Aren’t all big tech Delaware corporations anyway?
California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
91–100 of 208 posts
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#92Road the hell is paved with good intentions. As much as I support equality and diversity, I'm even more strongly opposed government over-reach. The state shouldn't have a say in who gets a job at a private (non owned by state) company. As the article state, I hope this will get over-turned by the courts. This would set a bad precedent. If the state can dictate the kind of person gets a highly coveted job, what else c…
I'm not sure whether I agree with the CA policy. But this argument against it is extremely unconvincing. It's almost word-for-word what segregationists argued against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
e.g. https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/06/barry-goldwater-decla...
"The two portion so this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action in the area of so-called "public accommodations" and in the area of employment--to be precise, Titles II and VII of the bill. I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government..."
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you, about HN's audience, which is I guess what "bro culture" devolves into, and that the idea isn't crazy. Board room implies scale. If you don't have diversity at scale, in so many senses of the word, your doomed to fail anyway. So many knee jerk reactions are a sad reflection of this community, though.
>"If you don't have diversity at scale, in so many senses of the word, your doomed to fail anyway." That's not necessarily true. There are plenty of organizations all over the world that are not "diverse" but those institutions manage to succeed. Not every company needs to have a board room that looks like a university admissions pamphlet in order to operate and respond to competition.
[deleted]
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#94I think this kind of imposition is frustrating not because of the end result (we'd all appreciate more diversity, no doubt) but because of the method: is painting over the symptoms a meaningful solution?
Maybe we should discuss instead what's leading to such lack of diversity (misaligned incentives? lack of opportunities?)
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#95The comments here as I write this are quite shocking. I would have imagined that HN's readership would be quite progressive. Maybe not. I do not think it is unreasonable for a corporate board to be required to include at least one woman or at least one non-white person. I also think it's quite shocking that all-white-male boards are so common that this is even necessary. It's an artifact of institutional racism and s…
I want to redistribute more wealth to poor people, and I don't give a damn what colour the rich people sitting on corporate boards are. Americans have a myopic obsession with the race and gender of their rulers, but are willing to let the crippling poverty and poor working conditions of their neighbours slide.
Progressivism sometimes takes time and energy that previously went to helping the working and middle classes, and redirects it off into the aether to help the very top of the pile.
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What a shockingly sad interpretation from most (all at the time of writing) comments here. It's shockingly sad to see people defending state discrimination based on race and sex.
How so? If the state continues to allow a small subset of the population to discriminate based on race and sex, isn't that also the state defending discrimination?
> If the state continues to allow a small subset of the population to discriminate based on race and sex
Example?
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Federal government already says you can't discriminate. They aren't saying, "you have to hire this person". They're saying you can't hire exclusively this type of person that currently dominates the top of society. Given that these boardrooms don't diversify themselves, what is the actual problem with it?
It's going to be one diverse person at a lot of those boards and they will get the stigma of being the person that was put there because the actual good candidates had the wrong skin color. No matter how qualified they might actually be, they can't escape the looks. Plus, by making this a factor, you're just kindling actual racism by pitting white males against everyone else. The resentment created by rejecting someo…
Do white males feel like they are all unfairly on the board because they passed over all the black candidates? No. They think they're there on merit, because well --- of course, they're white.
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you, about HN's audience, which is I guess what "bro culture" devolves into, and that the idea isn't crazy. Board room implies scale. If you don't have diversity at scale, in so many senses of the word, your doomed to fail anyway. So many knee jerk reactions are a sad reflection of this community, though.
> If you don't have diversity at scale, in so many senses of the word, your doomed to fail anyway. The market would have slaughtered tech firms if this were true.
[deleted]
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#99Road the hell is paved with good intentions. As much as I support equality and diversity, I'm even more strongly opposed government over-reach. The state shouldn't have a say in who gets a job at a private (non owned by state) company. As the article state, I hope this will get over-turned by the courts. This would set a bad precedent. If the state can dictate the kind of person gets a highly coveted job, what else c…
This is about equity, not equality, and it's increasingly clear that a lot of people don't know the difference.
Equity by its normal dictionary definition is great.
But as the critical race theory worldview defines it, "equity" involves unequal treatment of people and discrimination (decisions made about how to treat people) on the basis of race.
The idea is to retroactively create equal outcomes, not equal opportunities in the present.
The problem is: a society can't create either equal outcomes or equal opportunities by intentionally discriminating one way or another, since doing so (1) fails to solve problems at their source and (2) creates new problems.
In other words, love is the answer, not hate.
Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America
#100Let’s say a 10 person board is populated with 9 white male board members. They need to appoint the 10th board member. It can’t be a white male? So, for this specific role, they must make a hiring decision based upon the individual’s membership in a class, such as sex, race or color. That seems to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
I mean, the law is unconstitutional. Racial quotas are not legal. And this will get struck down by courts. Democrats literally just don't care.