I suspect this isn't going to pass the "equal protection" test if (when) it's challenged in court.
I've written a lot of grants, government and private. Most funders have a requirement that the agency pursuing the money make positive efforts towards achieving a client, staff, administrative, and board population that mirrors the diversity of the community in which the agency primarily functions. They all stop short of saying "you need three women, two African-Americans, one Jew, and a Native American on your board".
There is a significant difference between affirmative action and mandatory hiring quotas.
I've written a lot of grants, government and private. Most funders have a requirement that the agency pursuing the money make positive efforts towards achieving a client, staff, administrative, and board population that mirrors the diversity of the community in which the agency primarily functions. They all stop short of saying "you need three women, two African-Americans, one Jew, and a Native American on your board".
There is a significant difference between affirmative action and mandatory hiring quotas.
--
Dr H
"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Dr H
"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
