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

71–80 of 231 posts

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

#71

Post by throwawaydem45 »

stormbrew wrote: post #38
car_analogy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they? Here is the composition of Ivy League non-international students, courtesy of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30338742 : Ivy League US Ratio Jewish 17.2% 2.4% 7.16 Asian 19.6% 5.3% 3.71 White (incl. Jewish) 50.3% 61.5% 0.82 Hispanic 11.4% 17.6% 0.65 Black 7.8% 12.7% 0.61 White (non-Jewish) 33.1% 59.1% 0.56

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

Why does the concept of "working hard" have to be a categorized by race when it is largely based on individual circumstances such as family income, parental upbringing, and immigration history? Someone who individually works hard that is a member of a group that is not considered to be hard working (or vice versa) would still be treated unfairly by this proposed system, making it no better than the status quo.

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

#72

Post by ipaddr »

_3u10 wrote: post #33
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’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…

I'm not going to defend diversity but the idea is having a Paraguayan and Chinese would be better than two Paraguayans because you get insight from two cultures vs one.

For some roles this might be important (sales) for others like accounting it's foolish.

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

#73

Post by throwawaydem45 »

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.

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

#74

Post by chrsig »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #69

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 discriminati…

> 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

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

#75

Post by TeeMassive »

chrsig wrote: post #74
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #69

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 discriminati…

> 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

That's not the way reality works. Lowering the evidentiary standard also lowers the credibility of the claims therefore increasing plausible deniability.

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

#76

Post by avazhi »

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#77

Post by heavyset_go »

stormbrew wrote: post #38
car_analogy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they? Here is the composition of Ivy League non-international students, courtesy of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30338742 : Ivy League US Ratio Jewish 17.2% 2.4% 7.16 Asian 19.6% 5.3% 3.71 White (incl. Jewish) 50.3% 61.5% 0.82 Hispanic 11.4% 17.6% 0.65 Black 7.8% 12.7% 0.61 White (non-Jewish) 33.1% 59.1% 0.56

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

US immigration policy selects for high earners, the already wealthy and the highly skilled and educated. I think that can explain the demographics pretty well.

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

#78

Post by lanstin »

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…

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.

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

#79

Post by jscode »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #69

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 discriminati…

> 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.

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

#80

Post by _3u10 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #69

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 discriminati…

Let me tell you that growing up off the rez I have a pretty good idea of why indigenous kids growing up on the rez aren’t building wealth and it has largely to do with two things:

1) intergenerational trauma needs to be called what it is which is neglect and child abuse.

2) PC victimhood culture and the politicians who take advantage of it to convince people they just need more handouts instead of to stop abusing their children and take responsibility for their lives.

There is real discrimination in society things like Japanese internment but you don’t see any issue with Japanese people lifting themselves out of poverty.

Post reply on HN