|
Black and white at Xerox
Nemesis lives, pursuing the insolent and unjust with inflexible vengeance: Workers take Xerox to court for antiblack discrimination. Xerox, of course, is a notorious leader in corporate “affirmative action.” At the end of last year its US workforce was 5% Asian, 8% Hispanic, and 17% African-American, and 37% of its senior executives were women, black or both. Forty-four percent [!] of new hires are minorities. It ranks 14th on the Fortune Best Companies for Minorities list. (Its rank just dropped from 6th, apparently because of these disputes. Apart from Lucent it still outranks every other company on the list that actually makes things. Most of the other top-rankers are either quasi-governmental or regulated utilities.) In spite of that appalling record, it just lost a proceeding before the EEOC and is facing racism lawsuits in New York and
Cincinnati. Reading between the lines, it appears that the New York lawsuit grew out of an attempt at racial outreach: minority
sales representatives hired to serve minority districts in Brooklyn and the Bronx, so customers could see a company that “looks
like them,” are suing because they were given districts in Brooklyn and the Bronx. Tough luck!
Comments
Funny. Xerox has bent over backwards to cater to non-whites yet STILL can’t escape accusations of “racism”. Far better not to indulge hungry minority appetites in the first place. What’s curious is that this alleged bias occurred largely under the watch of the former president of Xerox, a well-known left-winger and major contributor to the Clinton administration. I recall seeing a few years ago a news article on a new “gay friendly” policy at Xerox enouraging homosexual and pro-homosexual employees to place pink triangles on their office doors. The objective was to offer sanctuary to Xerox gays who may have felt harrassed or lonely. Nothing like keeping your priorities straight, eh? Perhaps Xerox would not have had the financial troubles it did if it had spent less time instituting silly and divisive “diversity” schemes — not to mention dodgy accounting practices — and more time making money for its shareholders. What exactly do “diversity” initiatives add to a company’s bottom line, apart from helping it avoid paying Danegeld to the racemongers? I would love to know the answer. Posted by: William on August 9, 2002 9:47 AMWhat is Xerox’s financial situation? Does the slide you allude to correspond to the company’s hiring and promoting of women and minorities? I would like to see the data on companies with a minority or female predominance in positions of power within said, to see if the companies have since been run into the ground. I know that if one surveys inner city school districts where blacks, hispanics and liberal females have assumed control in many cities since the 1970’s, you’ll see a sad situation, with most of these schools in shambles. Dallas and Washington, D.C. and Houston are prime examples. Posted by: Jeff Brewer on August 9, 2002 1:18 PMI gave the link to the Fortune list of minority-friendly companies. Follow that and it will lead you to the particulars on each company. I think the lists go back several years. Posted by: Jim Kalb on August 9, 2002 1:33 PM |