Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 208 posts

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#151

Post by throwaway334234 »

andrecarini wrote: post #94

I think this kind of imposition is frustrating not because of the end result (we'd all appreciate more diversity, no doubt) but because of the method: is painting over the symptoms a meaningful solution? Maybe we should discuss instead what's leading to such lack of diversity (misaligned incentives? lack of opportunities?)

> we'd all appreciate more diversity, no doubt

Why would one appreciate more diversity instead of appreciating more homogeneity? I for one prefer to live among my own kind.

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#152

Post by belltaco »

_hilro wrote: post #130
kenjackson wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to think that hiring decisions aren't already largely made on the basis of race and gender.

Great, where's the California bill that outlaws all Black boards or all Hispanic boards?

Where are the laws that ban monkeys driving cars.

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#153

Post by ramesh31 »

ctdonath wrote: post #105
ramesh31 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is. And that's what we've done as a society for hundreds of years in the US. That we are now attempting to fix that will obviously be seen as an attack, because losing privilege is never easy.

“Privilege” is getting a job over a better candidate just because of inclusion in an artificial social construct.

>“Privilege” is getting a job over a better candidate just because of inclusion in an artificial social construct.

Yes, exactly. Which is what has happened to women and minorities in this country forever.

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#154

Post by Zandikar »

Just want to point out this isn't a new bill just passed, but multiple bills/initiatives, the first of which that started a few years ago and have been (and continue to) going into effect. Additionally, the number of boards that were subject to needing to make a change to comply were quite numerous it seems.

> While Black representation on boards has grown amid the nation’s reckoning on race, people who are not white or straight still hold only 18.4% of the board seats in the top 1,000 public companies nationwide, according to data released in August by executive data firm Equilar.

> There were at least 115 California public companies that did not have a single woman on their board in 2017. Now there are only five...

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#155

Post by kenjackson »

nerbert wrote: post #145
kenjackson wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, that's not what Federal anti-discrimination law says. I wasn't referring to Fed Discrimination Laws. I was referring to the California law. Sorry if that wasn't clear. > The people who are attracted to government jobs where they get to tell other people what to do aren't benevolent helpers; they're people who like power. All history shows that such people are precisely the people you don't want telling other pe…

Honestly there is not right angle to race. Saying "black people cant be at the board of companies" is just as wrong as saying "some black people have to belong to it". That being said, when only white people are at the board of companies without that being a calculated strategy, there is also a problem. If only white people come out on top where - allegedly - the smartest people belong, wouldn’t it be the place of th…

The problem is that the only real solution is a lot more extreme. I think once women are pregnant they go into managed care and babies are immediately taken at birth into academies (with no knowledge of parents) until adulthood. But that will never happen. Unfortunately short of that we’re likely to never have real equality.

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#156

Post by ikerdanzel »

kenjackson wrote: post #97
Sebb767 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be one diverse person at a lot of those boards and they will get the stigma of being the person that was put there because the actual good candidates had the wrong skin color. No matter how qualified they might actually be, they can't escape the looks. Plus, by making this a factor, you're just kindling actual racism by pitting white males against everyone else. The resentment created by rejecting someo…

Do white males feel like they are all unfairly on the board because they passed over all the black candidates? No. They think they're there on merit, because well --- of course, they're white.

Sure get a black in. Then a brown in. Then a LGBTQ in. Then a woman in. Majority consumers don't give a damn how diversify those companies are. Only the most competitives survive. USA had to ban Huawei to stop the competition. Other companies not going to give a shit for this diversity nonsense. If you passed those white males who are truly more capable, guess what? China will reward them handsomely when they go over bringing tons of companies secret. Save a black killed thousands jobs. Save a penny pound foolish.

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#157

Post by kenjackson »

sanity31415 wrote: post #148
kenjackson wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that's your counter? Nothing against the actual merit of the statement? White people don't naturally assume they have their positions on merit? How many whites actually think, "Maybe I shouldn't have this position because of the advantage I've been given being white"? Seriously. How often do white males seriously ponder this?

The merit of your statement disparaging people based on their race? Such statements are without merit.

Who have I disparaged based on race?

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#158

Post by maxerickson »

kjksf wrote: post #13

Road the hell is paved with good intentions. As much as I support equality and diversity, I'm even more strongly opposed government over-reach. The state shouldn't have a say in who gets a job at a private (non owned by state) company. As the article state, I hope this will get over-turned by the courts. This would set a bad precedent. If the state can dictate the kind of person gets a highly coveted job, what else c…

The requirement for corporations to have a board of directors at all is imposed by the state.

You have to argue that the state shouldn't be able to impose requirements on the situations where it relaxes individual liability, not complain about about the natural rights of corporations (they don't have any).

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#159

Post by medvezhenok »

Zandikar wrote: post #154

Just want to point out this isn't a new bill just passed, but multiple bills/initiatives, the first of which that started a few years ago and have been (and continue to) going into effect. Additionally, the number of boards that were subject to needing to make a change to comply were quite numerous it seems. > While Black representation on boards has grown amid the nation’s reckoning on race, people who are not white…

This is a most interesting chart - the race ratios by generation. Boomers are predominantly white, whereas each successive generation is more diverse:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/30/most-common...

So I wonder if that has some thing to do with it - once the later generations age into the "leadership" ages, boards should naturally become more diverse over time.

Re: California outlawed all-white-male boardrooms – reshaping corporate America

#160

Post by haswell »

kenjackson wrote: post #157
sanity31415 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The merit of your statement disparaging people based on their race? Such statements are without merit.

Who have I disparaged based on race?

> No. They think they're there on merit, because well --- of course, they're white.

You leave no room for the possibility that people in such positions are self aware, or even capable of understanding the broader context. I suspect this is what folks are reacting to.

Post reply on HN