Hacker News Reader

Comment by RobertKerans | Hacker News Reader

Am I missing something here? Why does this have anything to do with discrimination? The cynic in me is getting the world's tiniest violin out for a corporate executive who hasn't been allowed to have a second corporate executive job, but I do understand how the policy might be unfair (though every contract I've ever signed has had something to the effect that I wouldn't be allowed to do that, but I'm in the UK and a peon so :shrug:). But why is she bringing sexual discrimination into it?

View on HN

> Am I missing something here? Why does this have anything to do with discrimination?

If the Salesforce CEO only ever permits his direct reports to sit on other company's boards, and if his direct reports are disproportionately men, then this effectively limits the representation of women on corporate boards.

I bet they also get more money. Come on.

I get that, but then surely that policy is not discriminatory, what would seem to be be discriminatory would be the hiring practices of Salesforce? It just doesn't seem a valid line of attack -- yes I'm definitely lacking context, but sans that context it reads as sour grapes.

If it is a given that current subordinates are largely men, isn't it fair to call out the policy as entrenching the existing inequality?

If you dismiss criticism of a policy on the basis that the discriminatory effect is only due to an upstream disparity, it's pretty easy to lather-rinse-repeat a few times until you can conclude that it's someone else's problem to solve, and no change is required on your part.

Yes, I see, that's fair enough.

I still don't think the policy itself is actually discriminatory: at this particular point in time that executive level has a disparity, and that's the issue, not the policy. But as that's harder to solve, should either apply the policy to all levels or not at all. I feel like it's a cheap sticky plaster, but I guess it would do. And yes, I shouldn't dismiss the criticism of it per se, though my being unsympathetic has less to do with the disparity aspect

> I still don't think the policy itself is actually discriminatory: at this particular point in time that executive level has a disparity, and that's the issue, not the policy.

Look, it isn't particularly controversial that policies that are discriminatory in effect are problematic, even if the policy is on its face non-discriminatory. This isn't even a particularly new idea:

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." — Anatole France

> my being unsympathetic has less to do with the disparity aspect

What is the source of your lack of sympathy, then?

I'll preface this by saying that her actions may do some unalloyed good here, I understand your point. I still think that the inferred makeup of the direct reports is more the issue that needs fixing, but if this causes some positive change in corporate structure then, great.

> What is the source of your lack of sympathy, then?

Mmm. So this is a powerful corporate executive being denied a seat in another corporate board. She is also a powerful corporate political lobbyist who, until very recently, worked on behalf of a party that often seems to actively fight for policies that entrench discrimination. She inhabits an elite level and this course of action has effectively no downside for her -- she is aware of the contract stipulations, she tests breaking the contract, is fired for doing so, and she can do so with absolute confidence that it will have net zero-to-positive impact on her own prospects. That, in this case, is quite likely a very good thing, because she is in a position where she can possibly force/successfully lobby for change, but re sympathy for her specifically? No

Reply on news.ycombinator.com