4 ms·

If we were ever at the point where companies were hiring the best people for the job, this wouldn't be necessary as the companies would already have a diverse b

• throwawaysleep 5y ago
  Assuming skill is equally distributed by race. Except that everywhere, including when admission is solely based on performance on a test you can study for, there end up being massive racial disparities. Other races need to be shoehorned in.
  • Falling3 5y ago
    And you believe that's due to innate differences and not anything about the environments in which these disparities arise?
    • mountainriver 5y ago
      The whole point is it’s not innate differences but it’s a bad solution. There are better ways of providing equal opportunity that don’t compromise the integrity of the system
  • larkost 5y ago
    But these are board positions. They are not chosen based on measurable skills, but rather almost always on some combination of connections and a specific mindset. This has often been called the "old boys club", and the persistent pattern of boards being overwhelmingly white and male is great evidence that there has a (predominately unconscious) bias in the selections. Since the makeup of these boards affects the decisions made by these companies, and those decisions have a large impact on society, society (California) has decided that they have to clean up their act and make those decision makers at least vaguely reflect the makeup of that society.
    • mountainriver 5y ago
      There are ways of preventing unconscious bias in which you don’t degrade the integrity of the position. As I pointed out in my original post the army has solved this well, because in the army of you put someone in a position that isn’t right for it you put lives at stake.