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

L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 231 posts

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#61

Post by AussieWog93 »

88913527 wrote: post #2

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 importa…

>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.

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#63

Post by [deleted] »

fatbird wrote: post #53
jdrc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"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 c…

[deleted]

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#64

Post by heavyset_go »

djbebs wrote: post #41
heavyset_go wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current undemocratic nature of capital allocation that disfavors worker-ownership.

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...

Allocating capital through the whims of equity investors is inherently undemocratic.

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#65

Post by AussieWog93 »

car_analogy wrote: post #52
stormbrew wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which column identifies how hard people in any of these demographics worked to achieve this outcome?

You want to attribute different outcomes to differences in behavior by race? In this case, you're saying that Jewish students are 11x more hard-working than Hispanic ones, and Asian students are 6x more hard-working than Black ones? Which other racial disparities do you attribute to differences in behavior?

>In this case, you're saying that Jewish students are 11x more hard-working than Hispanic ones, and Asian students are 6x more hard-working than Black ones?

Does Michael Phelps (23 Olympic gold medals) swim 23x faster than Mack Horton (1 Olympic gold medal)?

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#66

Post by magicalist »

eezurr wrote: post #56

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 w…

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!

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#67

Post by lostmsu »

atty wrote: post #30

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 imperati…

I haven't seen any research pertaining to casual relationship, that goes more diversity -> success. Correlational studies are not that.

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#68

Post by rectang »

atty wrote: post #30

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 imperati…

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.

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#69

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

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?

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#70

Post by _3u10 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #58
_3u10 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inst…

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…

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.

Post reply on HN