7 ms·
California Law Requiring Board Diversity Is Struck Down
- crackercrews 5y agoTFA refers to an earlier law requiring women on boards. The same group is suing over that law also. Any idea why the later law was struck down first?
- Proven 5y ago
- no_butterscotch 5y agoNice. Absolutely insane that to create a board I have to first ask someone "so to verify your qualifications, you are a man who likes other men correct? Or rather, I'm sorry, if not that, you were born a woman and became a man? correct? Great you got the job!" These laws were insane and are taking us backwards while hiding under the guise of "forward progress".
- commandlinefan 5y ago> you are a man who likes other men Not sure how thoroughly they have to verify that, either...
- coolspot 5y agoHands-on interviews are common practice.
- crackercrews 5y agoThe "Q" in LGBTQ keeps expanding. This cisgender man [1] is attracted exclusively to women. He has announced he is queer. What does that mean? I don't care if he wants to call himself that. But it seems like "queer" doesn't mean what it used to. If it includes everyone, does it mean anything at all? 1: https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1506937369995456518?s=20&t=M6IUrWIcLHQClJRu73HEjg https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/150693736999545651...
- bleuchase 5y agoThat’s a parody account. Not that anyone can tell the difference at this point.
- crackercrews 5y agoI know the linked account is a parody. I was referring to the account that was quote-tweeted. Is that also a parody account?
- twoxproblematic 5y ago
- _-david-_ 5y agoSeems like a good thing. Deliberately hiring somebody based on their race and sex is wrong. It is sad that we are getting to a point where the most important attribute in hiring are immutable characteristics. For those in favor of a law like this imagine if the law had races, sex, or whatever flipped. You have to hire a white person or a male. Would you still be in favor of it?
- ellopoppit 5y ago>For those in favor of a law like this imagine if the law had races, sex, or whatever flipped. You have to hire a white person or a male. Would you still be in favor of it? Is that not the explicit or implicit reasoning people have for this? They call it "reverse racism" because they see it as the best way to reverse historical racism and sexism
- _-david-_ 5y agoAs far as I know it is called reverse racism because they do not think it is possible to be racist towards white people so they qualify it with reverse to make it seem like it is not in fact racism. This why they are attempting to change the definition of racism to say you have to have power as well. Many of the people who support this law do believe you need to be racist to fix past racism. Ibram X. Kendi, for example, said "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." My question, however, was more about a slippery slope. Once you allow blatant discrimination like this in the law it is only a matter of time until it is used in a way you don't like. Some people think there are millions of white supremcists in the US. If that is the case and racial discrimination becomes legal, will these people still be in support of laws like this when they require whites to be hired? I would guess not.
- ellopoppit 5y agoGood points. As this is such an emotionally charged topic, they're likely not thinking with such long term logic. It's more of a reactionary thing
- akomtu 5y agoThis law isn't much different than how China demands a party member to be on board of every sizeable business to oversee it. It's just the US is more creative about such laws: instead of a party member it's a 'DEI bureocrat' and the law uses a language that obfuscates the intent.
- hw-guy 5y ago"Gov. Gavin Newsom, in signing the bill into law, proclaimed it a victory for racial justice and empowerment." I'm trying to understand what requiring LGBT board members has to do with racial justice.
- crackercrews 5y agoThe prior sentence in TFA: > It requires publicly traded companies based in California to have board members from underrepresented communities including people of several races and ethnic groups and people who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. It's not all about race. But there is a large racial component.
- devteambravo 5y agoWhat is the long term logic in making sure mostly straight white men run things?
- JaceLightning 5y agoThere is no evidence that straight white men will run things without this law. There is no evidence that straight white men running things is bad. Please stop using "straight white" as a pejorative.
- sharken 5y agoAbsolutely, and besides may the most qualified person get the job. But this is probably not the last time a politician gets a crazy idea.
- devteambravo 5y agoIf you refuse access to certain folks, the qualified pool tend to be homogeneous. Then your most qualified person looks the same every time.
- ReptileMan 5y agoSnark - They are good at it - case in point the current civilization. You don't take over everything by chance.
- rayiner 5y agoProp 16, racial preferences for SBA loans, racial preferences for USDA loan forgiveness, floating racial preferences for covid vaccines, and now this. It’s remarkable how much political capital is being spent on approaches that remain unpopular among all racial groups half a century after the affirmative action debates of the 1970s: 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. Constitutional issues aside, Gavin Newsome saying that this law is a win for “racial justice and empowerment” seems like trickle down economics. The premise behind these efforts seems to be that if you appoint say an Asian American to the Board of a Fortune 500 company, collectively these people will steer society in ways that will help recent Asian immigrants in Chinatown. That seems bizarre to me. Elite minorities are still elites. They went to the same elite schools, have very similar elite world views. And they often have limited connections to the people in their minority groups who are the ones who really need help. I’m a first generation Bangladeshi immigrant and I have close family that’s part of NYC’s large low income Bangladeshi immigrant community. And even then I think it’s silly to think that putting me on a corporate board would meaningfully address the plight of recent immigrants. I went to school with white elites and share most of my worldview with white elites. I wouldn’t do anything any differently than they would. I would probably go out of my way to not do anything differently.
- throw_m239339 5y agoPrevious discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30890674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30890674
- blip54321 5y agoThis is what happens what idiots write laws. Good law: Boards cannot be uni-gender. Bad law: Each board must have at least one woman. They both accomplish the same thing, but one discriminates on sex, and the other doesn't. Another example are laws targeting blacks. There are historical wrongs to be righted. Laws should, for example, convey benefits to individuals whose ancestors were slaves, were denied rights under the GI bill, or otherwise were specifically unfairly harmed. That's different from a law looking at skin color directly. It might seem subtle -- it's the same communities -- but one of those does something for bad reasons (and is likely to be found illegal), and one of those does something for good reasons (and is likely to be fully legal). It matters. I support the court ruling. I also support the intent of the law. The legislature ought to go back to the drawing board, and write a law which does the same thing the right way.
- miwa 5y agoAre you sure those two laws accomplish the same thing? Under the "good law" you posted above, many organizations in California would become illegal overnight that are legal under your "bad law". The LA Times, most nursing associations, and many other all-female organizations would be criminalized. Even LA County itself would be illegal: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-11-04/l-a-county-makes-history-with-all-female-board-of-supervisors https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-11-04/l-a-coun... I believe the goal of the authors of the law is to allow for all-female leadership teams to exist while explicitly prohibiting all-male leadership teams.
- blip54321 5y agoNo, they don't accomplish the same thing. One accomplishes something better than the other. To your points, all-female organizations would not be criminalized: 1) First of all, these should be civil laws, not criminal laws. Having this be a criminal law would be insane. 2) Second of all, these are about corporate boards for publicly-traded corporations. All-female associations are permitted. Even all-female publicly-traded corporations would be permitted, although I'm unaware of any. Board members are independent individuals who provide oversight. Most aren't insiders. It's fine to have a female board member for an all-male organization, or vice-versa. To your nursing example, if there were a publicly-traded nursing corporation, it's even helpful since half of patients are males. 3) Third of all, LA Times is not all-female; I'm not sure where that comes from. LA County is a government, not a publicly-traded corporation, and the law doesn't apply. The right idea which should be behind the law -- which is sensible -- is that corporate oversight should understand the impact on everyone, and should represent the workforce, customers, etc. It's sensible. I suspect it's good for shareholder value too.
- phendrenad2 5y agoThat's too bad. Until these kinds of things are tried, we won't know if they work. And they'll continue to be used as a eternally fake promise by politicians.