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

121–130 of 231 posts

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

#121

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

_3u10 wrote: post #80
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 the…

I have a neighbor couple who lived on- and off-rez (Hopi) over the years. They would agree with your point #1, and would not agree with your point #2. Because #2 seems to be a matter of debate, I'd propose that we (as a society) should probably focus on #1.

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

#122

Post by toast0 »

listless wrote: post #35
phalangion wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not with other systemic issues.

Anybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? I know that’s a non-starter, but if you want to level the playing field for all kids, this is how you do it. Outside of that, you are leaving children to whatever shitty situation they didn’t ask to be born into. I’m not saying I’m for this. I’m not and you would have to kill me to get to my kids. Just seems like the most lo…

Seemed fine in Logan's Run, so it should be ok?

I think you could do a lot of stuff to provide support to all kids without going all the way to universal government custody. Things like (optional) government paid universal day care and after school care, government paid universal health care for minors, food/housing/etc stipends (like the child tax credit, but bigger), and arguably better pay for teachers and smaller class sizes. These things wouldn't end inequality, but might more kids up to good enough resources.

You could also pull a China and outlaw tutoring/test prep to reduce the advantages wealth can provide.

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

#123

Post by armchairhacker »

Animats wrote: post #32
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 Seems to not make much difference in financial results, either way. Wharton study:[1] [1] https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-dive...

I believe those studies but correlation does not equal causation. I think the real reason that more diverse boards do better (if they do) is that the company hires people more based on talent and other metric which don’t discriminate, vs ones like patrimony. Forced diversity just sidesteps the problem because the company can still use bad metrics.

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

#124

Post by tzs »

hurflmurfl wrote: post #103
temp8964 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think what they are getting it is that someone called it "pro-abortion". It is usually called "pro-choice", because it is abortion rights that most pro-choice people are in favor of rather than abortion itself.

I've certainly met vastly more people who want to preserve Roe v. Wade because they want to preserve a woman's right to choose than people who want to preserve Roe v. Wade because they think that we need more abortions. I can't recall ever meeting someone who was actually pro-abortion.

Even those who think we should significantly lower the population almost always want to do that through better contraception, not through more abortions.

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

#125

Post by throwawaydem45 »

nullc wrote: post #96
throwawaydem45 wrote: post #73

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.

Perhaps contemplate the reasons you have for using a throwaway account to ask this question and you may be enlightened.

Indeed. That's a separate issue for society to examine.

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

#126

Post by pessimizer »

"The measures came into force last year and gave firms with a main executive office in California until December 31, 2021 to have a member on their boards from groups including LGBT, Black, Latino, Asian, Native American or Pacific Islander."

The headline focusing on LGBT is a reflection of the concerns of Newsweek's owners, not the law. The law is dictating a quota of a single non-white, non-straght person on all California corporate boards. Current Newsweek has no relationship to the old Newsweek (which was also terrible) other than branding. This is a spinoff of the International Business Times (also crap.)

It looks like they may be controlled by another creepy religious right-wing Asian prosperity cult, so basically The Epoch Times, UPI, The Washington Times, or whatever Happy Science is doing on Youtube.

Don't be fooled by branding.

-----

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/28/newsweek-new-o...

https://culteducation.com/group/1290-jang-david-and-the-comm...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/business/media/Etienne-Uz...

https://www.ibtimes.com/newsweek-media-group-will-work-more-...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek-editors-blast-executi...

https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-manhattan-da-olivet-univer...

"Note From the Editors: As we were reporting this story, Newsweek Media Group fired Newsweek Editor Bob Roe, Executive Editor Ken Li and Senior Politics Reporter Celeste Katz for doing their jobs. Reporters Josh Keefe and Josh Saul were targeted for firing before an editor persuaded the company to reverse its decision. As we continued working on the story, we were asked to take part in a review process, which, we ultimately learned, involved egregious breaches of confidentiality and journalism ethics. We believe that subjects of the story were shown parts of the draft, if not the entire piece, prior to publication by a company executive who should not have been involved in the process. At an on-the-record interview with the subjects of this story, a company official asked editors to identify confidential sources. On-the-record sources were contacted and questioned about their discussions with Newsweek Media Group reporters. We resisted their efforts to influence the story and, after learning of the review's ethical failings, the reporters and editors involved in this story felt they would be forced to resign. At that point, a senior Newsweek Media Group executive said the company's owners would ensure independent review and newsroom autonomy going forward. This story was written and edited Tuesday, free of interference from company executives."

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

#127

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #84
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…

Assuming discrimination exists in order to justify discriminatory policies in response is a doozy of a begging the question fallacy. > What argument is there to explain the underrepresentation that doesn't ultimately confirm that it is actually discrimination? There are myriad reasons applicable to different groups. Age and immigration status are big ones. Almost all of the so-called “bamboo ceiling” (the theory that…

[deleted]

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

#128

Post by pessimizer »

trhway wrote: post #17
kuschku wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The chance to successfully start a new company depends on the succes your parents and others in your demographic had. It's not that simple.

Having successful parents is equally random for everyone, isn't?

Yes, in the same way that every soul had the same opportunity to be born to a king.

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

#129

Post by freyr »

Alex3917 wrote: post #49
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 If Hollywood movies start getting a lot better with the new diversity requirements for Oscar eligibility, presumably this will serve as an example for every other industry.

For the curious, eligible movies must satisfy at least one of the following criteria:

At least one actor from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group must be cast in a significant role.

The story must center on women, L.G.T.B.Q. people, a racial or ethnic group or the disabled.

At least 30 percent of the cast must be actors from at least two of those four underrepresented categories.

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

#130

Post by throwoutway »

tzs wrote: post #124
hurflmurfl wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think what they are getting it is that someone called it "pro-abortion". It is usually called "pro-choice", because it is abortion rights that most pro-choice people are in favor of rather than abortion itself. I've certainly met vastly more people who want to preserve Roe v. Wade because they want to preserve a woman's right to choose than people who want to preserve Roe v. Wade because they think that we need mor…

That’s pro-semantics. I’d rather not play word games. If you’re pro-choice you are pro-abortion
Post reply on HN