4 ms·

Yes, I see, that's fair enough. I still don't think the policy itself is actually discriminatory: at this particular point in time that executive level has a d

Yes, I see, that's fair enough. I still don't think the policy itself is actually discriminatory: at this particular point in time that executive level has a disparity, and that's the issue, not the policy. But as that's harder to solve, should either apply the policy to all levels or not at all. I feel like it's a cheap sticky plaster, but I guess it would do. And yes, I shouldn't dismiss the criticism of it per se, though my being unsympathetic has less to do with the disparity aspect

webmaven 6y ago
> I still don't think the policy itself is actually discriminatory: at this particular point in time that executive level has a disparity, and that's the issue, not the policy. Look, it isn't particularly controversial that policies that are discriminatory in effect are problematic, even if the policy is on its face non-discriminatory. This isn't even a particularly new idea: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." — Anatole France > my being unsympathetic has less to do with the disparity aspect What is the source of your lack of sympathy, then?
- RobertKerans 6y ago
  I'll preface this by saying that her actions may do some unalloyed good here, I understand your point. I still think that the inferred makeup of the direct reports is more the issue that needs fixing, but if this causes some positive change in corporate structure then, great. > What is the source of your lack of sympathy, then? Mmm. So this is a powerful corporate executive being denied a seat in another corporate board. She is also a powerful corporate political lobbyist who, until very recently, worked on behalf of a party that often seems to actively fight for policies that entrench discrimination. She inhabits an elite level and this course of action has effectively no downside for her -- she is aware of the contract stipulations, she tests breaking the contract, is fired for doing so, and she can do so with absolute confidence that it will have net zero-to-positive impact on her own prospects. That, in this case, is quite likely a very good thing, because she is in a position where she can possibly force/successfully lobby for change, but re sympathy for her specifically? No

webmaven 6y ago

> I still don't think the policy itself is actually discriminatory: at this particular point in time that executive level has a disparity, and that's the issue, not the policy. Look, it isn't particularly controversial that policies that are discriminatory in effect are problematic, even if the policy is on its face non-discriminatory. This isn't even a particularly new idea: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." — Anatole France > my being unsympathetic has less to do with the disparity aspect What is the source of your lack of sympathy, then?

RobertKerans 6y ago
I'll preface this by saying that her actions may do some unalloyed good here, I understand your point. I still think that the inferred makeup of the direct reports is more the issue that needs fixing, but if this causes some positive change in corporate structure then, great. > What is the source of your lack of sympathy, then? Mmm. So this is a powerful corporate executive being denied a seat in another corporate board. She is also a powerful corporate political lobbyist who, until very recently, worked on behalf of a party that often seems to actively fight for policies that entrench discrimination. She inhabits an elite level and this course of action has effectively no downside for her -- she is aware of the contract stipulations, she tests breaking the contract, is fired for doing so, and she can do so with absolute confidence that it will have net zero-to-positive impact on her own prospects. That, in this case, is quite likely a very good thing, because she is in a position where she can possibly force/successfully lobby for change, but re sympathy for her specifically? No