Non diversity? California may offer some hope
Looks like a judge smacked California, reversing diversity mandates on corporate boards. For better or worse, this may be a harbinger of things to come to moderate how far the DEI pendulum swings.
Looks like a judge smacked California, reversing diversity mandates on corporate boards. For better or worse, this may be a harbinger of things to come to moderate how far the DEI pendulum swings.
WSO Virtual Bootcamps See all
Popular Content See all
Career Advancement Opportunities
June 2022 Investment Banking
Overall Employee Satisfaction
June 2022 Investment Banking
Professional Growth Opportunities
June 2022 Investment Banking
Total Avg Compensation
June 2022 Investment Banking
Career Resources
Related Events See all
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Comments (10)
Further, the Court found that "putting more women on boards demonstrated that the Legislature's actual purpose was gender-balancing, not remedying discrimination."
FINALLY
Before you accidentally kick the hornet's nest, if there were actual examples of those types of discrimination I think we'd all want that to be remedied and reconciled. Per the judge's decision: "There is no compelling governmental interest in remedying discrimination in the board selection process because neither the Legislature nor Defendant could identify any specific, purposeful, intentional and unlawful discrimination to be remedied."
There are examples of this. Specifically a guy who was fired and replaced by 2 women who performed worse than he did in the position when their output was combined.
Please do affirmative action next. If they want diversity, they can do it by income levels and not race
I am sure this is an unpopular opinion but I do think race should be a factor enrollment decisions and hiring decisions but only when there is a small difference in characteristics of the candidates. I do not support hiring unqualified candidates or accepting unqualified students. This would not help the school/company or the individual.
The government should stay out of this. Mandating diversity would not have any impact on board decisions anyway. I am very skeptical about board decisions in general.
Couple questions:
1. Why would you say gov should stay out of this?
2. How do you differentiate where gov should stay in vs. stay out of?
3. Isn't this the point of the courts? To come to a decsion as apolitically as possible? I'd argue this is not really a 'gov decision' to the extent that you say. Ultimately as with anything, the courts have a say
Government should stay out of everything. I would honestly be fine paying all of the dead weight salaries of existing government employees to have them all sit in a room somewehre and jerk each other off.
Deserunt molestias esse quibusdam voluptatem at qui. Ut et fugiat doloribus quia aut maxime quis.
Deleniti enim aperiam quod nostrum. Saepe dolores expedita ducimus reprehenderit. Ut aspernatur accusantium ad est voluptate quo cumque. Quia ipsum aut qui nam cupiditate doloremque quibusdam id.
Eligendi qui aut quia. Voluptatem cumque nihil debitis delectus. Facilis nisi architecto omnis ut. Qui illum itaque ducimus nihil repudiandae.
Dolorem aperiam fugit non voluptas. Sunt id qui dolor officia qui. Occaecati vitae ipsum earum quam alias quae. Ad tenetur dignissimos suscipit animi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Want to Unlock by signing in with your social account?