back
6 comments
ungated: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/female-fund-manager-opposes-g...

'(Bloomberg) -- For fund manager Katie Potts, setting mandatory quotas for women on corporate boards of technology startups is a bad idea. Not because she’s against diversity, but because she says there just aren’t enough suitable candidates.

“There are simply not enough experienced women in the sector and of suitable caliber to fill a third of board posts” in the smaller tech company space, the founder of U.K.-based Herald Investment Trust Plc said in the company’s annual financial report Tuesday. Many startups also struggle to compete for talent against bigger companies like Alphabet Inc., Apple Inc. and Facebook Inc, she said.

Small software and tech companies make up a bulk of Herald’s holdings, and her funds will be “pragmatic” when voting on mandatory quotas and “overly burdensome” regulations, Potts said, citing “instances of unsuitable candidates being appointed and doing real damage.”'

...

Thanks for the link.

It's absurd when any party imposes political-correctness social engineering policies on companies about who can participate on their boards. It may sound and feel "good" or "progress" to implementors, but it merely continues racial and gender discrimination in different forms, doesn't heal society, and is ultimately intellectually dishonest. It's curious how often racism "doesn't exist" when it primarily harms white or Asian (unless it's about Asianness) people and sexism "doesn't exist" regarding straight cis men, and anyone in these groups who mentions it is a different form of unfairness are "racist," "bitching," "entitled," or "not checking their privilege." Can't we get to the point where we're friends and calling each other ethnic slurs jokingly-ironically (this was a case internally at a UK startup in Victoria, and the vibe with all sorts of people in our motley crew was family. It was unintentional, unplanned diversity because we hired the best.)?

When you’re starting you need people with experience who you trust, be they male or female. At early stages you don’t have the luxury of venturing with unknowns. If it’s a big behemoth, who cares, inertia is at play already.
In general, I always want the most competent people around whether LGBTQ+, disabled, etc. or not. The world isn't a perfect meritocracy, but choosing people because they have blue or brown eyes, long or short hair, more or less melanin, or closely resemble the hiring manager over more capable candidates doesn't make sense. Healing biases doesn't mean flipping the coin over and continuing opposite ones; neither retribution nor additional discrimination heals. Someone has to draw-up the grace and determination to set down past baggage and show leadership by making themselves immensely capable.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of 'interposition' and 'nullification' -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers." - MLK Jr., "I Have a Dream" speech

Agreed. MLK, in retrospect, was more idealist. Today there are some groups which would think his take is too mild. I think he had it right. It’s the blind take. The just take. I’m not sure everyone is looking for justness these days.