Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 208 posts

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#161

Post by bitshiftfaced »

kenjackson wrote: post #141
sanity31415 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to 2021 when people think openly disparaging people on the basis of their race is ok.

So that's your counter? Nothing against the actual merit of the statement? White people don't naturally assume they have their positions on merit? How many whites actually think, "Maybe I shouldn't have this position because of the advantage I've been given being white"? Seriously. How often do white males seriously ponder this?

In general, people may more likely believe they got where they are based on merit when they're higher up on the totem pole. That makes sense to me. Where you lose me is when you say that someone's skin color makes them have even more of a tendency (and to say that "of course" that's the way it works).

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#162

Post by haswell »

kenjackson wrote: post #155
nerbert wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly there is not right angle to race. Saying "black people cant be at the board of companies" is just as wrong as saying "some black people have to belong to it". That being said, when only white people are at the board of companies without that being a calculated strategy, there is also a problem. If only white people come out on top where - allegedly - the smartest people belong, wouldn’t it be the place of th…

The problem is that the only real solution is a lot more extreme. I think once women are pregnant they go into managed care and babies are immediately taken at birth into academies (with no knowledge of parents) until adulthood. But that will never happen. Unfortunately short of that we’re likely to never have real equality.

That’s some pretty extreme all-or-nothing thinking. Why do you believe this is the only solution?

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#163

Post by gorwell »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #14

The 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…

This is not progressive, it's regressive.

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#164

Post by ivalm »

kovek wrote: post #70
ivalm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think that this formulation reflects the actual situation. Realistically you have a broad pool of near-identical performers (in a sense that your error in judgement is similar to difference in performance) mixed with some bad performers. The goal of the company is not to hire good, but to avoid the bad. So if someone isn’t bad then it’s fine to give preference based on some diversity metric, because you are j…

They still lose a (very) competent candidate, and that candidate will do great work elsewhere (and not for the board)

If you have a fixed headcount, then forgoing one candidate for equivalent another doesn’t carry a cost. By hiring person A you would be missing out on person B, by hiring person B you would be missing out on A. The point is that the net cost is 0. So if B brings more diversity then A you should hire B. You are not (net) missing anything.

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#165

Post by kenjackson »

haswell wrote: post #160
kenjackson wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who have I disparaged based on race?

> No. They think they're there on merit, because well --- of course, they're white. You leave no room for the possibility that people in such positions are self aware, or even capable of understanding the broader context. I suspect this is what folks are reacting to.

The statement doesn’t apply to every white person, but enough that it never comes up that whites “get looks” due to their privileges.

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#166

Post by kenjackson »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #161
kenjackson wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that's your counter? Nothing against the actual merit of the statement? White people don't naturally assume they have their positions on merit? How many whites actually think, "Maybe I shouldn't have this position because of the advantage I've been given being white"? Seriously. How often do white males seriously ponder this?

In general, people may more likely believe they got where they are based on merit when they're higher up on the totem pole. That makes sense to me. Where you lose me is when you say that someone's skin color makes them have even more of a tendency (and to say that "of course" that's the way it works).

The poster I was responding to was noting that white people would look askance at blacks on the board, but I assume not whites. Both are at a high position, it only one group would be looked down on for any sort of privilege granted them. It is a function of race. Not an inherent function of being white, but rather the culture that allows white people to always believe “I did this myself”.

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#167

Post by kenjackson »

haswell wrote: post #162
kenjackson wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the only real solution is a lot more extreme. I think once women are pregnant they go into managed care and babies are immediately taken at birth into academies (with no knowledge of parents) until adulthood. But that will never happen. Unfortunately short of that we’re likely to never have real equality.

That’s some pretty extreme all-or-nothing thinking. Why do you believe this is the only solution?

How else do you remedy the compounding advantage throughout various parts of the society?

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#168

Post by salawat »

kenjackson wrote: post #141
sanity31415 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to 2021 when people think openly disparaging people on the basis of their race is ok.

So that's your counter? Nothing against the actual merit of the statement? White people don't naturally assume they have their positions on merit? How many whites actually think, "Maybe I shouldn't have this position because of the advantage I've been given being white"? Seriously. How often do white males seriously ponder this?

It's rather amusing you assign the frequency of certain types of thinking to skin color.

Do you think people who are black think "damn, I love chicken/watermelon/grape drink/stealing things/being violent! Do you think people of Asian descent are all good at math?

Like I don't even understand how you can be so blind to the self-referential inconsistency here.

Also, for the record? If you can talk the talk, and walk the walk, or at least demonstrate some aptitude at getting the job done so the person hiring you can be reasonably comfortable they aren't just bringing on an anchor; that is infinitely more likely to factor into getting you a position than skin color.

t. Have Hired and fired

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#169

Post by MaximumYComb »

kenjackson wrote: post #141
sanity31415 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to 2021 when people think openly disparaging people on the basis of their race is ok.

So that's your counter? Nothing against the actual merit of the statement? White people don't naturally assume they have their positions on merit? How many whites actually think, "Maybe I shouldn't have this position because of the advantage I've been given being white"? Seriously. How often do white males seriously ponder this?

Are they in that position because they are white, or are they in that position because they were born in privileged families? My country has had predominantly white, male Prime Ministers. What's even more remarkable is that every single one of them over the past 20 years went to highly exclusive private schools. The sort of private school that costs more than a good portion of adults earn, i.e $40k per annum.

When you disparage an entire group based on skin colour and gender, you're being a racist and sexist. You're being highly offensive to the majority of white men who weren't born with silver spoons. If you look at the most successful tech founders you'll see a pattern of them being born into wealthy families with educated parents. 50 years ago, most wealthy and educated families were white, which is why you see so many of these founders today. For example:

Mark Zuckerburg - parents were a psychiatrist and dentist. They literally hired software developers (in the 1990's) to tutor him.

Bill Gates - father was a prominant laywer, mother was on executive boards. Access to computers before they were even a thing.

Sergie Brin - Father was a professor, mother a NASA researcher. Private schools.

Larry Page - Father had a computing professor, mother was a computing instructor. Private schools.

Bezos - wealthy family (Grandfather was regional director of the US Atomic Energy Commision).

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#170

Post by bitshiftfaced »

kenjackson wrote: post #166
bitshiftfaced wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, people may more likely believe they got where they are based on merit when they're higher up on the totem pole. That makes sense to me. Where you lose me is when you say that someone's skin color makes them have even more of a tendency (and to say that "of course" that's the way it works).

The poster I was responding to was noting that white people would look askance at blacks on the board, but I assume not whites. Both are at a high position, it only one group would be looked down on for any sort of privilege granted them. It is a function of race. Not an inherent function of being white, but rather the culture that allows white people to always believe “I did this myself”.

> Both are at a high position, it only one group would be looked down on for any sort of privilege granted them. It is a function of race. Not an inherent function of being white, but rather the culture that allows white people to always believe “I did this myself”.

How is "looking down on for any sort of privilege" a function of race? I thought it was a function of the asymmetrical nature of the privilege.

Post reply on HN