题目
Progressives often support diversity missions 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 equality" on boards and commissions，provide a case in point. Haddad and Lewis are concerned that more than half the state-government board are less than 40 percent female.In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities，they have proposed imposing government quotas（配额）.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 clearly 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 occupy 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.（1）The author believes that the bills sponsored by Lewis and Haddad will ____ .A．help little to reduce gender bias.B．pose a threat to the state government.C．raise women's position in politics.D．greatly broaden career options.（2） ____ has a part to play in enabling the "brute force" approach to gradually bear fruit？A．the harm from absolute board decision.B．the importance of constitutional guarantees.C．the pressure on women in global corporations.D．the needlessness of government interventions.（3）Norway's adoption of a nationwide corporate gender quota has led to ____ .A．the underestimation of elite women's role.B．the objection to female participation on boards.C．the entry of unqualified candidates into the board.D．the growing tension between labor and management.（4）Which of the following can be inferred from the text？ ____ A．Women's need in employment should be considered.B．Feasibility should be a prime concern in policy making.C．Everyone should try hard to promote social justice.D．Major social issues should be the focus of the government.
Progressives often support diversity missions 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 equality" on boards and commissions，provide a case in point.
Haddad and Lewis are concerned that more than half the state-government board are less than 40 percent female.In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities，they have proposed imposing government quotas（配额）.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 clearly 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 occupy 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.
（1）The author believes that the bills sponsored by Lewis and Haddad will ____ .
A．help little to reduce gender bias.
B．pose a threat to the state government.
C．raise women's position in politics.
D．greatly broaden career options.
（2） ____ has a part to play in enabling the "brute force" approach to gradually bear fruit？
A．the harm from absolute board decision.
B．the importance of constitutional guarantees.
C．the pressure on women in global corporations.
D．the needlessness of government interventions.
（3）Norway's adoption of a nationwide corporate gender quota has led to ____ .
A．the underestimation of elite women's role.
B．the objection to female participation on boards.
C．the entry of unqualified candidates into the board.
D．the growing tension between labor and management.
（4）Which of the following can be inferred from the text？ ____
A．Women's need in employment should be considered.
B．Feasibility should be a prime concern in policy making.
C．Everyone should try hard to promote social justice.
D．Major social issues should be the focus of the government.
A pair of bills sponsored by Massachusetts state Senator Jason Lewis and House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad，to ensure "gender equality" on boards and commissions，provide a case in point.
Haddad and Lewis are concerned that more than half the state-government board are less than 40 percent female.In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities，they have proposed imposing government quotas（配额）.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 clearly 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 occupy 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.
（1）The author believes that the bills sponsored by Lewis and Haddad will ____ .
A．help little to reduce gender bias.
B．pose a threat to the state government.
C．raise women's position in politics.
D．greatly broaden career options.
（2） ____ has a part to play in enabling the "brute force" approach to gradually bear fruit？
A．the harm from absolute board decision.
B．the importance of constitutional guarantees.
C．the pressure on women in global corporations.
D．the needlessness of government interventions.
（3）Norway's adoption of a nationwide corporate gender quota has led to ____ .
A．the underestimation of elite women's role.
B．the objection to female participation on boards.
C．the entry of unqualified candidates into the board.
D．the growing tension between labor and management.
（4）Which of the following can be inferred from the text？ ____
A．Women's need in employment should be considered.
B．Feasibility should be a prime concern in policy making.
C．Everyone should try hard to promote social justice.
D．Major social issues should be the focus of the government.
题目解答
答案
（1）细节理解题。根据第三段In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities，they have proposed imposing government quotas（配额）.（为了确保精英女性有更多这样的机会，她们提议实行政府配额制。）以及文章最后一段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.（下次有人把企业配额作为促进两性平等的一种方式来推行时，请记住，这样的政策基本上是自私自利的措施，让赞助者感觉良好，但对普通女性几乎没有帮助。）可知，他们提出的法案对减少性别偏见帮助不大。故选A。
（2）细节理解题。根据第七段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.（在没有政府干预的情况下，公司董事会中的女性人数一直在稳步增长。根据Catalyst的一项研究，2010年至2015年间，全球企业董事会中女性的比例增加了54%）可知，没有政府的干预，反而取得了成果。故选D。
（3）细节理解题。根据第八段最后一句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.（要求公司将性别作为董事会成员资格的首要条件，将不可避免地导致私营部门董事会经验不足。这正是挪威采用全国性企业性别配额时所发生的情况。）以及后文increasing the number of opportunities for board membership without increasing the pool of qualified women to serve on such boards（增加董事会成员的机会而不增加合格女性在此类董事会任职的人数。）可知，挪威通过了全国性的企业性别配额，导致不合格的候选人进入董事会。故选C。
（4）推理判断题。根据最后一段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.（下次有人把企业配额作为促进性别平等的一种方式来推行时，请记住，这类政策在很大程度上是自私的措施，它们让赞助者感觉良好，但对普通女性几乎没有帮助）可推知，可行性应该是制定政策时首要考虑的问题。故选B。
（2）细节理解题。根据第七段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.（在没有政府干预的情况下，公司董事会中的女性人数一直在稳步增长。根据Catalyst的一项研究，2010年至2015年间，全球企业董事会中女性的比例增加了54%）可知，没有政府的干预，反而取得了成果。故选D。
（3）细节理解题。根据第八段最后一句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.（要求公司将性别作为董事会成员资格的首要条件，将不可避免地导致私营部门董事会经验不足。这正是挪威采用全国性企业性别配额时所发生的情况。）以及后文increasing the number of opportunities for board membership without increasing the pool of qualified women to serve on such boards（增加董事会成员的机会而不增加合格女性在此类董事会任职的人数。）可知，挪威通过了全国性的企业性别配额，导致不合格的候选人进入董事会。故选C。
（4）推理判断题。根据最后一段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.（下次有人把企业配额作为促进性别平等的一种方式来推行时，请记住，这类政策在很大程度上是自私的措施，它们让赞助者感觉良好，但对普通女性几乎没有帮助）可推知，可行性应该是制定政策时首要考虑的问题。故选B。