4 ms·
> 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.
by 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.
- nerbert 5y agoHonestly there is not right angle to race. Saying "black people cant be at the board of companies" is just as wrong as saying "some black people have to belong to it". That being said, when only white people are at the board of companies without that being a calculated strategy, there is also a problem. If only white people come out on top where - allegedly - the smartest people belong, wouldn’t it be the place of the state to ensure that a fair chance is given to everyone from birth up to professional life, instead of trying to force an artificial standard upon companies?
- belltaco 5y ago> is just as wrong as saying "some black people have to belong to it". Umm you can have an all white board with the new law.
- kenjackson 5y agoThe problem is that the only real solution is a lot more extreme. I think once women are pregnant they go into managed care and babies are immediately taken at birth into academies (with no knowledge of parents) until adulthood. But that will never happen. Unfortunately short of that we’re likely to never have real equality.
- haswell 5y agoThat’s some pretty extreme all-or-nothing thinking. Why do you believe this is the only solution?
- kenjackson 5y agoHow else do you remedy the compounding advantage throughout various parts of the society?
- pdonis 5y agoYou don't. "Compounding advantage" is a fact of life. Historically, the societies that have dealt with this unpleasant fact of life the best have been those that had some concept of "noblesse oblige"--if you are one of the fortunate ones with "compounding advantage" on your side, you have an obligation to use those gifts to help others less fortunate than you. But trying to erase the advantage doesn't work; every time it has been tried, it has just ended up causing even more misery (and in many cases lots of deaths).