the tribe showed no interest in seeking a remedy.

A Chinese proverb says: When the student is ready, the teacher appears. One cannot force disinterested people to become ready students, and no feel-good diversity program will make it so.

I'll say it again. We are surprised by these kinds of things because the left realizes they are at war while the rest of us are just going about our day-to-day business of working, making friends, taking care of our families. We see a story like this and (even me, even still) go "wow!" If 2 sides are at war and one side doesn't realize it, they're still at war.

This is a disappointing story, if it's true. One must be truly demented to agree with what happened here.

She was hired to do a PC job, thought, rationally, for herself and, thus, became an "uppity black" and was put back in her place.

One bad apple can spoil......

It is a sad admission that in order for any large company to exist they must expend resources on pleasing and placating the large crowd of socialists (would be power abusers) in order to maintain their business and not be attacked by the mob. The fact that Apple's VP didn't get the platitudes correct and had to leave is an amazing display of the power of tyrannical thinking.

When I worked at Texas Tech University the Department of Diversity had 1 white woman 4 to 5 Black people depending on the time and ALL the rest were Hispanic. They catered to Hispanics ONLY and were doing everything in their power to run off the 1 white woman who had been there forever.

I said then and still say that if a Department of Diversity is necessary (I hold that it is not), that it should be made of a representative sample of the people from the community that it serves. Not just groups that have been tagged as minorities.

It is pretty said when you have to apologize for NOT being a racists.

She made the mistake of forgetting that the whole diversity war on white men is really the guilt ridden white leadership "Virtue signalling" back and fourth amongst themselves and to everyone else.

Maybe I should give more thought to getting an Android phone next time. I wonder if those come in diversity or uniformity models?

and I thought white men can't jump

Just ignoring race (i.e. physical traits we group together and sometimes associate with a group identity) is facile solution. There's a real problem with most people in tech being white men, and there's a real problem with management solving the problem by focusing on race. I don't have the solution. I think it incredibly simplistic to say our goal is to see people as individuals and not to judge them based on their physical attributes, so management should set the example by ignoring physical attributes. I think it's paranoid to see a left/right political conspiracy in Apple's efforts to deal with this.

There is a little more context (and commentary critical of Smith's comments) in this article: https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/13/app...

I read Smith's comments, and I think she's absolutely right. Those people who all look alike could have incredibly diverse backgrounds. In response to her comments, another panelist said we need to acknowledge, though, the white privilege that hypothetical group of white men share. I think that's a good point, but I am not sure how to address that. Most of the comments on this site here say anything other than ignoring it is an evil conspiracy. I actually think they're right that ignoring race is right. Could big companies seek out diversity of experiences and social networks without focusing on race? That would seem to be a good goal. It's all very easy to say, difficult for executives to carry out.