38.Progressives often support diversity mandates as a path to equality and a way to level the playing field. But all too often such policies are an insincere form of virtue-signaling that benefits only the most privileged and does little to help average people. A pair of bills sponsored by Massachusetts state Senator Jason Lewis and House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad, to ensure “gender parity” on boards and commissions, provide a case in point. Haddad and Lewis are concerned that more than half the state-government boards are less than 40 percent female. In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities, they have proposed imposing government quotas. If the bills become law, state boards and commissions will be required to set aside 50 percent of board seats for women by 2022. The bills are similar to a measure recently adopted in California, which last year became the first state to require gender quotas for private companies. In signing the measure, California Governor Jerry Brown admitted that the law, which expressly classifies people on the basis of sex, is probably unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court frowns on sex-based classifications unless they are designed to address an “important” policy interest, Because the California law applies to all boards, even where there is no history of prior discrimination, courts are likely to rule that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of “equal protection”. But are such government mandates even necessary? Female participation on corporate boards may not currently mirror the percentage of women in the general population, but so what? The number of women on corporate boards has been steadily increasing without government interference. According to a study by Catalyst, between 2010 and 2015 the share of women on the boards of global corporations increased by 54 percent. Requiring companies to make gender the primary qualification for board membership will inevitably lead to less experienced private sector boards. That is exactly what happened when Norway adopted a nationwide corporate gender quota. Writing in The New Republic, Alice Lee notes that increasing the number of opportunities for board membership without increasing the pool of qualified women to serve on such boards has led to a “golden skirt” phenomenon, where the same elite women scoop up multiple seats on a variety of boards. Next time somebody pushes corporate quotas as a way to promote gender equity, remember that such policies are largely self-serving measures that make their sponsors feel good but do little to help average women.The author believes that the bills sponsored by Lewis and Haddad wills _____. A.B. A. help little to reduce gender bias C.D. B. pose a threat to the state government E.F. C. raise women’s position in politics G.H. D. greatly broaden career options
Progressives often support diversity mandates as a path to equality and a way to level the playing field. But all too often such policies are an insincere form of virtue-signaling that benefits only the most privileged and does little to help average people.
A pair of bills sponsored by Massachusetts state Senator Jason Lewis and House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad, to ensure “gender parity” on boards and commissions, provide a case in point.
Haddad and Lewis are concerned that more than half the state-government boards are less than 40 percent female. In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities, they have proposed imposing government quotas. If the bills become law, state boards and commissions will be required to set aside 50 percent of board seats for women by 2022.
The bills are similar to a measure recently adopted in California, which last year became the first state to require gender quotas for private companies. In signing the measure, California Governor Jerry Brown admitted that the law, which expressly classifies people on the basis of sex, is probably unconstitutional.
The US Supreme Court frowns on sex-based classifications unless they are designed to address an “important” policy interest, Because the California law applies to all boards, even where there is no history of prior discrimination, courts are likely to rule that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of “equal protection”.
But are such government mandates even necessary? Female participation on corporate boards may not currently mirror the percentage of women in the general population, but so what?
The number of women on corporate boards has been steadily increasing without government interference. According to a study by Catalyst, between 2010 and 2015 the share of women on the boards of global corporations increased by 54 percent.
Requiring companies to make gender the primary qualification for board membership will inevitably lead to less experienced private sector boards. That is exactly what happened when Norway adopted a nationwide corporate gender quota.
Writing in The New Republic, Alice Lee notes that increasing the number of opportunities for board membership without increasing the pool of qualified women to serve on such boards has led to a “golden skirt” phenomenon, where the same elite women scoop up multiple seats on a variety of boards.
Next time somebody pushes corporate quotas as a way to promote gender equity, remember that such policies are largely self-serving measures that make their sponsors feel good but do little to help average women.
The author believes that the bills sponsored by Lewis and Haddad wills _____.
- A.
- B. A. help little to reduce gender bias
- C.
- D. B. pose a threat to the state government
- E.
- F. C. raise women’s position in politics
- G.
- H. D. greatly broaden career options
题目解答
答案
正确答案: A
您的答案:
本题解析:
根据本文最后一段,作者认为“这些基本上都是自私自利的措施,让他们的赞助商感觉良好,但其实并没有什么帮助”,由此可见作者的态度是否定的,与A“对减少性别偏见没什么帮助”相符。故正确答案为A。
解析
文章讨论了进步主义者支持的多样性配额政策,特别是马萨诸塞州参议员Jason Lewis和众议院临时议长Patricia Haddad提出的旨在确保“性别平等”的法案。这些法案要求政府董事会和委员会在2022年之前将女性成员的比例提高到50%。
步骤 2:分析作者观点
作者认为这些法案是虚伪的,只对特权阶层有好处,对普通人帮助不大。作者引用了加州的例子,加州成为第一个要求私人公司性别配额的州,但加州州长Jerry Brown承认这项法律可能违宪。作者还提到,女性在公司董事会中的参与度一直在稳步增加,而无需政府干预。因此,作者认为这些法案对减少性别偏见帮助不大。
步骤 3:总结作者观点
作者认为这些法案对减少性别偏见帮助不大,因为它们是虚伪的,只对特权阶层有好处,对普通人帮助不大。作者认为这些法案是自私自利的措施,让他们的赞助商感觉良好,但其实并没有什么帮助。