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

41–50 of 208 posts

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

#41

Post by haswell »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #19
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…

This is about equity, not equality, and it's increasingly clear that a lot of people don't know the difference.

Will you expand on how you see this distinction and how the distinction matters here?

I understand the difference between equity and equality, but I don’t know what exactly you mean to imply here, and don’t want to draw any hasty conclusions about this comment.

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

#42

Post by rajamaka »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #14

The comments here as I write this are quite shocking. I would have imagined that HN's readership would be quite progressive. Maybe not. I do not think it is unreasonable for a corporate board to be required to include at least one woman or at least one non-white person. I also think it's quite shocking that all-white-male boards are so common that this is even necessary. It's an artifact of institutional racism and s…

Racially discriminatory policies are anything but progressive.

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

#43

Post by draw_down »

lloydgrossman wrote: post #31
LeoPanthera wrote: post #14

The comments here as I write this are quite shocking. I would have imagined that HN's readership would be quite progressive. Maybe not. I do not think it is unreasonable for a corporate board to be required to include at least one woman or at least one non-white person. I also think it's quite shocking that all-white-male boards are so common that this is even necessary. It's an artifact of institutional racism and s…

> The comments here as I write this are quite shocking. I would have imagined that HN's readership would be quite progressive. Maybe not. good chunk of morons around here are old chuds who get upset over the silliest thing and have no self awareness. it's a give and take. dang sure has too much work.

Grow up

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

#44

Post by BrianOnHN »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #14

The comments here as I write this are quite shocking. I would have imagined that HN's readership would be quite progressive. Maybe not. I do not think it is unreasonable for a corporate board to be required to include at least one woman or at least one non-white person. I also think it's quite shocking that all-white-male boards are so common that this is even necessary. It's an artifact of institutional racism and s…

I agree with you, about HN's audience, which is I guess what "bro culture" devolves into, and that the idea isn't crazy.

Board room implies scale. If you don't have diversity at scale, in so many senses of the word, your doomed to fail anyway.

So many knee jerk reactions are a sad reflection of this community, though.

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

#45

Post by tayo42 »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #14

The comments here as I write this are quite shocking. I would have imagined that HN's readership would be quite progressive. Maybe not. I do not think it is unreasonable for a corporate board to be required to include at least one woman or at least one non-white person. I also think it's quite shocking that all-white-male boards are so common that this is even necessary. It's an artifact of institutional racism and s…

There's a lot of vocal conservatives, libertarian, "centrists", contrarians here. These kinds of topics bring out the worst. I only clicked because I misread board rooms.

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

#46

Post by radisb »

kenjackson wrote: post #29
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…

Federal government already says you can't discriminate. They aren't saying, "you have to hire this person". They're saying you can't hire exclusively this type of person that currently dominates the top of society. Given that these boardrooms don't diversify themselves, what is the actual problem with it?

The problem is that someone must be fired because he is a white male

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

#47

Post by captainredbeard »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #19
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…

This is about equity, not equality, and it's increasingly clear that a lot of people don't know the difference.

The difference is clear and equity is unwanted by many people. It is anathema to those who desire freedom.

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

#48

Post by kenjackson »

kovek wrote: post #23
LeoPanthera wrote: post #14

The comments here as I write this are quite shocking. I would have imagined that HN's readership would be quite progressive. Maybe not. I do not think it is unreasonable for a corporate board to be required to include at least one woman or at least one non-white person. I also think it's quite shocking that all-white-male boards are so common that this is even necessary. It's an artifact of institutional racism and s…

If a board rejects a (very) competent person based on the person’s gender, race, sexuality, age, then… they lost a very competent person. That person will do great work outside of that board. Can we agree on this? Also, is that some sort of Nash equilibrium?

No, we can't agree on this. If most boards reject this person based on one of these things, they may never actually do this work or achieve anything near their potential.

We've seen already in the US that culture trumps almost everything else. I've had people tell me that they'd rather their daughter marry a poorer white guy than a richer black guy.

That said, all this really ends meaning is that the all-white board hires a couple of tokens they provide no power to and make their lives hell. It's standard process.

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

#50

Post by BrianOnHN »

kovek wrote: post #23
LeoPanthera wrote: post #14

The comments here as I write this are quite shocking. I would have imagined that HN's readership would be quite progressive. Maybe not. I do not think it is unreasonable for a corporate board to be required to include at least one woman or at least one non-white person. I also think it's quite shocking that all-white-male boards are so common that this is even necessary. It's an artifact of institutional racism and s…

If a board rejects a (very) competent person based on the person’s gender, race, sexuality, age, then… they lost a very competent person. That person will do great work outside of that board. Can we agree on this? Also, is that some sort of Nash equilibrium?

You're assuming board memberships are meritocratic. Don't assume.
Post reply on HN