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

191–200 of 231 posts

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

#191

Post by Sparyjerry »

kuschku wrote: post #5
exolymph wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the right mechanism is for people of [insert desired demographic] to start companies and make them successful.

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.

I agree upon the success of your parents. It only makes sense that say a 'rich' or 'successful' parent that knows how to budget, had a better education, a strong will to persevere, and/or is extremely kind will pass on those skills of success to their children. Does that kid deserve to have the advantage? I'd say yes because it was the parents who created the life of their kid and what the parents want to do with their money and time, if that's support and educate the life they created then should be able to do that. In U.S. with public education, financial aid, and grants it is about as equal as possible monetarily but if a good blacksmith makes the best swords their son has a teacher around 24/7 that can teach them and make their son the next best blacksmith - but that applies to every single profession, but in general just budgeting or the skills I mentioned above would be enough to succeed in almost any profession, and bonus points if they have multiple of those skills.

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

#192

Post by rectang »

Sparyjerry wrote: post #191
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.

I agree upon the success of your parents. It only makes sense that say a 'rich' or 'successful' parent that knows how to budget, had a better education, a strong will to persevere, and/or is extremely kind will pass on those skills of success to their children. Does that kid deserve to have the advantage? I'd say yes because it was the parents who created the life of their kid and what the parents want to do with the…

Parents provide more than just moral teaching. For example, when kids screw up, wealthy parents can buy them second chances and the appearance of moral rectitude — when in the same situation a poor kid would be ashcanned as a dissolute moral failure, whose parents didn't know how to budget, didn't pass on a strong will to persevere, etc.

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

#193

Post by slibhb »

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…

> 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?

Why do you believe that all positions in all domains should be perfectly proportional with the underlying population across the six dimensions you've decided to care about? Is that reasonable?

That is not to say that discrimination is imaginary. It is not to say we should ignore it. It is to say that disproportionate outcomes are not evidence of discrimination. In other words, the fact that 20% of Nobel prize winners are Jews is not evidence of a global Jewish cabal. Nor should you stay up at night wondering where all the white rappers are.

If you actually want to help disadvantaged groups, focus on existing programs that don't effectively serve those groups. Like public schools. How can we make public schools work better?

The truly inane thing about mandating one black/gay/woman/whatever on every board is that those people won't be disadvantaged. They aren't going to invite people off the street to sit on their boards. It's just cosmetic bullshit.

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

#194

Post by rectang »

slibhb wrote: post #193
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…

> 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? Why…

Representation matters. It matters when all white juries try black defendants. It matters when all-male boards decide that sexual harassment isn't a big deal.

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

#195

Post by burnished »

tomp wrote: post #46
burnished wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has a recent history of racial discrimination that prevented a lot of people from building wealth in their communities or generational wealth. Not that there aren't a shit ton of white people living in trailer parks, but no one was denying them home loans because of the color of their skin. So, if owning your own home is a big part of your wealth over a life time, and your parents and their parents were discri…

Sure but here we're talking about LGBT. I include women because of this: > I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results AFAIK most of these studies focused on "women in boardrooms/leadership"

Hmmm, fair enough, I suppose I simply failed my reading comprehension roll.

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

#196

Post by onos »

slibhb wrote: post #153
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, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. If diverse boards do better it's because you have to be doing very well already to do something as stupid as picking board members for their sexual orientation.

Hence the argument that this move was a bid for regulatory capture by already established corps.

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

#197

Post by slibhb »

rectang wrote: post #194
slibhb wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Why…

Representation matters. It matters when all white juries try black defendants. It matters when all-male boards decide that sexual harassment isn't a big deal.

Juries are randomly drawn from the population...

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

#198

Post by onos »

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…

An aspect of affirmative actions policies in practice is that the individual beneficiaries are not explicitly labeled as such, so there is a layer of plausible deniability.

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

#199

Post by rectang »

slibhb wrote: post #197
rectang wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Representation matters. It matters when all white juries try black defendants. It matters when all-male boards decide that sexual harassment isn't a big deal.

Juries are randomly drawn from the population...

Yes, they are now. (As far as I know.) But such was not always the case, for example in the Jim Crow south — where all-white juries routinely convicted innocent black defendants and routinely exonerated guilty white defendants. Proper Jury representation had to be foisted on Southern states, who resisted it mightily.

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

#200

Post by avazhi »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #113
avazhi wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I think this shows how being "US liberal" is pretty much the same as "anywhere else right." Like straight out the gate with "I support marginalized people but only the way I think is best for them, disregarding their own experiences and preferences." Then immediate followup with the 2011-era reddit style pseudo-evo-psych about how our current social order is fully justified because of science or whatever. Hm why do m…

Actually, gender behaviour differences are noted in non-human primate infants also. For example (and I can find the study if you're interested), male baby monkeys prefer toy firetrucks to dolls, and they don't display motherly (viz., feeding, caressing, etc) behaviour towards the toys, whereas female infant monkeys prefer dolls (even human dolls) to toy firetrucks, and they do display these behaviours. At least when I was taught this in uni (2017) this finding/conclusion was sound enough to be in textbooks, and had been replicated and was considered paradigmatic of innate biological gender differences.

There is also plenty of evidence that testosterone has effects on male aggression, caring instincts, bonding, etc. Pretending that gender hormonal differences don't exert massive effects on interests and social behaviours is not tenable, IMO. No doubt more men than currently do would would go into childcare if the wages suddenly became $200/hour, but that doesn't mean they'd be as good as it as women are on average, nor would it reflect a change in their natural desires/motivations.

Good day.

Post reply on HN