3 ms·
Nasdaq Takes Aim at All-White, Male Company Boards with Diversity Proposal
- throwawaysea 6y agoI find institutionally-forced diversity measures (whether by states like CA or organizations like NASDAQ) to be unacceptable simply because these diversity measures are racist and sexist and *-ist by requiring hiring based on various identities rather than merit. Such policies are also arbitrary, since the identities we recognize are arbitrary - we don't, for example, recognize identity groups based on location (different cities or states) - should "rural" be considered a minority identity that qualifies? Why not require every company to have a rural board member since one of the biggest divisions is our society is rural versus urban? Furthermore, NASDAQ is once again quoting misleading statistics to support their misguided measure: > In its proposal, Nasdaq cited a report from the Carlyle Group investment company, which found that companies it invested in that have at least two diverse board members have nearly 12% more earnings growth per year than the average of companies that lack diversity. This is similar to the famous oft-quoted McKinsey diversity study, where it was noted that more-diverse companies perform better. In truth, the actual study's authors mentioned that the study is not causal - that is, increased diversity of these arbitrary minority groups is not a proven cause of success. Nor is it causal here. It's more likely that successful companies often grow into large companies and naturally tend towards representation that reflects their broader society as a result. It is also the case that large companies are often the target of activist pressure to carry diversity initiatives, which then skews who is hired and promoted away from a natural merit-based process.