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

101–110 of 231 posts

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

#101

Post by secretfriend789 »

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…

There are a number of mechanisms by which differential results can be arrived to by mechanisms that can reasonably be described as non-discriminatory. The easier to describe one is a winner take all election system (like most U.S. elections.) If an identity group minority has a strong and cohesive set of preferences that are in opposition to the majority, then the results of fair elections can look discriminatory and non representative. If 65% of group A that represent 80% of the population prefer option X and 90% of group B that represents 20% of the population prefer option Y, then a huge portion of group B is going to be disappointed that they don’t win free and fair elections. What’s more, if candidates are randomly selected from the pool of people that support X or Y, the victors will come from group A close to 96% of the time, despite group A only representing 80% of the population.

All that’s to say that if shareholders (who theoretically appoint and are represented by the board) as a group have legitimate and real preference differences from the average person from the these other minority groups, you can get easily get boards that are unrepresentative of the minority groups.

Now, as to why those shareholders might have preferences that differ from those minority groups so much, you can start making class based or structural inequality/racism arguments. But I’ve written enough :)

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

#102

Post by gurkendoktor »

rayiner wrote: post #89
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…

Since it’s us mathematically minded people here, it’s worth pointing out that these studies don’t establish causation. You’d probably find a strong correlation between financial performance of firms and investment into other social initiatives, such as corporate philanthropy or environmental causes. It’s possible that wealthier and more successful firms are simply better able to afford such investments than less succ…

Exactly: Most studies that I've been referred to are shiny McKinsey pages that boil down to big companies having more diverse boards on average.

Besides what you said, that's not a surprising correlation because it's easy for Multinational MegaCorp Inc. to have a multi-ethnic board after a few international mergers.

And then there are very opinionated shareholders like Vanguard and BlackRock, which receive voting rights for every Euro that I save for old age, who can make this outcome a self-fulfilling prophecy by punishing companies for lack of diversity.

I don't think it's possible to control for all of this.

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

#103

Post by hurflmurfl »

temp8964 wrote: post #95
avazhi wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Why would anybody pro abortion?

Why would everybody be anti-abortion? Why are some people rooting for war, while others denounce military acts? Why does my grandma love eating fish heads but I think it's odd?

I think it's normal that different people think differently. I think this is a very flame-inviting question as it stands.

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

#104

Post by SnowHill9902 »

tinalumfoil wrote: post #26

This is what the California constitutional says (excerpt), > A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked. The is what the bill says (excerpt): > a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 1…

Isn’t it as easy as self-identifying as gay?

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

#105

Post by stormbrew »

car_analogy wrote: post #94
magicalist wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're the one who responded with the start of a refutation ("Do they?"). It's reasonable to expect you to actually make the argument.

I'm the only one that presented any data at all - the original comment simply asserted something was true, without backing it up in any way. It's reasonable to expect a refutation to contain at least some data, instead of dismissing what data we do have as not complete enough, and reverting back to the original fact-free assertion.

You can't just throw up a data table and go "ok I refuted it!" That's not an argument, it's just some contextless numbers. It is legitimately not clear to me in any way what you're trying to say or what it has to do with the thing you're replying to.

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

#106

Post by temp8964 »

freyr wrote: post #98
temp8964 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anybody pro abortion?

Overpopulation? But I think it’s safe to assume they mean pro-choice.

At this point it's not safe to assume anything. Maybe there are lots of them think it's a good thing to kill babies. Who knows?

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

#107

Post by tszymczyszyn »

ipaddr wrote: post #72
_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…

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.

What if the Paraguayan and Chinese cannot (hypothetically) effectively work together because of cultural differences?

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

#108

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

jscode wrote: post #79
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…

The board of directors of a company does not exist to shower love among the members. It's there to provide oversight and steerage to a corporation. The members could all hate each other and (at least theoretically) still perform that role with skill and committment.

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

#109

Post by nullc »

After AB979 there was a strong move towards preferring only persons matching multiple of the AB979 criteria for 'outsider' seats on boards so as to not have to lose even more seats to people without the greatest relevant experience, much to the detriment of women who didn't match the bills sexuality or racial minority criteria. It's good to see this patently unlawful discriminatory policy struck down.

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

#110

Post by Retric »

avazhi wrote: post #76
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Not to get into the social or mental aspects, but biologically there is some very non standard stuff that can happen. Chimera for example can be a mix between male and female cells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)#Humans

That isn’t to say non standard biology is always involved, just that it can be.

Post reply on HN