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

111–120 of 231 posts

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

#111

Post by Ourgon »

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…

> and I'm saying this as an LGBT person

I' m left-handed but I would never think of identifying myself as being part of some diffuse group of people 'united' by handedness. In the same vein I do not see why gays, lesbians and bisexuals are to be seen as part of a single group given that as far as I gather there is often not that much love [no pun intended] between the former two - it is not as if gays and lesbians have much in common.

Do you truly identify as 'an LGBT person' - implying that those who claim to be spokespeople for 'this group' also speak for you - or do you just see yourself as a gay, lesbian or bisexual man or woman? Or, to put it even more bluntly, would you not rather see yourself as a person who happens to be gay or lesbian or bisexual, just like I see myself as a person who happens to be left-handed? I may sometimes grumble about some object which could have easily be made to fit left- and right-handed people alike [1] but I would never join a left-handed political action committee, nor would I trust anyone to 'speak for me' in such a context because I don't want to be used as a pawn in some ideological/political struggle.

[1] If you ever start a cheese packing facility make sure to put a peel corner on the left and right hand side of the package, the latter is far more useable for left-handed people...

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

#112

Post by roenxi »

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…

> There's a legitimate business justification to diversity policies.

Based on personal observations, innate aptitude and interest doesn't seem to be aligned. Eg, one of the more amazing minds I've ever met was contained in a woman who just didn't have the competitive glint in her eye to make herself successful. Sad story in many ways.

But - if that observation is true - then diversity policy quotas will break the correlation. At the moment, about half the aptitude is in women, some percent in various minority groups in rough proportion to their prevalence, etc. Companies better at surfacing talent will naturally be more diverse. Companies that forcibly make themselves more diverse through a quota will ironically probably regress to the mean level of competence and perform worse.

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

#113

Post by giraffe_lady »

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.

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 men not want to go into some of these fields could it be the decades of ensuring they have low prestige, low wages, or both? No, it must be evolution.

These may pass for liberal positions in the US but they are moderate-to-hard right compared to things like "medical care is between an individual and their doctors" and "there are still barriers to equality in society and the workplace, and it takes generations for all the effects of social change to be realized so of course we'll be seeing the effects of past exclusions for decades."

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

#114

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

_3u10 wrote: post #70
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well yeah, mostly.

The worst-case scenario is a bunch of people with different ethnicity, religious affiliation/experience, gender identity, age, etc. etc. ... who all like the same entertainment, food, clothing and vacation options. "Diversity" ... yes. But actual diversity, no.

However, I'm not sure that this actually a real-world problem.

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

#115

Post by temp8964 »

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 most people are anti-abortion. People usually celebrate a birth, not celebrate an abortion. "I heard you abort the baby. Congratulations!" still seems weird. No? It's kind of strange to me. But what do I know?

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

#116

Post by Cederfjard »

heavyset_go wrote: post #64
djbebs wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How would you see it allocated instead?

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

#117

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

secretfriend789 wrote: post #101
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…

> 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.

Sure. But the point of the CA law was to say, "nuh-uh, you can't do that. Society has its own interest in board composition, and that trumps (on the grand scale) the shareholder preference." I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that, but I think it's not a ridiculous or even obviously unconstitutional law.

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

#118

Post by temp8964 »

inetknght wrote: post #99
temp8964 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anybody pro abortion?

> Why would anybody pro abortion? There are many reasons. In the case that carrying a fetus to term would kill the mother: abort. One life does not merit the safety of another. In the case that a fetus was conceived in rape: abort. Would you remind yourself, and even be beholden to, evil? In the case that a fetus would be born unwanted: abort. It is better to be born into a loving family than raised in orphanages or…

Why do you need those reasons? It doesn't like pro-abortion, it's anti-abortion by limiting its use cases. If you are pro-abortion, you would happily suggest any pregnant women to abort their babies.

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

#119

Post by giraffe_lady »

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.

Personally I also do use the term pro-abortion because it is clear about the actual issue and what the disagreement is. Pretty much every single person anywhere is in favor of both life and choice, it's a uselessly euphemistic set of terms that obscures the real conflict.

I'm not necessarily in favor of any specific case of abortion, or wanting more of them in the world, or anything like that. "Pro abortion access" would probably be more technically correct but that opens the argument up to getting derailed by "well how much access" and shit. Plus the mild transgressiveness of the term is helpful sometimes, if it makes people stop for a second and ask like this.

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

#120

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

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…

Those arguments don't really work for gender discrimination or discrimination against African-Americans. It's not as if women or black people only just got here.
Post reply on HN