[xevb3k]

I find quotas in bad taste, and somewhat lazy.

There is clearly an issue, but if we attempt to fix it with positive discrimination, we just create more issues.

A better way to approach the problem might be increased scrutiny (for discrimination) on boards/companies with significant gender bias, and increased penalties.

This would be harder to implement of course, but might go further to actually solving the issue.

[rayiner]

There is a fundamental unanswered question in the area of gender discrimination, which is whether we can remedy past positive discrimination simply by removing overt discrimination going forward. That presupposes two things:

1) That you can actually get rid of gender bias among corporate boards that are almost entirely men;

2) That the system isn't path dependent (i.e. removing the positive discrimination will result in an outcome that is the same as would have been the outcome if the positive discrimination had never occurred).

Real-world systems are generally path-dependent. If a storm knocks down a fence, the fence doesn't go back to normal after the storm passes. If you bend a paperclip, it will stay bent after you let go.

Taking affirmative action off the table is tantamount to saying that society simply should not fix problems that result from the path-dependent effects of prior discrimination. Now that's debatable, but I don't think either side of that debate is "lazy."

FWIW, I think the California law is probably unconstitutional. (The Constitution doesn't always say what you want it to say!)

[xevb3k]

If a fence is knocked down you fix the fence.

Quotas suggest an approach that works more like “we know some fences are damaged in various ways, one way many of the fences are damaged is that they have water damage. So we’re going to replace 25% of the poles in all fences, with poles resistant to water damage.”

There’s an argument that if you show that there’s been gender discrimination, you should throw out the entire board and put a new one in place using a process more resistant to all forms of discrimination.

But applying a fix without strong evidence that discrimination has taken place does seem lazy, because you’re attempting to apply a blanket fix. It does nothing to address the underlying issues, and tries to apply a fix in cases where no issue exists.

[djrogers]

How can you implement penalties for gender bias without introducing a threshold for an acceptable division of representation? And once that threshold is established, how exactly does it differ from a quota?

[eli]

I guess the argument would be that you look at practices instead of outcomes, but that seems impossibly hard to implement

[xevb3k]

Let’s say you expect boards in general to be 50% male/female.

In case where this is not the case, and where it has not been the case for a number of years you might launch an investigation.

It might be that there are reasonable reasons in this instance. For example, the company was cofounded by two women or men, it’s a small company, and the composition of the board has never changed etc.

It might be that the company has a board with frequently changing members, but always selects male members. In that case, it’s easier to argue that discrimination has taken place. At which point you might launch an investigation and apply penalties etc.

[gizmo686]

The proposal is that a poor ratio results in stricter scrutiny, not a penelty. They would still need to investigate and find other evidence of illegal bias.