Nasdaq threatens 75% of companies to appoint women and LGBT or diverse directors | Hacker News Reader

Nasdaq threatens 75% of companies to appoint women and LGBT or diverse directors

rt.com

18 pointsakvadrako15 comments

I think the best solution is to just hire people that are best qualified to direct or lead a company. I don't believe investors would be thrilled if a company hired a CEO based on their sexual orientation or race instead of their ability to lead and grow a company.

While a completely logical conclusion, the current politically correct culture will still push their feel good agenda without actually addressing the issues.

It's easier to demand equality of outcome than it is to figure out why the outcomes aren't equal. Not only that, but to recognize that equality doesn't mean over representation because of Race / Sex / Gender etc.

Definitely motivation for keeping a company quiet if you can.

While I understand that sentiment, I think there's just a lot of difficulty in addressing the root causes since they've been hundreds of years in the making and it is not always obvious what ripple effects are.

Those pushing for more representation are hopefully also pushing for change in the root causes that lead to unequal access and opportunity.

It is also a cheap excuse not to do anything else. Transaction taxes for example or any other form of governmental intervention. It is a waste of political capital in my opinion.

It is also about the older generation forcing this stuff on younger ones just because they can.

No, that won't cut it. The people who are best at the job will be the people who have had the most access to resources, support, and social capital, which means selecting based on merit alone will entrench straight white male hegemony.

Equity, not equality.

The funny thing is the inequality that exists today is directly _because_ of choosing certain groups ( typically middle-to-upper class white males in the USA ) and historically and systematically disenfranchising others who didn't fit the expected image. ( See: perspectives on voting, women doing "men's jobs", criminal justice system issues etc.)

Nobody knows how to hire the best CEO, much like nobody knows how to hire good employees in general. The hiring process tends to be mostly based on surface appearances and past leadership positions.

Your idea of a "best solution" is like saying the best solution to hate is for everyone to just be nice to each other. Yes, that would be ideal, but at odds with the real world.

Best solution is to let companies choose themselves what they think is best for them.

"or explain why they hadn't in a letter". Seems like an easy standard to meet...

It is easy to find any reason, likewise for any anti-discrimination policy in hiring. They are even trained to evade any possible recourse claims and they have exact speech codes that inhibit any possible litigation with potential candidates.

I hate this behavior because I know that any HR will never be truthful about how they perceive you, which is actually a huge penalty for many that are not too confident.

What is unusual is HR discriminating by sex or race. It just seems unrealistic in todays world. Plus, I know HR did skip advertising some positions when laws were changed because my countries has lawyers specialized in sending warning letters to companies using the wrong terms de jure. Side effect was that some jobs were directly mediated through other employees.

In my country there is a cultural divide between the public and private sector and these rules are mostly written by people from the former and it really shows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com