17 ms·

L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

143 points by zthrowaway 5y ago

lowbloodsugar 5y ago
Basically the argument that there is no such thing as systemic discrimination and the only things that matter are micro-decisions, which are essentially impossible to prove discrimination.
- ohCh6zos 5y ago
  Those seem like fair arguments to be made, although so do the counterpoints.
88913527 5y ago
This seems like the right decision (and I'm saying this as an LGBT person). The problem is, it just doesn't seem like legislation is the right instrument for promoting diversity in boardrooms. But what is the right mechanism? I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. It's important to state this because businesses exist primarily to create profits, not promote social movements. There's a legitimate business justification to diversity policies. I empathize with those in diversity roles that are tasked with finding the informal-but-not-legally-enforcable means by which to increase diversity. How are you reasonably going to achieve that? It's a hard problem to solve. It seems like something driven by society at large. I'm not sure if you can hire a person to solve this problem, honestly.
- exolymph 5y ago
  IMO the right mechanism is for people of [insert desired demographic] to start companies and make them successful.
  - throwaway684936 5y ago
    How does that work when the demographic is extremely economically disadvantaged and has no way to earn starting capital?
    - bcj7393nsk 5y ago
      - spankalee 5y ago
        What a horrible place you immediately jumped to. Historically and systemically disadvantaged does not mean or imply intrinsically disadvantaged. Jesus.
      - barbazoo 5y ago
    - tomp 5y ago
      Why would that be the case? AFAIK it's equally probable for a woman/gay/trans person to be born in a wealthy family or a poor family.
      - throwaway684936 5y ago
        Are you actually serious? We are obviously not talking about being born into wealth. Middle-class people still need to accumulate capital first, generally by working, something that's not always possible (for an extreme example, take e.g. ~90% unemployment rate for autistic college grads). Even if we were talking about wealthy families, that doesn't count out being disowned, etc. for being gay or transgender. In any case, check out these links: https://theconversation.com/transgender-americans-are-more-likely-to-be-unemployed-and-poor-127585 https://theconversation.com/transgender-americans-are-more-l... https://nwlc.org/income-security-is-elusive-for-many-transgender-people-according-to-u-s-transgender-survey/ https://nwlc.org/income-security-is-elusive-for-many-transge... https://www.lgbtmap.org/unfair-price-transgender https://www.lgbtmap.org/unfair-price-transgender
- throwaway684936 5y ago
  > It's important to state this because businesses exist primarily to create profits, not promote social movements. Those at the top will often prioritize their feelings over profit potential. Corporations are not true profit maximizers, that's a total myth. It's one of the reasons why WFH wasn't more popular earlier, and why some companies are trying to force back-to-office to the point it causes some of their employees to quit.
  - LosWochosWeek 5y ago
    It's a myth that I just cannot comprehend. Do people not go to work and see their managers in action? What makes them think that after just enough career steps a switch happens and people just magically become soulless profit driven AIs?
- jdrc 5y ago
  > I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results People also tout these studies for getting more women in business leadership. in reality that's a weird argument, women or lgbt or people of color don't need to be better in order to be accepted, they should be accepted by default. Maybe business culture with its rigid and often stupid conventions and demands has a lot to do with it. Things like, how business people socialize, what they 're expected to wear, what business gifts they send etc.
  - jchw 5y ago
    Pretty sure the idea is that diversity (of thought and other) itself can improve outcomes, not that anyone is necessarily better or worse at their jobs.
    - jdrc 5y ago
      well, if we accept that the success of business is the sum of its parts, then it is implied that the diverse people add something more than others
      - fatbird 5y ago
        "The sum of its parts" is a very opaque phrase here. But even without defining it, anyone with work experience has some understanding of the effect of workplace dynamics, environmental factors, office morale, and other intangible influences on one's productivity and hence, the business's success. In other words, there are emergent properties in the calculus of success, and pursuing diversity is one way of trying to control that. "Diverse" people do not have to be intrinsically better employees, for them to positively affect the business's success.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        jdrc 5y ago
        Sorry, you put a lot of buzzwords there, but buzzwords do not constitute any proof. It's certainly true in low-skill businesses like , i dunno, agriculture that production scales linearly. If nonlinear interactions occur it would be interesting to name them, instead of attributing it to some kind of magic ether. I dont like this completely vague explanation because it's exactly the rhetoric that people mock when they want to attack diversity
- tonguez 5y ago
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    yeah it's almost like the single axis of race isn't quite enough to make full sense of these problems. maybe we could mix in some other forms of identity and access people might have. could call it "union theory" or something idk.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      Might want to note that BLM is very racially diverse.
- Animats 5y ago
  I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results Seems to not make much difference in financial results, either way. Wharton study:[1] [1] https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-diversity-boards-really-boost-company-performance https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-dive...
  - truffdog 5y ago
    There's a little bit of a systemic epistemic bias around this- diversity is socially desirable, so positive results are more likely to get published, get into the media, get shared, get remembered.
    - cuteboy19 5y ago
      I wonder what would happen if we found out that people of similar backgrounds work better together? The reasoning of increasing shareholders value would still apply. Would we start implementing de facto segregated workplaces?
  - theptip 5y ago
    Maybe GP is thinking about the Gartner research measuring “performance” (can’t recall exactly how they define that though). https://www.gartner.com/en/human-resources/trends/workforce-diversity https://www.gartner.com/en/human-resources/trends/workforce-...
  - armchairhacker 5y ago
    I believe those studies but correlation does not equal causation. I think the real reason that more diverse boards do better (if they do) is that the company hires people more based on talent and other metric which don’t discriminate, vs ones like patrimony. Forced diversity just sidesteps the problem because the company can still use bad metrics.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- _3u10 5y ago
  I’ve never really understood the diversity thing. Why should it be more desirable to hire me because I was born in this place or that? Is the native part of me more deserving of a contract than the Latin part? If I was with a guy the night before instead of a woman am I more beneficial to a company? Am I even more valuable on the odd night I’m with a trans person? Am I more beneficial with my Paraguayan passport instead of a Canadian passport? Diversity should just be called what it is, bigotry.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    If diversity is valuable then: * in an organization filled with native (whatever that means) people, your Latin heritage would add value. In an organization filled with people with Latin heritage, the native part of you would add value. * in a company filled with cis-straight men, then diversity being valuable implies that anyone with a different experience would add value. * in Paraguay, your Canadian experience is more valuable in terms of whatever value diversity brings than it is in Canada. By contrast, in Canada, your Paraguayan experience would offer more value. Of course, it is possible that it's not true that diverity is valuable. But there's solid anecdotal evidence that it is, and maybe even a bit of actual statistics.
    - _3u10 5y ago
      Oh by native I mean indigenous, I’d just say Indian but I’m not allowed to call myself that anymore without issues from the PC people telling me how ashamed of myself I should feel. I always forget the acceptable term to refer to myself by. I kind of get it but I just call that hiring people with experience. Like I do get hired because I’ve done a whole bunch of different roles and have actual diversity I’m not just a Java programmer with 20 years of experience making login forms. Also having done a lot of things I usually have an interesting non-work story to tell. I find that kind of diversity hugely valuable. I find hiring people because they check a diversity box dumb and bigoted.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        Well yeah, mostly. The worst-case scenario is a bunch of people with different ethnicity, religious affiliation/experience, gender identity, age, etc. etc. ... who all like the same entertainment, food, clothing and vacation options. "Diversity" ... yes. But actual diversity, no. However, I'm not sure that this actually a real-world problem.
- Alex3917 5y ago
  > I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results If Hollywood movies start getting a lot better with the new diversity requirements for Oscar eligibility, presumably this will serve as an example for every other industry.
  - freyr 5y ago
    For the curious, eligible movies must satisfy at least one of the following criteria: At least one actor from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group must be cast in a significant role. The story must center on women, L.G.T.B.Q. people, a racial or ethnic group or the disabled. At least 30 percent of the cast must be actors from at least two of those four underrepresented categories.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results While that may be true, it isn't the case that more diversity necessarily makes a more profitable organisation. It's also a pretty dangerous game to play; diversity policies can be, and often are, implemented in a ham-fisted or corrupt way that destroys value. Simply look at the havoc that BEE has wreaked on South Africa's economy and especially the public service.
- avazhi 5y ago
  - temp8964 5y ago
    Why would anybody pro abortion?
    - freyr 5y ago
      Overpopulation? But I think it’s safe to assume they mean pro-choice.
      - temp8964 5y ago
        At this point it's not safe to assume anything. Maybe there are lots of them think it's a good thing to kill babies. Who knows?
      - giraffe_lady 5y ago
        Personally I also do use the term pro-abortion because it is clear about the actual issue and what the disagreement is. Pretty much every single person anywhere is in favor of both life and choice, it's a uselessly euphemistic set of terms that obscures the real conflict. I'm not necessarily in favor of any specific case of abortion, or wanting more of them in the world, or anything like that. "Pro abortion access" would probably be more technically correct but that opens the argument up to getting derailed by "well how much access" and shit. Plus the mild transgressiveness of the term is helpful sometimes, if it makes people stop for a second and ask like this.
    - inetknght 5y ago
      > Why would anybody pro abortion? There are many reasons. In the case that carrying a fetus to term would kill the mother: abort. One life does not merit the safety of another. In the case that a fetus was conceived in rape: abort. Would you remind yourself, and even be beholden to, evil? In the case that a fetus would be born unwanted: abort. It is better to be born into a loving family than raised in orphanages or worse: raised in a family who do not love you.
- lanstin 5y ago
  Maybe introduce new grounds for suing - if the stock underperforms, and leadership is showing a bias in its demographics, then the share holders can sue for presumptive discrimination reducing the quality of decision making.
- rayiner 5y ago
  Since it’s us mathematically minded people here, it’s worth pointing out that these studies don’t establish causation. You’d probably find a strong correlation between financial performance of firms and investment into other social initiatives, such as corporate philanthropy or environmental causes. It’s possible that wealthier and more successful firms are simply better able to afford such investments than less successful firms.
  - gurkendoktor 5y ago
    Exactly: Most studies that I've been referred to are shiny McKinsey pages that boil down to big companies having more diverse boards on average. Besides what you said, that's not a surprising correlation because it's easy for Multinational MegaCorp Inc. to have a multi-ethnic board after a few international mergers. And then there are very opinionated shareholders like Vanguard and BlackRock, which receive voting rights for every Euro that I save for old age, who can make this outcome a self-fulfilling prophecy by punishing companies for lack of diversity. I don't think it's possible to control for all of this.
    - oneoff786 5y ago
      I’ve done some work adjacent to those shiny mckinsey pages. The mergers wouldn’t explain it. It’s not looking at size, it’s looking at growth and success relative to where they were some period of time ago. It’s probably a bit tautological. The only effective way to make your company more diverse is to grow and hire diverse candidates. This is not the case for top level leadership though. Boards as well. Growing companies want to invest in their people and that tends to result in some more attention to diversity. Conversely dusty old companies that are having their lunch eaten by tech enabled competitors do tend to be very non diverse because that’s they way it is and it’s not an environment that diverse candidates want to join. Also self fulfilling.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - nullc 5y ago
- Ourgon 5y ago
  > and I'm saying this as an LGBT person I' m left-handed but I would never think of identifying myself as being part of some diffuse group of people 'united' by handedness. In the same vein I do not see why gays, lesbians and bisexuals are to be seen as part of a single group given that as far as I gather there is often not that much love [no pun intended] between the former two - it is not as if gays and lesbians have much in common. Do you truly identify as 'an LGBT person' - implying that those who claim to be spokespeople for 'this group' also speak for you - or do you just see yourself as a gay, lesbian or bisexual man or woman? Or, to put it even more bluntly, would you not rather see yourself as a person who happens to be gay or lesbian or bisexual, just like I see myself as a person who happens to be left-handed? I may sometimes grumble about some object which could have easily be made to fit left- and right-handed people alike [1] but I would never join a left-handed political action committee, nor would I trust anyone to 'speak for me' in such a context because I don't want to be used as a pawn in some ideological/political struggle. [1] If you ever start a cheese packing facility make sure to put a peel corner on the left and right hand side of the package, the latter is far more useable for left-handed people...
  - edanm 5y ago
    There's a difference between what one wishes the world was like, and what one should do given the world as it actually is. Given the past rampant anti-LGBT feelings and actions around the world, it totally made sense for LGBT people to band together, to enact change on their own behalf. Much of the world is better for LGBT people today, but a) it's still not quite as good as most would want it, and b) in many parts of the world, it's still quite bad. So given that everyone else treats LGBT as a group, and that everyone else treats them badly, then of course it makes sense for them to act as a group. (Though of course I don't literally mean that everyone treats them badly, just the general trend)
    - Ourgon 5y ago
      > So given that everyone else treats LGBT as a group, and that everyone else treats them badly Simply put: Nonsense A bit more elaborate: some people have something against people who differ in some way, whether that be in their sexual orientation or handedness or skin colour or the language they speak or the food they eat or the god(s) they worship or the parties they vote for or the places they live or the clothes they wear. This has always been that way and will always be so. Most people harbour some preconceived ideas about those 'others' - yes, you do as well. In most liberal western societies these preconceived ideas are frowned upon by official institutions, especially when it concerns such ideas related to 'protected' identity categories like sexual orientation, race and religion. your statement regarding the supposed mistreatment of that group does not hold any water. It is a lie, an untruth, a distortion of the facts - unless you can prove your claim. Can you prove it? Show us how your statement is true, in what way everyone treats gays, lesbians and bisexuals badly. Just saying this does not make it true, not even repeating it ad nauseam, not even when it is claimed to be true by academics from the grievance studies departments - especially not when claimed by those academics from those grievance studies departments since they are on an ideological mission.
- roenxi 5y ago
  > There's a legitimate business justification to diversity policies. Based on personal observations, innate aptitude and interest doesn't seem to be aligned. Eg, one of the more amazing minds I've ever met was contained in a woman who just didn't have the competitive glint in her eye to make herself successful. Sad story in many ways. But - if that observation is true - then diversity policy quotas will break the correlation. At the moment, about half the aptitude is in women, some percent in various minority groups in rough proportion to their prevalence, etc. Companies better at surfacing talent will naturally be more diverse. Companies that forcibly make themselves more diverse through a quota will ironically probably regress to the mean level of competence and perform worse.
- slibhb 5y ago
  > I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. If diverse boards do better it's because you have to be doing very well already to do something as stupid as picking board members for their sexual orientation.
  - onos 5y ago
    Hence the argument that this move was a bid for regulatory capture by already established corps.
- rayiner 5y ago
  It’s also important that, at least as to racial minorities, they oppose consideration of race in hiring and promotion by large margins: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pew-poll https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pe... > White people were the most opposed to considering race and ethnicity in hiring and promotion: 78 percent said only qualifications should be considered. But a majority of black respondents (54 percent) and Hispanic respondents (69 percent) also said race and ethnicity shouldn’t be considered. These are policies are being driven mostly by liberal whites oh behalf of racial minorities, but those minorities themselves mostly oppose such policies.
- blindmute 5y ago
  The only companies that can afford to diversity hire are already having great financial results
- incomingpain 5y ago
  >This seems like the right decision (and I'm saying this as an LGBT person). The problem is, it just doesn't seem like legislation is the right instrument for promoting diversity in boardrooms. Oh for sure it's the right decision. If even the legislation's intention was successful, forcing this matter will only go to create more radicalization and make the situation worse. >I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. Regardless of the issue you wish to prop up. There is always a study that says it will work. >It's important to state this because businesses exist primarily to create profits, not promote social movements. There's a legitimate business justification to diversity policies. Businesses should not even consider diversity. There is a problem in some businesses in that they do discriminate. They discriminate against and that's the ideal goal of what should be fixed. Or should it? If we are in a free market and Business 1 refuses to hire LGBT. Business 2 hires those and will eventually pick up good people that give them a competitive advantage. Government coming in and using force to make Business 1 take LGBT on the board... That's not going to work out.
datavirtue 5y ago
If companies were employee owned and operated you wouldn't need half the regulations and laws on the books that we do now. They would have been better served by creating more rights for all workers instead of this odd-ball stuff that ends up getting struck down and handing more power to corporate shadow characters.
- hibern8 5y ago
  What is stopping employees of a company from getting together and starting a rival, employee owned company?
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    The current undemocratic nature of capital allocation that disfavors worker-ownership.
    - djbebs 5y ago
      You mean the nature of worker owned cooperatives means they exclude potential equity investors from providing the capital? You understand that you're complaining about the fact that non-workers can't own a cooperative and as such they will not invest in them, right? You're literally complaining about what you don't want to happen not happening...
      - heavyset_go 5y ago
        Allocating capital through the whims of equity investors is inherently undemocratic.
        Cederfjard 5y ago
        How would you see it allocated instead?
        djbebs 5y ago
        So let me get this straight, you want me to give you money so that you can build and run a business, and you also want me to have no control over how that money is used, and for me to get no benefit from the whole thing? Why would I give you my money?
emilfihlman 5y ago
I'm extremely relieved common sense has prevailed here.
- knighthack 5y ago
  I agree. And it's common sense that you can't force a corporate entity as to who its business leaders. The signing of that law makes no sense. If boards are composed of people chosen based on their colour and ethnicity, that's not just odd, it's racist. Affirmative action should extend only so far.
- tomp 5y ago
  It's not "common sense". It's the basis of Western (sub-)civilisation: Enlightenment Values. It's most definitely not "common sense" because it took us (the human civilisation) several millenia to arrive to these values. Fortunately, they're spreading.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Don't be surprised if this just gets moved to stock exchanges where because the cult of "it's a private business, go start your own stock exchange if you don't like it" will give this policy a home where it can be imposed nationwide. NYSE and NASDAQ have already voiced this possibility.
- karmasimida 5y ago
  It is crazy that they choose to fight discrimination by enabling another layer of discrimination and not being self-ware to do so
rectang 5y ago
Why on earth doesn't either the Newsweek article or the AP article it references name the judge? Who is this "Los Angeles judge"? EDIT: Found out who it is from another article: Terry Green. https://trellis.law/judge/terry.a.green https://trellis.law/judge/terry.a.green > The Hon. Terry A. Green is a judge for the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. He was appointed to the Superior Court in 1995 by former Governor Pete Wilson. He filled the vacancy created by the retirement of the Hon. Eric Younger (Ret.). Before his elevation to the Superior Court, Judge Green was a presiding judge for the Pasadena Municipal Court.
Animats 5y ago
That decision is consistent with University of California vs. Bakke, so it doesn't come as a surprise.
tinalumfoil 5y ago
This is what the California constitutional says (excerpt), > A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked. The is what the bill says (excerpt): > a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California shall have a minimum of one director from an underrepresented community on its board > “Director from an underrepresented community” means an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
- throwaway743 5y ago
  So as someone who is mixed (Cape Verdean father, Irish/Jewish mother), identifies as mixed, but is white passing (Latino passing in the summer if I get sun... which is rare these days. Spoken to in Spanish quite a bit), how would that work? I ask in a meaningful way, not to spark an argument. It's just that this is so confusing. Like I did not grow up with the hassle or hate (with exception of a few racist remarks made to me growing up after being asked my background) that my brown family members and friends encountered and still encounter today, but I could still benefit from legislation like this? It just seems off. Also, couldn't people just game this and say they're xyz or how is this proven? If it weren't by self identification, birth certificates seem like they'd be an issue. For example, because my father was black but light skinned my grandmother got away with putting caucasian down on his birth certificate thinking it'd benefit him somehow in life, but if you saw him you'd say he's black. So what is he and his offspring considered officially when his whole life he has identified as black and my siblings and I as mixed? Idk this just sounds weird to me Edit: Sorry to OP. Not directly speaking to your pointing out of this being unconstitutional in California. Just that it's the first post I saw summarizing the legislation and was commenting on that
- SnowHill9902 5y ago
  Isn’t it as easy as self-identifying as gay?
- 5y ago
gfodor 5y ago
Depressing and gross these kinds of laws are even getting this far.
- azth 5y ago
  What's even more surprising is that lawyers are too scared to initiate lawsuits for these clearly unconstitutional laws.
atty 5y ago
While I think this is probably the right decision (I’m no constitutional scholar or lawyer though, to be fair), it does bring up the question of why boards and C-suites are still pretty homogeneous, when most research supports the idea that diverse boards and executive teams perform better in the market. And that’s not even considering the fact that I believe our society (including our companies) has a moral imperative to fix the pretty stark inequities many minority populations in the US have and are still facing. Is it because groups of white men are more comfortable hiring other white men? Or is it because the pipeline for producing executive-level managers is only producing similar individuals because of those societal inequities? I’d guess a mixture of both.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  I haven't seen any research pertaining to casual relationship, that goes more diversity -> success. Correlational studies are not that.
- rectang 5y ago
  You don't need to look far for an explanation, it's right here in this discussion. Others do not see diversity of representation as an imperative. What you or I might consider massive iniquity in perpetuity isn't considered something that needs a remedy, or even something that should be acknowledged as meaningful.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- prirun 5y ago
  IMO, one factor is that women are still the ones to bear children, and legislation, diversity guidelines, and complete elimination of prejudice aren't going to change that. Several women I know have said that after having children, their priorities changed instantly. Some tried to go back to work for a while, but in the end could not handle being separated from their baby. My sister is an example: she's a CPA, tried to go back to work, but ended up starting her own practice and working from home. She did this through both of her kids' childhoods, so a good 24 years. I'm not saying there is no prejudice against women or other minorities. Only that it's not easy to look at statistics and conjure up always-correct reasons behind the statistics.
thissiteb1lows 5y ago
burnished 5y ago
Good, sort of a ridiculous law. I'm ignorant so excuse me if this sounds ridiculous, but shouldn't the politicians and law makers be working with communities to create improved outcomes directly instead of signing in laws at random?
- lanstin 5y ago
  Sending teams to white, heteronormative neighborhoods to encourage people to really see the people around them as fully human with differing life experiences?
  - ohCh6zos 5y ago
    I'm not sure I've seen evidence that they don't see them as fully human?
bob2222 5y ago
eezurr 5y ago
I have an honest question.. regardless of your gender, sexuality, or race; if you are a competitive person and want to work your way up the corporate ladder to lead, how would you feel if this law (and others like it) existed and "othered"[1] you? If you know the amount of work it takes to get that position, yet instead you're brought in to fulfill some quota, would you be satisfied with that? I'm asking the people who want to lead based from their hard work and experience. Personally, I'm not sure such a disingenuous existence would sit right with me. I also could not imagine walking into work every day mutually sharing the knowledge my presence in the room is to fill a quota. That seems incredibly dehumanizing. I'm sure some people will disagree, and some people take advantage of what they can. But I'm talking about the day to day existence. I dont need to read reality counter-arguments, I know they exist. I know how unfair the world is. This is a question for the individual. [1] Meaning legislatively labeled you apart everyone else.
- CamelRocketFish 5y ago
  This currently does happen, the quota has thus far been in the opposite direction. So how would that underrepresented person feel? The best person to ask may be the people that have been at the receiving end of the existing unwritten quota.
- magicalist 5y ago
  I too have trouble imagining a world where middle management and executives ever stopped to wonder if they were actually any good at their jobs. How terrible for their egos!
- lanstin 5y ago
  You should survey people who got legacy admits to business schools about the pain of having success made easier, and then survey some members of underrepresented groups about discrimination they have experienced in the current day and the current society. The issue here is that people from over represented groups have historically and presently received an unearned lift to their prospects of success, and everyone else has the complementary push against them. Trace this back to the families of one taking wealth in the past from the families of the other one or not, your question is very discordant from the reality of our society.
gurumeditations 5y ago
Why is this title focused on LGBT people when its primary target is racial minorities? Oh, it’s because gay people are easiest for the hordes of straight people to attack these days. Racial minorities, that’s more risky.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
The difficulty here is the collision between explicit discrimination by the state (prohibited in this case by the CA constitution) and de facto discrimination by private actors (see the significant under-representation of many different demographic groups in positions of power and wealth). CA sought to use the power of the state to legislate some private behavior to reduce the negative impact of de facto discrimination by private actors. The judge has said "no, the CA constitution prevents you from doing this, since that would be explicit discrimination by the state". If you accept for a moment that there is de facto discrimination arising from the actions of private actors, and you believe that this is a net negative for society, how would you go about reducing or elimination it? Of course, you may not accept that there is de facto discrimination by private actors, but then you need to explain the underrepresenation of different demographics, and likely in order to appear reasonably sane, your argument needs to be something other than "that's just the way it is". What argument is there to explain the underrepresentation that doesn't ultimately confirm that it is actually discrimination?
- chrsig 5y ago
  > If you accept for a moment that there is de facto discrimination arising from the actions of private actors, and you believe that this is a net negative for society, how would you go about reducing or elimination it? Reduce the difficulty of proving discrimination, so there's less plausible deniability
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    That's not the way reality works. Lowering the evidentiary standard also lowers the credibility of the claims therefore increasing plausible deniability.
- jscode 5y ago
  > If you accept for a moment that there is de facto discrimination arising from the actions of private actors, and you believe that this is a net negative for society, how would you go about reducing or elimination it? Laws can’t make people love each other. We have to make that choice on our own. We learn to accept and include others through our life experiences and the examples set by leaders in our society. If you want people to change their behavior, set a good example for others to follow and encourage others to follow suit.
throwawaydem45 5y ago
Why are these push backs always associated with Republicans? Only 40% of CA democrats voted for Prop 16, for example, which would have reinstated affirmative action in CA public schools (it's currently prohibited in California, as decided by vote). That's a large percentage of Democrats against non-merit-based college admissions.
- nullc 5y ago
  Perhaps contemplate the reasons you have for using a throwaway account to ask this question and you may be enlightened.
  - throwawaydem45 5y ago
    Indeed. That's a separate issue for society to examine.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      I think nullc is subtly pointing out that if Democrats are afraid to publicly oppose these policies, it will of course seem like all the push back is coming from Republicans.
      - nullc 5y ago
        Exactly.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
TeeMassive 5y ago
These laws based on what goes on in the bedroom are not enforceable anyway. Everyone is going to self-identify as "bi" or "queer" if that becomes a requirement of entry in high profile jobs and it will be a impossible to verify.
karmasimida 5y ago
>> However, no companies have been fined and the state said that no tax dollars had been spent to enforce the law, the Associated Press reported. Great to see this performative pseudo activism is getting deserved blow back
nullc 5y ago
After AB979 there was a strong move towards preferring only persons matching multiple of the AB979 criteria for 'outsider' seats on boards so as to not have to lose even more seats to people without the greatest relevant experience, much to the detriment of women who didn't match the bills sexuality or racial minority criteria. It's good to see this patently unlawful discriminatory policy struck down.
pessimizer 5y ago
"The measures came into force last year and gave firms with a main executive office in California until December 31, 2021 to have a member on their boards from groups including LGBT, Black, Latino, Asian, Native American or Pacific Islander." The headline focusing on LGBT is a reflection of the concerns of Newsweek's owners, not the law. The law is dictating a quota of a single non-white, non-straght person on all California corporate boards. Current Newsweek has no relationship to the old Newsweek (which was also terrible) other than branding. This is a spinoff of the International Business Times (also crap.) It looks like they may be controlled by another creepy religious right-wing Asian prosperity cult, so basically The Epoch Times, UPI, The Washington Times, or whatever Happy Science is doing on Youtube. Don't be fooled by branding. ----- https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/28/newsweek-new-owners-background https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/28/newsweek-new-o... https://culteducation.com/group/1290-jang-david-and-the-community/26758-moonies-messiahs-and-media-who-really-owns-newsweek.html https://culteducation.com/group/1290-jang-david-and-the-comm... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/business/media/Etienne-Uzac-newsweek-fraud.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/business/media/Etienne-Uz... https://www.ibtimes.com/newsweek-media-group-will-work-more-closely-christian-university-founder-says-2655850 https://www.ibtimes.com/newsweek-media-group-will-work-more-... https://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek-editors-blast-executive-to-his-face-what-youre-doing-is-bullshit-you-dont-understand-journalism/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek-editors-blast-executi... https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-manhattan-da-olivet-university-david-jang-fired-new-york-media-813949 https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-manhattan-da-olivet-univer... "Note From the Editors: As we were reporting this story, Newsweek Media Group fired Newsweek Editor Bob Roe, Executive Editor Ken Li and Senior Politics Reporter Celeste Katz for doing their jobs. Reporters Josh Keefe and Josh Saul were targeted for firing before an editor persuaded the company to reverse its decision. As we continued working on the story, we were asked to take part in a review process, which, we ultimately learned, involved egregious breaches of confidentiality and journalism ethics. We believe that subjects of the story were shown parts of the draft, if not the entire piece, prior to publication by a company executive who should not have been involved in the process. At an on-the-record interview with the subjects of this story, a company official asked editors to identify confidential sources. On-the-record sources were contacted and questioned about their discussions with Newsweek Media Group reporters. We resisted their efforts to influence the story and, after learning of the review's ethical failings, the reporters and editors involved in this story felt they would be forced to resign. At that point, a senior Newsweek Media Group executive said the company's owners would ensure independent review and newsroom autonomy going forward. This story was written and edited Tuesday, free of interference from company executives."
GoodJokes 5y ago
zephrx1111 5y ago
A victory of common sense.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
azth 5y ago
I wonder if this will pave the way for law suits for people who have lost jobs/positions/promotions in favor of less qualified diversity hires.

143 points by zthrowaway 5y ago

Basically the argument that there is no such thing as systemic discrimination and the only things that matter are micro-decisions, which are essentially impossible to prove discrimination.

ohCh6zos 5y ago
Those seem like fair arguments to be made, although so do the counterpoints.

88913527 5y ago

This seems like the right decision (and I'm saying this as an LGBT person). The problem is, it just doesn't seem like legislation is the right instrument for promoting diversity in boardrooms. But what is the right mechanism? I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. It's important to state this because businesses exist primarily to create profits, not promote social movements. There's a legitimate business justification to diversity policies. I empathize with those in diversity roles that are tasked with finding the informal-but-not-legally-enforcable means by which to increase diversity. How are you reasonably going to achieve that? It's a hard problem to solve. It seems like something driven by society at large. I'm not sure if you can hire a person to solve this problem, honestly.

exolymph 5y ago
IMO the right mechanism is for people of [insert desired demographic] to start companies and make them successful.
- throwaway684936 5y ago
  How does that work when the demographic is extremely economically disadvantaged and has no way to earn starting capital?
  - bcj7393nsk 5y ago
    - spankalee 5y ago
      What a horrible place you immediately jumped to. Historically and systemically disadvantaged does not mean or imply intrinsically disadvantaged. Jesus.
    - barbazoo 5y ago
  - tomp 5y ago
    Why would that be the case? AFAIK it's equally probable for a woman/gay/trans person to be born in a wealthy family or a poor family.
    - throwaway684936 5y ago
      Are you actually serious? We are obviously not talking about being born into wealth. Middle-class people still need to accumulate capital first, generally by working, something that's not always possible (for an extreme example, take e.g. ~90% unemployment rate for autistic college grads). Even if we were talking about wealthy families, that doesn't count out being disowned, etc. for being gay or transgender. In any case, check out these links: https://theconversation.com/transgender-americans-are-more-likely-to-be-unemployed-and-poor-127585 https://theconversation.com/transgender-americans-are-more-l... https://nwlc.org/income-security-is-elusive-for-many-transgender-people-according-to-u-s-transgender-survey/ https://nwlc.org/income-security-is-elusive-for-many-transge... https://www.lgbtmap.org/unfair-price-transgender https://www.lgbtmap.org/unfair-price-transgender
throwaway684936 5y ago
> It's important to state this because businesses exist primarily to create profits, not promote social movements. Those at the top will often prioritize their feelings over profit potential. Corporations are not true profit maximizers, that's a total myth. It's one of the reasons why WFH wasn't more popular earlier, and why some companies are trying to force back-to-office to the point it causes some of their employees to quit.
- LosWochosWeek 5y ago
  It's a myth that I just cannot comprehend. Do people not go to work and see their managers in action? What makes them think that after just enough career steps a switch happens and people just magically become soulless profit driven AIs?
jdrc 5y ago
> I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results People also tout these studies for getting more women in business leadership. in reality that's a weird argument, women or lgbt or people of color don't need to be better in order to be accepted, they should be accepted by default. Maybe business culture with its rigid and often stupid conventions and demands has a lot to do with it. Things like, how business people socialize, what they 're expected to wear, what business gifts they send etc.
- jchw 5y ago
  Pretty sure the idea is that diversity (of thought and other) itself can improve outcomes, not that anyone is necessarily better or worse at their jobs.
  - jdrc 5y ago
    well, if we accept that the success of business is the sum of its parts, then it is implied that the diverse people add something more than others
    - fatbird 5y ago
      "The sum of its parts" is a very opaque phrase here. But even without defining it, anyone with work experience has some understanding of the effect of workplace dynamics, environmental factors, office morale, and other intangible influences on one's productivity and hence, the business's success. In other words, there are emergent properties in the calculus of success, and pursuing diversity is one way of trying to control that. "Diverse" people do not have to be intrinsically better employees, for them to positively affect the business's success.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - jdrc 5y ago
        Sorry, you put a lot of buzzwords there, but buzzwords do not constitute any proof. It's certainly true in low-skill businesses like , i dunno, agriculture that production scales linearly. If nonlinear interactions occur it would be interesting to name them, instead of attributing it to some kind of magic ether. I dont like this completely vague explanation because it's exactly the rhetoric that people mock when they want to attack diversity
tonguez 5y ago
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  yeah it's almost like the single axis of race isn't quite enough to make full sense of these problems. maybe we could mix in some other forms of identity and access people might have. could call it "union theory" or something idk.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Might want to note that BLM is very racially diverse.
Animats 5y ago
I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results Seems to not make much difference in financial results, either way. Wharton study:[1] [1] https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-diversity-boards-really-boost-company-performance https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-dive...
- truffdog 5y ago
  There's a little bit of a systemic epistemic bias around this- diversity is socially desirable, so positive results are more likely to get published, get into the media, get shared, get remembered.
  - cuteboy19 5y ago
    I wonder what would happen if we found out that people of similar backgrounds work better together? The reasoning of increasing shareholders value would still apply. Would we start implementing de facto segregated workplaces?
- theptip 5y ago
  Maybe GP is thinking about the Gartner research measuring “performance” (can’t recall exactly how they define that though). https://www.gartner.com/en/human-resources/trends/workforce-diversity https://www.gartner.com/en/human-resources/trends/workforce-...
- armchairhacker 5y ago
  I believe those studies but correlation does not equal causation. I think the real reason that more diverse boards do better (if they do) is that the company hires people more based on talent and other metric which don’t discriminate, vs ones like patrimony. Forced diversity just sidesteps the problem because the company can still use bad metrics.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
_3u10 5y ago
I’ve never really understood the diversity thing. Why should it be more desirable to hire me because I was born in this place or that? Is the native part of me more deserving of a contract than the Latin part? If I was with a guy the night before instead of a woman am I more beneficial to a company? Am I even more valuable on the odd night I’m with a trans person? Am I more beneficial with my Paraguayan passport instead of a Canadian passport? Diversity should just be called what it is, bigotry.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  If diversity is valuable then: * in an organization filled with native (whatever that means) people, your Latin heritage would add value. In an organization filled with people with Latin heritage, the native part of you would add value. * in a company filled with cis-straight men, then diversity being valuable implies that anyone with a different experience would add value. * in Paraguay, your Canadian experience is more valuable in terms of whatever value diversity brings than it is in Canada. By contrast, in Canada, your Paraguayan experience would offer more value. Of course, it is possible that it's not true that diverity is valuable. But there's solid anecdotal evidence that it is, and maybe even a bit of actual statistics.
  - _3u10 5y ago
    Oh by native I mean indigenous, I’d just say Indian but I’m not allowed to call myself that anymore without issues from the PC people telling me how ashamed of myself I should feel. I always forget the acceptable term to refer to myself by. I kind of get it but I just call that hiring people with experience. Like I do get hired because I’ve done a whole bunch of different roles and have actual diversity I’m not just a Java programmer with 20 years of experience making login forms. Also having done a lot of things I usually have an interesting non-work story to tell. I find that kind of diversity hugely valuable. I find hiring people because they check a diversity box dumb and bigoted.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Well yeah, mostly. The worst-case scenario is a bunch of people with different ethnicity, religious affiliation/experience, gender identity, age, etc. etc. ... who all like the same entertainment, food, clothing and vacation options. "Diversity" ... yes. But actual diversity, no. However, I'm not sure that this actually a real-world problem.
Alex3917 5y ago
> I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results If Hollywood movies start getting a lot better with the new diversity requirements for Oscar eligibility, presumably this will serve as an example for every other industry.
- freyr 5y ago
  For the curious, eligible movies must satisfy at least one of the following criteria: At least one actor from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group must be cast in a significant role. The story must center on women, L.G.T.B.Q. people, a racial or ethnic group or the disabled. At least 30 percent of the cast must be actors from at least two of those four underrepresented categories.
AussieWog93 5y ago
>I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results While that may be true, it isn't the case that more diversity necessarily makes a more profitable organisation. It's also a pretty dangerous game to play; diversity policies can be, and often are, implemented in a ham-fisted or corrupt way that destroys value. Simply look at the havoc that BEE has wreaked on South Africa's economy and especially the public service.
avazhi 5y ago
- temp8964 5y ago
  Why would anybody pro abortion?
  - freyr 5y ago
    Overpopulation? But I think it’s safe to assume they mean pro-choice.
    - temp8964 5y ago
      At this point it's not safe to assume anything. Maybe there are lots of them think it's a good thing to kill babies. Who knows?
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      Personally I also do use the term pro-abortion because it is clear about the actual issue and what the disagreement is. Pretty much every single person anywhere is in favor of both life and choice, it's a uselessly euphemistic set of terms that obscures the real conflict. I'm not necessarily in favor of any specific case of abortion, or wanting more of them in the world, or anything like that. "Pro abortion access" would probably be more technically correct but that opens the argument up to getting derailed by "well how much access" and shit. Plus the mild transgressiveness of the term is helpful sometimes, if it makes people stop for a second and ask like this.
  - inetknght 5y ago
    > Why would anybody pro abortion? There are many reasons. In the case that carrying a fetus to term would kill the mother: abort. One life does not merit the safety of another. In the case that a fetus was conceived in rape: abort. Would you remind yourself, and even be beholden to, evil? In the case that a fetus would be born unwanted: abort. It is better to be born into a loving family than raised in orphanages or worse: raised in a family who do not love you.
lanstin 5y ago
Maybe introduce new grounds for suing - if the stock underperforms, and leadership is showing a bias in its demographics, then the share holders can sue for presumptive discrimination reducing the quality of decision making.
rayiner 5y ago
Since it’s us mathematically minded people here, it’s worth pointing out that these studies don’t establish causation. You’d probably find a strong correlation between financial performance of firms and investment into other social initiatives, such as corporate philanthropy or environmental causes. It’s possible that wealthier and more successful firms are simply better able to afford such investments than less successful firms.
- gurkendoktor 5y ago
  Exactly: Most studies that I've been referred to are shiny McKinsey pages that boil down to big companies having more diverse boards on average. Besides what you said, that's not a surprising correlation because it's easy for Multinational MegaCorp Inc. to have a multi-ethnic board after a few international mergers. And then there are very opinionated shareholders like Vanguard and BlackRock, which receive voting rights for every Euro that I save for old age, who can make this outcome a self-fulfilling prophecy by punishing companies for lack of diversity. I don't think it's possible to control for all of this.
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    I’ve done some work adjacent to those shiny mckinsey pages. The mergers wouldn’t explain it. It’s not looking at size, it’s looking at growth and success relative to where they were some period of time ago. It’s probably a bit tautological. The only effective way to make your company more diverse is to grow and hire diverse candidates. This is not the case for top level leadership though. Boards as well. Growing companies want to invest in their people and that tends to result in some more attention to diversity. Conversely dusty old companies that are having their lunch eaten by tech enabled competitors do tend to be very non diverse because that’s they way it is and it’s not an environment that diverse candidates want to join. Also self fulfilling.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - nullc 5y ago
Ourgon 5y ago
> and I'm saying this as an LGBT person I' m left-handed but I would never think of identifying myself as being part of some diffuse group of people 'united' by handedness. In the same vein I do not see why gays, lesbians and bisexuals are to be seen as part of a single group given that as far as I gather there is often not that much love [no pun intended] between the former two - it is not as if gays and lesbians have much in common. Do you truly identify as 'an LGBT person' - implying that those who claim to be spokespeople for 'this group' also speak for you - or do you just see yourself as a gay, lesbian or bisexual man or woman? Or, to put it even more bluntly, would you not rather see yourself as a person who happens to be gay or lesbian or bisexual, just like I see myself as a person who happens to be left-handed? I may sometimes grumble about some object which could have easily be made to fit left- and right-handed people alike [1] but I would never join a left-handed political action committee, nor would I trust anyone to 'speak for me' in such a context because I don't want to be used as a pawn in some ideological/political struggle. [1] If you ever start a cheese packing facility make sure to put a peel corner on the left and right hand side of the package, the latter is far more useable for left-handed people...
- edanm 5y ago
  There's a difference between what one wishes the world was like, and what one should do given the world as it actually is. Given the past rampant anti-LGBT feelings and actions around the world, it totally made sense for LGBT people to band together, to enact change on their own behalf. Much of the world is better for LGBT people today, but a) it's still not quite as good as most would want it, and b) in many parts of the world, it's still quite bad. So given that everyone else treats LGBT as a group, and that everyone else treats them badly, then of course it makes sense for them to act as a group. (Though of course I don't literally mean that everyone treats them badly, just the general trend)
  - Ourgon 5y ago
    > So given that everyone else treats LGBT as a group, and that everyone else treats them badly Simply put: Nonsense A bit more elaborate: some people have something against people who differ in some way, whether that be in their sexual orientation or handedness or skin colour or the language they speak or the food they eat or the god(s) they worship or the parties they vote for or the places they live or the clothes they wear. This has always been that way and will always be so. Most people harbour some preconceived ideas about those 'others' - yes, you do as well. In most liberal western societies these preconceived ideas are frowned upon by official institutions, especially when it concerns such ideas related to 'protected' identity categories like sexual orientation, race and religion. your statement regarding the supposed mistreatment of that group does not hold any water. It is a lie, an untruth, a distortion of the facts - unless you can prove your claim. Can you prove it? Show us how your statement is true, in what way everyone treats gays, lesbians and bisexuals badly. Just saying this does not make it true, not even repeating it ad nauseam, not even when it is claimed to be true by academics from the grievance studies departments - especially not when claimed by those academics from those grievance studies departments since they are on an ideological mission.
roenxi 5y ago
> There's a legitimate business justification to diversity policies. Based on personal observations, innate aptitude and interest doesn't seem to be aligned. Eg, one of the more amazing minds I've ever met was contained in a woman who just didn't have the competitive glint in her eye to make herself successful. Sad story in many ways. But - if that observation is true - then diversity policy quotas will break the correlation. At the moment, about half the aptitude is in women, some percent in various minority groups in rough proportion to their prevalence, etc. Companies better at surfacing talent will naturally be more diverse. Companies that forcibly make themselves more diverse through a quota will ironically probably regress to the mean level of competence and perform worse.
slibhb 5y ago
> I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. If diverse boards do better it's because you have to be doing very well already to do something as stupid as picking board members for their sexual orientation.
- onos 5y ago
  Hence the argument that this move was a bid for regulatory capture by already established corps.
rayiner 5y ago
It’s also important that, at least as to racial minorities, they oppose consideration of race in hiring and promotion by large margins: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pew-poll https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pe... > White people were the most opposed to considering race and ethnicity in hiring and promotion: 78 percent said only qualifications should be considered. But a majority of black respondents (54 percent) and Hispanic respondents (69 percent) also said race and ethnicity shouldn’t be considered. These are policies are being driven mostly by liberal whites oh behalf of racial minorities, but those minorities themselves mostly oppose such policies.
blindmute 5y ago
The only companies that can afford to diversity hire are already having great financial results
incomingpain 5y ago
>This seems like the right decision (and I'm saying this as an LGBT person). The problem is, it just doesn't seem like legislation is the right instrument for promoting diversity in boardrooms. Oh for sure it's the right decision. If even the legislation's intention was successful, forcing this matter will only go to create more radicalization and make the situation worse. >I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. Regardless of the issue you wish to prop up. There is always a study that says it will work. >It's important to state this because businesses exist primarily to create profits, not promote social movements. There's a legitimate business justification to diversity policies. Businesses should not even consider diversity. There is a problem in some businesses in that they do discriminate. They discriminate against and that's the ideal goal of what should be fixed. Or should it? If we are in a free market and Business 1 refuses to hire LGBT. Business 2 hires those and will eventually pick up good people that give them a competitive advantage. Government coming in and using force to make Business 1 take LGBT on the board... That's not going to work out.

datavirtue 5y ago

If companies were employee owned and operated you wouldn't need half the regulations and laws on the books that we do now. They would have been better served by creating more rights for all workers instead of this odd-ball stuff that ends up getting struck down and handing more power to corporate shadow characters.

hibern8 5y ago
What is stopping employees of a company from getting together and starting a rival, employee owned company?
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  The current undemocratic nature of capital allocation that disfavors worker-ownership.
  - djbebs 5y ago
    You mean the nature of worker owned cooperatives means they exclude potential equity investors from providing the capital? You understand that you're complaining about the fact that non-workers can't own a cooperative and as such they will not invest in them, right? You're literally complaining about what you don't want to happen not happening...
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      Allocating capital through the whims of equity investors is inherently undemocratic.
      - Cederfjard 5y ago
        How would you see it allocated instead?
      - djbebs 5y ago
        So let me get this straight, you want me to give you money so that you can build and run a business, and you also want me to have no control over how that money is used, and for me to get no benefit from the whole thing? Why would I give you my money?

emilfihlman 5y ago

I'm extremely relieved common sense has prevailed here.

knighthack 5y ago
I agree. And it's common sense that you can't force a corporate entity as to who its business leaders. The signing of that law makes no sense. If boards are composed of people chosen based on their colour and ethnicity, that's not just odd, it's racist. Affirmative action should extend only so far.
tomp 5y ago
It's not "common sense". It's the basis of Western (sub-)civilisation: Enlightenment Values. It's most definitely not "common sense" because it took us (the human civilisation) several millenia to arrive to these values. Fortunately, they're spreading.
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Don't be surprised if this just gets moved to stock exchanges where because the cult of "it's a private business, go start your own stock exchange if you don't like it" will give this policy a home where it can be imposed nationwide. NYSE and NASDAQ have already voiced this possibility.
karmasimida 5y ago
It is crazy that they choose to fight discrimination by enabling another layer of discrimination and not being self-ware to do so

rectang 5y ago

Why on earth doesn't either the Newsweek article or the AP article it references name the judge? Who is this "Los Angeles judge"? EDIT: Found out who it is from another article: Terry Green. https://trellis.law/judge/terry.a.green https://trellis.law/judge/terry.a.green > The Hon. Terry A. Green is a judge for the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. He was appointed to the Superior Court in 1995 by former Governor Pete Wilson. He filled the vacancy created by the retirement of the Hon. Eric Younger (Ret.). Before his elevation to the Superior Court, Judge Green was a presiding judge for the Pasadena Municipal Court.

Animats 5y ago

That decision is consistent with University of California vs. Bakke, so it doesn't come as a surprise.

tinalumfoil 5y ago

This is what the California constitutional says (excerpt), > A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked. The is what the bill says (excerpt): > a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California shall have a minimum of one director from an underrepresented community on its board > “Director from an underrepresented community” means an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.

throwaway743 5y ago
So as someone who is mixed (Cape Verdean father, Irish/Jewish mother), identifies as mixed, but is white passing (Latino passing in the summer if I get sun... which is rare these days. Spoken to in Spanish quite a bit), how would that work? I ask in a meaningful way, not to spark an argument. It's just that this is so confusing. Like I did not grow up with the hassle or hate (with exception of a few racist remarks made to me growing up after being asked my background) that my brown family members and friends encountered and still encounter today, but I could still benefit from legislation like this? It just seems off. Also, couldn't people just game this and say they're xyz or how is this proven? If it weren't by self identification, birth certificates seem like they'd be an issue. For example, because my father was black but light skinned my grandmother got away with putting caucasian down on his birth certificate thinking it'd benefit him somehow in life, but if you saw him you'd say he's black. So what is he and his offspring considered officially when his whole life he has identified as black and my siblings and I as mixed? Idk this just sounds weird to me Edit: Sorry to OP. Not directly speaking to your pointing out of this being unconstitutional in California. Just that it's the first post I saw summarizing the legislation and was commenting on that
SnowHill9902 5y ago
Isn’t it as easy as self-identifying as gay?
5y ago

gfodor 5y ago

Depressing and gross these kinds of laws are even getting this far.

azth 5y ago
What's even more surprising is that lawyers are too scared to initiate lawsuits for these clearly unconstitutional laws.

atty 5y ago

While I think this is probably the right decision (I’m no constitutional scholar or lawyer though, to be fair), it does bring up the question of why boards and C-suites are still pretty homogeneous, when most research supports the idea that diverse boards and executive teams perform better in the market. And that’s not even considering the fact that I believe our society (including our companies) has a moral imperative to fix the pretty stark inequities many minority populations in the US have and are still facing. Is it because groups of white men are more comfortable hiring other white men? Or is it because the pipeline for producing executive-level managers is only producing similar individuals because of those societal inequities? I’d guess a mixture of both.

lostmsu 5y ago
I haven't seen any research pertaining to casual relationship, that goes more diversity -> success. Correlational studies are not that.
rectang 5y ago
You don't need to look far for an explanation, it's right here in this discussion. Others do not see diversity of representation as an imperative. What you or I might consider massive iniquity in perpetuity isn't considered something that needs a remedy, or even something that should be acknowledged as meaningful.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
prirun 5y ago
IMO, one factor is that women are still the ones to bear children, and legislation, diversity guidelines, and complete elimination of prejudice aren't going to change that. Several women I know have said that after having children, their priorities changed instantly. Some tried to go back to work for a while, but in the end could not handle being separated from their baby. My sister is an example: she's a CPA, tried to go back to work, but ended up starting her own practice and working from home. She did this through both of her kids' childhoods, so a good 24 years. I'm not saying there is no prejudice against women or other minorities. Only that it's not easy to look at statistics and conjure up always-correct reasons behind the statistics.

thissiteb1lows 5y ago

burnished 5y ago

Good, sort of a ridiculous law. I'm ignorant so excuse me if this sounds ridiculous, but shouldn't the politicians and law makers be working with communities to create improved outcomes directly instead of signing in laws at random?

lanstin 5y ago
Sending teams to white, heteronormative neighborhoods to encourage people to really see the people around them as fully human with differing life experiences?
- ohCh6zos 5y ago
  I'm not sure I've seen evidence that they don't see them as fully human?

bob2222 5y ago

eezurr 5y ago

I have an honest question.. regardless of your gender, sexuality, or race; if you are a competitive person and want to work your way up the corporate ladder to lead, how would you feel if this law (and others like it) existed and "othered"[1] you? If you know the amount of work it takes to get that position, yet instead you're brought in to fulfill some quota, would you be satisfied with that? I'm asking the people who want to lead based from their hard work and experience. Personally, I'm not sure such a disingenuous existence would sit right with me. I also could not imagine walking into work every day mutually sharing the knowledge my presence in the room is to fill a quota. That seems incredibly dehumanizing. I'm sure some people will disagree, and some people take advantage of what they can. But I'm talking about the day to day existence. I dont need to read reality counter-arguments, I know they exist. I know how unfair the world is. This is a question for the individual. [1] Meaning legislatively labeled you apart everyone else.

CamelRocketFish 5y ago
This currently does happen, the quota has thus far been in the opposite direction. So how would that underrepresented person feel? The best person to ask may be the people that have been at the receiving end of the existing unwritten quota.
magicalist 5y ago
I too have trouble imagining a world where middle management and executives ever stopped to wonder if they were actually any good at their jobs. How terrible for their egos!
lanstin 5y ago
You should survey people who got legacy admits to business schools about the pain of having success made easier, and then survey some members of underrepresented groups about discrimination they have experienced in the current day and the current society. The issue here is that people from over represented groups have historically and presently received an unearned lift to their prospects of success, and everyone else has the complementary push against them. Trace this back to the families of one taking wealth in the past from the families of the other one or not, your question is very discordant from the reality of our society.

gurumeditations 5y ago

Why is this title focused on LGBT people when its primary target is racial minorities? Oh, it’s because gay people are easiest for the hordes of straight people to attack these days. Racial minorities, that’s more risky.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

The difficulty here is the collision between explicit discrimination by the state (prohibited in this case by the CA constitution) and de facto discrimination by private actors (see the significant under-representation of many different demographic groups in positions of power and wealth). CA sought to use the power of the state to legislate some private behavior to reduce the negative impact of de facto discrimination by private actors. The judge has said "no, the CA constitution prevents you from doing this, since that would be explicit discrimination by the state". If you accept for a moment that there is de facto discrimination arising from the actions of private actors, and you believe that this is a net negative for society, how would you go about reducing or elimination it? Of course, you may not accept that there is de facto discrimination by private actors, but then you need to explain the underrepresenation of different demographics, and likely in order to appear reasonably sane, your argument needs to be something other than "that's just the way it is". What argument is there to explain the underrepresentation that doesn't ultimately confirm that it is actually discrimination?

chrsig 5y ago
> If you accept for a moment that there is de facto discrimination arising from the actions of private actors, and you believe that this is a net negative for society, how would you go about reducing or elimination it? Reduce the difficulty of proving discrimination, so there's less plausible deniability
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  That's not the way reality works. Lowering the evidentiary standard also lowers the credibility of the claims therefore increasing plausible deniability.
jscode 5y ago
> If you accept for a moment that there is de facto discrimination arising from the actions of private actors, and you believe that this is a net negative for society, how would you go about reducing or elimination it? Laws can’t make people love each other. We have to make that choice on our own. We learn to accept and include others through our life experiences and the examples set by leaders in our society. If you want people to change their behavior, set a good example for others to follow and encourage others to follow suit.

throwawaydem45 5y ago

Why are these push backs always associated with Republicans? Only 40% of CA democrats voted for Prop 16, for example, which would have reinstated affirmative action in CA public schools (it's currently prohibited in California, as decided by vote). That's a large percentage of Democrats against non-merit-based college admissions.

nullc 5y ago
Perhaps contemplate the reasons you have for using a throwaway account to ask this question and you may be enlightened.
- throwawaydem45 5y ago
  Indeed. That's a separate issue for society to examine.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    I think nullc is subtly pointing out that if Democrats are afraid to publicly oppose these policies, it will of course seem like all the push back is coming from Republicans.
    - nullc 5y ago
      Exactly.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

TeeMassive 5y ago

These laws based on what goes on in the bedroom are not enforceable anyway. Everyone is going to self-identify as "bi" or "queer" if that becomes a requirement of entry in high profile jobs and it will be a impossible to verify.

karmasimida 5y ago

>> However, no companies have been fined and the state said that no tax dollars had been spent to enforce the law, the Associated Press reported. Great to see this performative pseudo activism is getting deserved blow back

nullc 5y ago

After AB979 there was a strong move towards preferring only persons matching multiple of the AB979 criteria for 'outsider' seats on boards so as to not have to lose even more seats to people without the greatest relevant experience, much to the detriment of women who didn't match the bills sexuality or racial minority criteria. It's good to see this patently unlawful discriminatory policy struck down.

pessimizer 5y ago

"The measures came into force last year and gave firms with a main executive office in California until December 31, 2021 to have a member on their boards from groups including LGBT, Black, Latino, Asian, Native American or Pacific Islander." The headline focusing on LGBT is a reflection of the concerns of Newsweek's owners, not the law. The law is dictating a quota of a single non-white, non-straght person on all California corporate boards. Current Newsweek has no relationship to the old Newsweek (which was also terrible) other than branding. This is a spinoff of the International Business Times (also crap.) It looks like they may be controlled by another creepy religious right-wing Asian prosperity cult, so basically The Epoch Times, UPI, The Washington Times, or whatever Happy Science is doing on Youtube. Don't be fooled by branding. ----- https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/28/newsweek-new-owners-background https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/28/newsweek-new-o... https://culteducation.com/group/1290-jang-david-and-the-community/26758-moonies-messiahs-and-media-who-really-owns-newsweek.html https://culteducation.com/group/1290-jang-david-and-the-comm... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/business/media/Etienne-Uzac-newsweek-fraud.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/business/media/Etienne-Uz... https://www.ibtimes.com/newsweek-media-group-will-work-more-closely-christian-university-founder-says-2655850 https://www.ibtimes.com/newsweek-media-group-will-work-more-... https://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek-editors-blast-executive-to-his-face-what-youre-doing-is-bullshit-you-dont-understand-journalism/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek-editors-blast-executi... https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-manhattan-da-olivet-university-david-jang-fired-new-york-media-813949 https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-manhattan-da-olivet-univer... "Note From the Editors: As we were reporting this story, Newsweek Media Group fired Newsweek Editor Bob Roe, Executive Editor Ken Li and Senior Politics Reporter Celeste Katz for doing their jobs. Reporters Josh Keefe and Josh Saul were targeted for firing before an editor persuaded the company to reverse its decision. As we continued working on the story, we were asked to take part in a review process, which, we ultimately learned, involved egregious breaches of confidentiality and journalism ethics. We believe that subjects of the story were shown parts of the draft, if not the entire piece, prior to publication by a company executive who should not have been involved in the process. At an on-the-record interview with the subjects of this story, a company official asked editors to identify confidential sources. On-the-record sources were contacted and questioned about their discussions with Newsweek Media Group reporters. We resisted their efforts to influence the story and, after learning of the review's ethical failings, the reporters and editors involved in this story felt they would be forced to resign. At that point, a senior Newsweek Media Group executive said the company's owners would ensure independent review and newsroom autonomy going forward. This story was written and edited Tuesday, free of interference from company executives."

GoodJokes 5y ago

zephrx1111 5y ago

A victory of common sense.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

azth 5y ago

I wonder if this will pave the way for law suits for people who have lost jobs/positions/promotions in favor of less qualified diversity hires.