Thread regarding Nike Inc. layoffs

We did it Joe!

@bh I don’t disagree with anything you said. I was just pointing out that no one should be shocked that the first 40+ years of Nike was mostly white leadership. Reverse discrimination is just as wrong as discrimination.

@be and @ay, the data shows what it shows because there was in fact a concerted effort to hire certain candidates primarily based on those candidates fitting a preferred demographic.

If you don’t believe the data you’ll have a more difficult time brushing off the depositions when those begin, and certain individuals testify - under oath - that they were well-aware certain candidates would or would not be considered based on the company’s then-current “diversity goals”.

I was not personally impacted by this but I do personally know someone who was. A senior employee was SPECIFICALLY told their position was being released, and their own tenure at the company was being ended, to help achieve those goals.

You might think “I don’t believe that because it would be an easy, walking, talking, open-and-shut lawsuit!” Except it wasn’t because that senior employee was paid VERY generously (mid six-figures) to accept it and graciously walk away in silence. Which is precisely what happened.

That’s the only incident of which I am personally aware. But I strongly suspect it wasn’t a one-off for that person only.

Some of you might read this and STILL think, “I don’t care. The larger cause was righteous and helped make up for past ills. You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.”

Fine. But it’s still blatantly illegal. And when all is said and done I fully expect we’ll all learn that these allegations - even if they were brought by an odorous federal Administration - had and have merit.

@be agreed. That’s not the shocking number here.

@b5 That number should not shock anyone. White people are about 60% of the population in the U.S. and in 1980 the number was around 80%. That’s not racism, it’s demographics.

@bb

During the period you’ve referenced, were Nike VP’s financially incentivized to hire these white men?

There has never been a fair and equitable process for who is elevated to a VP at Nike. It's who you know or what criteria there is at the time. When white males were being elevated, it was the good old boys network. Let's not act like during this time period it was a fair and equitable process either.

@aa I agree with your bold perspective.

We should ensure there is more equality in the process, and remove any and all bias, prejudice, and financial incentives to discriminate against one group over another.

@ay the composition of the Director+ pool is not assumed in this evaluation.

It is a published figure (Impact Report) with slight variation YOY in the referenced period. With a starting point of 75% white at the beginning of the period referenced.

From this population one cohort is observed reaching the VP level at a rate ahead of other cohorts, when considering relative population sizes. With the estimated deltas referenced in the original post.

This analysis is derived purely from publicly available information.

One thing worth considering is the composition of the Director+ feeder pool itself. White males remain well‑represented at Manager and Director levels, but by the time you reach the Director+ population, the candidate pool may be more diverse than people assume. If the pool is diverse and the non‑white candidates in that pool are highly qualified, it makes sense that their promotion rates would reflect that.

The ratios in the analysis don’t necessarily imply preferential treatment — they may simply reflect differences in who is in the pipeline at that stage and the qualifications those individuals bring. Looking at both representation and outcomes together gives a more complete picture of what’s happening.

@aa jobs ARE fed to you on a silver spoon when you sit in certain teams and work for certain people! Pathetic.

The role should go to the candidate best equipped to succeed. Nothing else should matter. In this downturn environment, the business will inevitably need to make these choices.

Hooray, we did it! We’ve achieved equality! Nike is now a better organization! *high fives all around

@ac I don’t think it’s 400% growth. But rather, a greater number of estimated promotions from a smaller population.

@aa 400% and 240% over a seven year period is crazy talk. Call me cynical, but I find it hard to believe this involved fair processes.

Who said it was discrimination?

This is not discrimination. This is what equality looks like when jobs are not just fed to you on a silver spoon.