91–100 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
yeah it's almost like the single axis of race isn't quite enough to make full sense of these problems. maybe we could mix in some other forms of identity and access people might have. could call it "union theory" or something idk.
While I think this is probably the right decision (I’m no constitutional scholar or lawyer though, to be fair), it does bring up the question of why boards and C-suites are still pretty homogeneous, when most research supports the idea that diverse boards and executive teams perform better in the market. And that’s not even considering the fact that I believe our society (including our companies) has a moral imperati…
1) The lowest level are the rank-and-file employees. These are individual contributors and middle management. These are the youngest employees given their lack of experience. Because they're the youngest, they've grown up with the most opportunities for traditionally unrepresented groups and thus are the most diverse group.
2) The second level is upper management. These people are older than the low-level employees and are slightly less diverse.
3) The last level, the board level, is largely made up of corporate retirees and are thus the oldest group. Given the lack of opportunity this generation experienced if you weren't part of a specific demographic, it's no surprise the board level is not diverse. The duties of a board member require experience in running a corporation and corporate governance. There just isn't a diverse set of people to draw from due to the average age of qualified people looking to be board members.
I'm extremely relieved common sense has prevailed here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You want to attribute different outcomes to differences in behavior by race? In this case, you're saying that Jewish students are 11x more hard-working than Hispanic ones, and Asian students are 6x more hard-working than Black ones? Which other racial disparities do you attribute to differences in behavior?
You're the one who responded with the start of a refutation ("Do they?"). It's reasonable to expect you to actually make the argument.
It's reasonable to expect a refutation to contain at least some data, instead of dismissing what data we do have as not complete enough, and reverting back to the original fact-free assertion.
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.
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.
This is what the California constitutional says (excerpt), > A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked. The is what the bill says (excerpt): > a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 1…
I ask in a meaningful way, not to spark an argument. It's just that this is so confusing.
Like I did not grow up with the hassle or hate (with exception of a few racist remarks made to me growing up after being asked my background) that my brown family members and friends encountered and still encounter today, but I could still benefit from legislation like this? It just seems off.
Also, couldn't people just game this and say they're xyz or how is this proven? If it weren't by self identification, birth certificates seem like they'd be an issue. For example, because my father was black but light skinned my grandmother got away with putting caucasian down on his birth certificate thinking it'd benefit him somehow in life, but if you saw him you'd say he's black. So what is he and his offspring considered officially when his whole life he has identified as black and my siblings and I as mixed?
Idk this just sounds weird to me
Edit: Sorry to OP. Not directly speaking to your pointing out of this being unconstitutional in California. Just that it's the first post I saw summarizing the legislation and was commenting on that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
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 worse: raised in a family who do not love you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Why would anybody pro abortion?
In most cases it takes a man and a woman to conceive a fetus. But if the fetus is finally born into a baby, the consequence of that is rarely divided evenly between the man and the woman. In extreme but not really uncommon cases, the division can be 100%-0%: that the man bears no consequences at all and the woman bears all the consequences. Abortion makes the consequence close to 0, so that it's more even between 100% and 0%.