6 ms·

Federal government already says you can't discriminate. They aren't saying, "you have to hire this person". They're saying you can't hire exclusively this typ

Federal government already says you can't discriminate. They aren't saying, "you have to hire this person". They're saying you can't hire exclusively this type of person that currently dominates the top of society. Given that these boardrooms don't diversify themselves, what is the actual problem with it?

radisb 5y ago
The problem is that someone must be fired because he is a white male
- kenjackson 5y ago
  It doesn't mean that at all. You can hire a black person and not fire anyone. They may choose to fire someone, but given these are board positions, and it literally takes just one person -- they can easily accommodate simply hiring someone.
  - radisb 5y ago
    Oh, so if, hypothetically, someone did have to be fired to be replaced by a non-white-male, would you be against it?
    - kenjackson 5y ago
      If that was the literal rule (you had to fire a white male) then yes, I would be against it. The intent isn't to be spiteful against white males. It's to give space at the table for other groups that are intentionally excluded due to their race.
- BrianOnHN 5y ago
  Edit: deleted because original comment has changed.
  - radisb 5y ago
    "he" because the article says "all-white-male"
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- larkost 5y ago
  These are board members. They are not hired in the first place, and generally need to be re-appointed every few years. This law has been slowly ratcheting up, so either people have simply been not re-appointed to the board, or they have increased the size of the board to include new members who were chosen from more diverse backgrounds. No one was fired.
nverno 5y ago
This is starting to sound similar to equity laws established in South Africa, which have not had good outcomes. Preferential treatment like this, not based on merit, is unfair and could breed a lot of resentment.
humanrebar 5y ago
At a practical level, it means you end up with particular slots reserved for particular demographics. What happens when the person from $demographic_one retires from the board? Do you use an impartial search process? Or are you legally obligated to reject certain applicants based on their demographics? I understand the appeals to equity vs equality. I'm saying this is a subtle distinction hinging on who is making choices and how. I don't want the government deciding who is diverse enough or historically oppressed enough or underrepresented enough. It will get it wrong far too often.
Sebb767 5y ago
It's going to be one diverse person at a lot of those boards and they will get the stigma of being the person that was put there because the actual good candidates had the wrong skin color. No matter how qualified they might actually be, they can't escape the looks. Plus, by making this a factor, you're just kindling actual racism by pitting white males against everyone else. The resentment created by rejecting someone for their gender or color of skin does not subside just because the attributes happen to be white and male. I get the intention, but fighting racism with racism just doesn't work.
- kenjackson 5y ago
  Do white males feel like they are all unfairly on the board because they passed over all the black candidates? No. They think they're there on merit, because well --- of course, they're white.
  - sanity31415 5y ago
    Welcome to 2021 when people think openly disparaging people on the basis of their race is ok.
    - kenjackson 5y ago
      So that's your counter? Nothing against the actual merit of the statement? White people don't naturally assume they have their positions on merit? How many whites actually think, "Maybe I shouldn't have this position because of the advantage I've been given being white"? Seriously. How often do white males seriously ponder this?
      - sanity31415 5y ago
        The merit of your statement disparaging people based on their race? Such statements are without merit.
        kenjackson 5y ago
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
A national government requiring that hiring decisions be made on the basis of gender or race, and the response is "what is the actual problem with it?"
- kenjackson 5y ago
  You seem to think that hiring decisions aren't already largely made on the basis of race and gender.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    I'm baffled how one could think that statement is any sort of defense for allowing a government to dictate racial quotas for private company hiring.
    - kenjackson 5y ago
      The only way you could be baffled is if you're on the receiving end of such benefit.
  - _hilro 5y ago
    Great, where's the California bill that outlaws all Black boards or all Hispanic boards?
    - belltaco 5y ago
      Where are the laws that ban monkeys driving cars.
pdonis 5y ago
> They aren't saying, "you have to hire this person". They're saying you can't hire exclusively this type of person that currently dominates the top of society. No, that's not what Federal anti-discrimination law says. It only says you can't refuse to hire certain people on the basis of a protected characteristic (of which race is one, but not the only one). It says nothing about refusing to hire certain people for other reasons that don't have to do with a protected characteristic. (Btw, corporate boards of directors aren't even "hired"; they aren't employees. So it's not even clear what, if any, Federal anti-discrimination laws about hiring and employment would apply to them.) > Given that these boardrooms don't diversify themselves, what is the actual problem with it? There are two actual problems. One is that you can't have a government that only exercises its power wisely. For every mandate the government makes that happens to move things in the right direction, there will be many more that move things in the wrong direction. The people who are attracted to government jobs where they get to tell other people what to do aren't benevolent helpers; they're people who like power. All history shows that such people are precisely the people you don't want telling other people what to do. The second problem is that dictating that people of certain races must belong to corporate boards is just as wrong as dictating that people of certain races can't belong to corporate boards. Both are looking at something that is irrelevant to the actual job, which means they aren't actually improving the corporations; the corporations can still do just as much damage as they did before, just now they'll be doing it with a "diverse" board. The only real way to fix corporate governance is for people who would do better jobs than the board members of current corporations to form their own corporations and out-compete the current corporations.
- kenjackson 5y ago
  > No, that's not what Federal anti-discrimination law says. I wasn't referring to Fed Discrimination Laws. I was referring to the California law. Sorry if that wasn't clear. > The people who are attracted to government jobs where they get to tell other people what to do aren't benevolent helpers; they're people who like power. All history shows that such people are precisely the people you don't want telling other people what to do. Why do you think that's not already the world we live in? Police officers are the epitome of this. I'm just not convinced things get much worse with this. > The second problem is that dictating that people of certain races must belong to corporate boards is just as wrong as dictating that people of certain races can't belong to corporate boards. I disagree with this. They are vastly different. One is completely excluding a group from the table. The other is ensuring that a group has a spot at the table. And boards, in particular, are the type of position where there are many qualified people. If we did a controlled study I'd be shocked if there was a negative difference in performance of companies with Black board members. > The only real way to fix corporate governance is for people who would do better jobs than the board members of current corporations to form their own corporations and out-compete the current corporations. In order to do that you have to fix a bunch of other stuff in society as well. Companies don't live in a meritocratic bubble.
newfriend 5y ago
If you have an open board seat, and your other five positions are currently held by "white males", you are now forced to discriminate based on race/gender. By law you would not be allowed to appoint a qualified potential candidate because they have the "wrong" physical attributes. It's abhorrent.
RickJWagner 5y ago
I walked around my neighborhood today, there are several houses under construction. The framing and roofing crews are staffed entirely by hardy people of only one gender and with little ethnic diversity. I sometimes watch professional sports, in particular basketball. There is very, very little diversity. My son is in his first year of teaching elementary school. He tells me he is almost alone in the school, gender-wise. I think this is a very complex topic, with lots of nuances.

radisb 5y ago

The problem is that someone must be fired because he is a white male

kenjackson 5y ago
It doesn't mean that at all. You can hire a black person and not fire anyone. They may choose to fire someone, but given these are board positions, and it literally takes just one person -- they can easily accommodate simply hiring someone.
- radisb 5y ago
  Oh, so if, hypothetically, someone did have to be fired to be replaced by a non-white-male, would you be against it?
  - kenjackson 5y ago
    If that was the literal rule (you had to fire a white male) then yes, I would be against it. The intent isn't to be spiteful against white males. It's to give space at the table for other groups that are intentionally excluded due to their race.
BrianOnHN 5y ago
Edit: deleted because original comment has changed.
- radisb 5y ago
  "he" because the article says "all-white-male"
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
larkost 5y ago
These are board members. They are not hired in the first place, and generally need to be re-appointed every few years. This law has been slowly ratcheting up, so either people have simply been not re-appointed to the board, or they have increased the size of the board to include new members who were chosen from more diverse backgrounds. No one was fired.

nverno 5y ago

This is starting to sound similar to equity laws established in South Africa, which have not had good outcomes. Preferential treatment like this, not based on merit, is unfair and could breed a lot of resentment.

humanrebar 5y ago

At a practical level, it means you end up with particular slots reserved for particular demographics. What happens when the person from $demographic_one retires from the board? Do you use an impartial search process? Or are you legally obligated to reject certain applicants based on their demographics? I understand the appeals to equity vs equality. I'm saying this is a subtle distinction hinging on who is making choices and how. I don't want the government deciding who is diverse enough or historically oppressed enough or underrepresented enough. It will get it wrong far too often.

Sebb767 5y ago

It's going to be one diverse person at a lot of those boards and they will get the stigma of being the person that was put there because the actual good candidates had the wrong skin color. No matter how qualified they might actually be, they can't escape the looks. Plus, by making this a factor, you're just kindling actual racism by pitting white males against everyone else. The resentment created by rejecting someone for their gender or color of skin does not subside just because the attributes happen to be white and male. I get the intention, but fighting racism with racism just doesn't work.

kenjackson 5y ago
Do white males feel like they are all unfairly on the board because they passed over all the black candidates? No. They think they're there on merit, because well --- of course, they're white.
- sanity31415 5y ago
  Welcome to 2021 when people think openly disparaging people on the basis of their race is ok.
  - kenjackson 5y ago
    So that's your counter? Nothing against the actual merit of the statement? White people don't naturally assume they have their positions on merit? How many whites actually think, "Maybe I shouldn't have this position because of the advantage I've been given being white"? Seriously. How often do white males seriously ponder this?
    - sanity31415 5y ago
      The merit of your statement disparaging people based on their race? Such statements are without merit.
      - kenjackson 5y ago

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

A national government requiring that hiring decisions be made on the basis of gender or race, and the response is "what is the actual problem with it?"

kenjackson 5y ago
You seem to think that hiring decisions aren't already largely made on the basis of race and gender.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  I'm baffled how one could think that statement is any sort of defense for allowing a government to dictate racial quotas for private company hiring.
  - kenjackson 5y ago
    The only way you could be baffled is if you're on the receiving end of such benefit.
- _hilro 5y ago
  Great, where's the California bill that outlaws all Black boards or all Hispanic boards?
  - belltaco 5y ago
    Where are the laws that ban monkeys driving cars.

pdonis 5y ago

> They aren't saying, "you have to hire this person". They're saying you can't hire exclusively this type of person that currently dominates the top of society. No, that's not what Federal anti-discrimination law says. It only says you can't refuse to hire certain people on the basis of a protected characteristic (of which race is one, but not the only one). It says nothing about refusing to hire certain people for other reasons that don't have to do with a protected characteristic. (Btw, corporate boards of directors aren't even "hired"; they aren't employees. So it's not even clear what, if any, Federal anti-discrimination laws about hiring and employment would apply to them.) > Given that these boardrooms don't diversify themselves, what is the actual problem with it? There are two actual problems. One is that you can't have a government that only exercises its power wisely. For every mandate the government makes that happens to move things in the right direction, there will be many more that move things in the wrong direction. The people who are attracted to government jobs where they get to tell other people what to do aren't benevolent helpers; they're people who like power. All history shows that such people are precisely the people you don't want telling other people what to do. The second problem is that dictating that people of certain races must belong to corporate boards is just as wrong as dictating that people of certain races can't belong to corporate boards. Both are looking at something that is irrelevant to the actual job, which means they aren't actually improving the corporations; the corporations can still do just as much damage as they did before, just now they'll be doing it with a "diverse" board. The only real way to fix corporate governance is for people who would do better jobs than the board members of current corporations to form their own corporations and out-compete the current corporations.

kenjackson 5y ago
> No, that's not what Federal anti-discrimination law says. I wasn't referring to Fed Discrimination Laws. I was referring to the California law. Sorry if that wasn't clear. > The people who are attracted to government jobs where they get to tell other people what to do aren't benevolent helpers; they're people who like power. All history shows that such people are precisely the people you don't want telling other people what to do. Why do you think that's not already the world we live in? Police officers are the epitome of this. I'm just not convinced things get much worse with this. > The second problem is that dictating that people of certain races must belong to corporate boards is just as wrong as dictating that people of certain races can't belong to corporate boards. I disagree with this. They are vastly different. One is completely excluding a group from the table. The other is ensuring that a group has a spot at the table. And boards, in particular, are the type of position where there are many qualified people. If we did a controlled study I'd be shocked if there was a negative difference in performance of companies with Black board members. > The only real way to fix corporate governance is for people who would do better jobs than the board members of current corporations to form their own corporations and out-compete the current corporations. In order to do that you have to fix a bunch of other stuff in society as well. Companies don't live in a meritocratic bubble.

newfriend 5y ago

If you have an open board seat, and your other five positions are currently held by "white males", you are now forced to discriminate based on race/gender. By law you would not be allowed to appoint a qualified potential candidate because they have the "wrong" physical attributes. It's abhorrent.

RickJWagner 5y ago

I walked around my neighborhood today, there are several houses under construction. The framing and roofing crews are staffed entirely by hardy people of only one gender and with little ethnic diversity. I sometimes watch professional sports, in particular basketball. There is very, very little diversity. My son is in his first year of teaching elementary school. He tells me he is almost alone in the school, gender-wise. I think this is a very complex topic, with lots of nuances.