California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.

[Seraphina]

I know, right? I mean, what woman would want to worry her pretty little head with running a company, for Pete's sake. Leave that to the men! Their wives can stay home with the children, which is exactly what they secretly want anyway.

-Teresa

I understand rob's point, though.   Let me give an example:

I worked for a social service agency agency which has achieved a high degree of diversity in clients, staff, and administration.  50% of the clients served are people of color, even though the the County population at large is 89% Caucasian.  40% of the staff and admin are minorities; half of both speak Spanish.  Clients are pretty nearly 50/50 male female, and staff and admin are about 80% female to 20% male (hey, it is social services...).  

The rather substantial Board of Directors (36 members) is 50/50 male/female.  Board officers, likewise.

Unfortunately, the Board is also 85% white.

This has become an issue for them among certain funders who have recently jumped onto the DEI bandwagon with both feet.  With a 50% minority client population, said funders are starting to insist that the Board membership doesn't reflect the diversity of the general community in which the agency resides.

But it does -- the general community is 89% white.

This is not a issue the Board has neglected:  they have a standing membership committee dedicated to finding and inviting a diverse population of prospective new Board members.  The problem is that the applicant pool is extremely limited.  There have been  many Board members of color over the years.  But every one of them has been in high demand in the community, and also serving on several other boards at the same time.  After a few years, they burn out and cut back their board participation.  Some board members have been there for 20 years; Board members of color usually serve 2-3 years and then move on.

The issue is, if you don't keep your funders happy, they may stop funding you.  If they stop funding you, then nobody of any color gets to serve on the Board, which will cease to exist with the unfunded agency.

Yet funders are demanding that the Board reflect a non-existent community diversity.

Catch 22, anyone?

Now, to me, there are clearly important diversity issues which need to be addressed here.  But they are community issues, not Board issues.  Why is the community's non-white population so low?   Why does that diminutive population seem to require such a large proportion of available social services?  Could it just be that the community needs to do some serious work regarding providing housing, employment, and other opportunities for people of color?

Mandating specific Board diversity quotas does nothing to address these issues.  Mandating unachievable quotas (e.g., "you need to have a native Hawaiian on your Board, even though the Census shows that none live in your county), potentially does more harm than good.  If the agency loses funding and closes its doors, their clients -- including their clients of color -- lose the opportunity to access their services.

Laws used like bludgeons rarely accomplish what their authors imagine; a sledgehammer really isn't the best tool for repairing a leaky pipe.

I don't see how this relates to the new California law for placing women on corporate boards.
A law which, by the way, doesn't require boards to be populated 50% by women.
It's not a zero sum game.
Women have been purposefully kept out of a number of arenas in the US for generations. Often with the complicity of many women themselves, sadly.
My point stands. It's too bad that a law has to be passed and society won't change on its own volition but if that's what it takes to break through inequality, so be it.

-Teresa