
Goldman to Refuse IPOs If All Directors Are White, Straight Men - daegloe
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-24/goldman-rule-adds-to-death-knell-of-the-all-white-male-board
======
nscalf
Has there been any studies to determine that a diverse board is actually
valuable? I'm genuinely asking, because I subscribe to the "get the best
people for the job" theory of doing things. I find it to be
racist/sexist/whatever discriminatory word applies to have a hard line in the
opposite. In my experience, forced diversity is a good way to shoe horn people
into roles they won't be successful in.

None of that is to say that there isn't discrimination, but there is not an
equal distribution of individuals in each field.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _any studies to determine that a diverse board is actually valuable?_

At least for gender, the evidence is mixed [1].

It’s a complicated question. For example, the evidence is compelling for
French companies [2].

[1] [https://hbr.org/2019/03/when-and-why-diversity-improves-
your...](https://hbr.org/2019/03/when-and-why-diversity-improves-your-boards-
performance)

[2]
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03784...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378426617302972)

~~~
DuskStar
There's also these [0] two [1] on Norway's 2003 requirement for 40% of boards
to be women and the 2018 California requirement, which both found that
_mandating_ gender diversity on boards had a negative impact on the companies.
(This has very little to do with whether a 'naturally' acquired diverse board
would be valuable, though)

0:
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1364470](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1364470)

1:
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3265783](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3265783)

------
corporate_shi11
And yet a board of all women, all black men, etc. would be celebrated. This is
pure racism and sexism.

Unfortunately we live in an age when "white people" and men are unjustly
blamed for many things, and the confluence of this blaming culture leads to
the demonization of white men. This demonization is encouraged by many in the
media, academia and HR departments. It masquerades as virtuous and
"progressive" when it is just the opposite. People are reluctant to call it
out for what it is because they are afraid of being slandered as racist or
sexist.

Policies like Goldman's, while well intended, are ultimately regressive,
racist and sexist. When we reduce individuals to their race and gender we fall
farther back into the dark ages when these things mattered far more than they
do now. Rather than running away from that time towards a world of equality
and universal justice, these policies drag us back and breed only resentment
and mutual distrust.

~~~
dextralt
>a world of equality and universal justice

>resentment and mutual distrust

which of these goals do you think an entity like Goldman Sachs is more likely
to pursue?

------
christiansakai
Not sure if I will get down-voted with this opinion, blamed for turning a
blind eye for a social issue.

But I grew up in Asia (I am Asian). My ethnicity is also a minority there. I
came to the US 10 years ago, and had some cultural shock regarding racial and
diversity issues.

First, my jokes were mostly offensive to people here. We grew up making jokes
about marital status and body image. We told people things like "you're so
fat, you need to lose weight", and "why are you still single?" and no one was
ever offended. Little did I know that things are different here.

But, the second one was quite surprising. I had a conversation to a female
friend. She was telling me that she wanted to go to a business school. I asked
why business school, and her another female friend immediately intervened and
answered angrily "oh why not? because she is female?" and I was like "what
just happened?" because I was confused. That was one instance, and there were
other instances where I was accused of "mansplaining". I had to google what
that keyword was because I thought I encountered a new English word that I
didn't know that I need to add to my vocabulary.

Also during my conversation with (mostly Asian) friends here , they sometimes
brought the topic of "Bamboo Ceiling" and I was honestly didn't know what was
that about until I googled it.

To be honest (and this is where I think I would be down-voted), I've never
experienced such a thing called "Bamboo Ceiling" or I have to be white to be
successful (well, the definition of successful varies between people) and I
just go on with my life as usual, thinking that such ceiling is just some
imaginary ceiling made by my (mostly Asian) friends.

But I do aware of the impact of diversity programs against Asians. We're dime
a dozen lol.

------
proximitysauce
A true commitment to diversity would see them putting poor people on the
board. A rich person of a different color, gender or sexual orientation is
still a rich person. I don’t see this making any kind of material impact on
company behavior.

------
simonsarris
This is an extension of the California law to require companies to have women
on boards that happened in 2018 which already potentially doubles some board
sizes, though I'm not sure how its played out so far.

Anything that forcibly makes boards larger is _probably_ bad for companies,
regardless of the goodness of intentions. If you do not believe requirements
like Goldman's will increase board sizes, then you must believe that all
companies are willing to fire some number of current board members to meet
quota, which seems unlikely.

Peter Thiel in Zero to One:

> A board of three is ideal. Your board should never exceed five people,
> unless your company is publicly held. (Government regulations effectively
> mandate that public companies have larger boards—the average is nine
> members.) By far the worst you can do is to make your board extra large.
> When unsavvy observers see a nonprofit organization with dozens of people on
> its board, they think: “Look how many great people are committed to this
> organization! It must be extremely well run.” Actually, a huge board will
> exercise no effective oversight at all; it merely provides cover for
> whatever microdictator actually runs the organization. If you want that kind
> of free rein from your board, blow it up to giant size. If you want an
> effective board, keep it small.

More board members may increase intransigence, decrease oversight (cover over
who is _really_ making the decisions and who is not), and turn corps more
bureaucratic. _Regardless_ of who is joining the board, this is going to
increase board sizes, and that's pretty unfortunate for some philosophies of
effective management.

It is not that [xyz] representation isn't a problem, but that an effective
company structure must be the foremost requirement, ahead of any other (more
arbitrary or ephemeral) requirements. Or else there won't be as many great
companies to steward in the first place.

------
swebs
Weird that this is just targeting Europe and North America when they have
offices in all major financial centers around the world.

All Asian board in Asia? Fine.

All African board in Africa? Fine.

All European board in Europe? No! That's unacceptable for some reason.

~~~
oarsinsync
There are a number of female Europeans, as well as non-white Europeans, who
may object to your definition that they are not Europeans.

~~~
swebs
Just prepend "straight, male, ethnic-" to the beginning of each statement.
Getting into a pedantic sidetrack isn't helpful. The point remains that there
is a crazy double standard going on.

------
busymom0
Let me preface my comment by mentioning something which shouldn't matter but
this news requires it - I am brown. This is one of the stupidest things I have
seen come out of the people who think force diversity is a good thing.

Why can't we simply treat people by their character and merit instead of
things like race, sex or sexual orientation when those things have nothing to
do with whether you can run a business or not? This rule is the definition of
racism and sexism. Also how exactly do they plan on figuring out whether
someone is straight or not?

As a brown immigrant, I have seen a lot more racism towards white people than
others.

“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.” ― Martin Luther King Jr. 1963

~~~
keanzu
> I am brown

"If you’re not prepared to come to that table and represent that voice, don’t
come, because we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown
voice."

"We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice"

-Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts 7th

You have been found guilty of wrongthink, please report to the Ministry of
Truth for reeducation.

~~~
dang
Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar.

The GP's comment was fine for HN because it was grounded in specific personal
experience. This comment is bad for HN because it's just inflammatory talking
points. Please don't do those here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
djohnston
That sounds like a lawsuit. Sex, race, AND sexual orientation? Goldman hit the
trifecta

~~~
oarsinsync
Except at least one of those is now enshrined in California law. From the
article:

> Public companies with all-male boards based in California now face a
> $100,000 fine under a new state law.

~~~
djohnston
A Google search indicates California is currently being sued for that law on
the ground that it violates equal protection, which seems obvious.

~~~
oarsinsync
It'll be interesting to see how that pans out. Intellectually, this isn't
really any different to affirmative action (enforcing opportunities for long
time discriminated against classes), which has ultimately been approved by the
supreme court.

~~~
djohnston
I think the core difference is that AA is supportive, whereas this measure is
punitive. Since we're all dealing w finite resources you could argue they're
the same but it doesn't seem as easy an argument.

~~~
corporate_shi11
Imagine if I owned a country club and it came out that I'm preferentially
choosing people of one race over another, say actively excluding black people.
How do you think that would be received?

That's literally what affirmative action is.

~~~
notacoward
> That's literally what affirmative action is.

No, it's not. Affirmative action does not prevent any company from hiring
_any_ white/male/etc. people. All it does is preclude them from hiring _only_
such people when there are qualified minority applicants. Equating a
preference (even a mandatory one) to a total exclusion is specious, as is
equating situations with and without specific ability-to-perform requirements.
It's a false analogy.

~~~
corporate_shi11
In my post I said "preferentially choosing people of one race over another".
Sure the hypothetical Country Club lets in some blacks, but it really sets a
much higher bar for them. It sets a lower bar for other races.

That is affirmative action. Don't believe it? Look at the data unearthed from
admissions data provided during the Harvard AA lawsuit. Asians must pass a
much higher bar than certain other groups.

The question is, if it's not ok for the Country Club, why is it ok for
Universities?

------
humanrebar
For the purposes of this discussion, do Asians and Jews count as "not
diverse"?

It's hard to keep track sometimes.

~~~
jjoonathan
I think to be maximally inclusive, Asians get a negative diversity score,
right?

/s. This is whack.

~~~
christiansakai
We are dime a dozen lol.

~~~
vidanay
Or a hundred per Yen depending on the exchange rate.

------
EdwardDiego
Goldman Sachs makes token motions towards diversity in an attempt to redeem
themselves several years after shitting the US economy.

Not sure being "woke" makes up for fucking the US economy, but hey, Twitter
seems to bear a disproportionate weight, so I'm not the best arbiter of value.

But this seems like blatant window dressing from a predatory firm.

------
claudeganon
I’m at the point now where I’m pretty sure neoliberal-types do this on purpose
to push people towards bigotry. No leftist with any coherency to their
politics would advocate Goldman Sachs do this (let alone even exist).

Anyway, always worth revisiting the Fields’ sisters book, “Racecraft” about
how racial identity is not inherent to people, but imposed as post hoc
justification for the socioeconomic order:

[https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/233136/racecraft-
by...](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/233136/racecraft-by-karen-e-
fields-and-barbara-j-fields/)

------
hurricanetc
Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you dress it up.

------
theredbox
This is sickening bullshit. I grew dirt poor in Eastern Europe. Some
disadvantaged african-american minorities would be considered rich here.

------
superkuh
It's sad to see these kinds of discriminatory practices. Especially when
they're backed up with the use of government force. We were supposed to be
moving away from judging people based on their skin and sexual preferences.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Especially when they 're backed up with the use of government force_

Goldman Sachs?

~~~
superkuh
Nah, the California law that would fine them unless they do this.

------
forgetfulusr
Wow, if they even wanted this to be taken seriously they could have just
included everyone in on it. Why just this specific class? Refuse anyone that
has <same race><same gender><same orientation> on the board. That would have
got me atleast thinking about diversity. This just sounds ridiculous.

------
notacoward
In case anyone's wondering, Goldman Sachs itself does seem to have pretty
decent representation on the board, executive team, and management committee
(which AIUI is the real power at that type of company). At least as regards
women. I see one black board member and one black MC member, same for Asians,
and no indication of gender/sexual preference. You can look for yourself here.

[https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/leadership/board-of-
di...](https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/leadership/board-of-
directors/index.html)

------
Stubb
Was discussing this with a pal yesterday: blockchain-based IPOs just got a
whole lot more interesting.

------
m0xte
Whatever happened to merit?

~~~
jessaustin
TFA is about corporate boards.

------
samdung
Ok. I'm lost here. What if it's a multi-colored board but all are straight?

~~~
oarsinsync
The article wording suggests that's fine:

> Wall Street's biggest underwriter of initial public offerings in the U.S.
> will no longer take a company public in the U.S. and Europe if it lacks a
> director who is either female or diverse.

If I've understood correctly, the requirement is:

NOT (ethnicity=caucasian AND gender=male AND orientation=hetrosexual)

EDIT: Ignore my above, it suggests that no white straight males are
acceptable, which is incorrect. See comment below
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22137842](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22137842))

~~~
ForHackernews
The requirement is

NOT (ALL(d.ethnicity=caucasian AND d.gender=male AND d.orientation=hetrosexual
for d in directors))

It's not like Goldman won't do business with any company with straight white
men on their board.

------
apta
Confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome I see, amateur
mistake.

~~~
fairenough42
Perhaps not a mistake at all. Maybe it's been the point all along but it took
a while to get there.

~~~
apta
What are they getting out of it other than making themselves look foolish?

------
Bantros
The world we live in

------
tuyguntn
this is bullshit, why CEO can't hire person who is best for the job by her/his
own definition of best? Definition of best is determined by person who is
hiring.

Can white-man now sue company for racism because board of directors didn't
hire him? Does this mean, now minorities are considered as an elite group of
people?

P.S. I tried to remember when I last time looked at sex of job applicant.
Couldn't remember any case, now I should be careful and reject white man (just
in case)

------
Custergus
What constitutes minority? Elizabeth Warren claimed it at around 7%. Obama
could play this game either way at 50/50, and if the public restroom standard
holds you can claim whatever gender you identify with at the moment. And must
a female director resign after a transgender procedure? The world is going
mad.

------
emilfihlman
What. The. Fuck.

This is literally insane as a "law" and erodes trust in law.

------
brighton36
How do they plan on verifying orientation?

~~~
thu2111
Social media and public pronouncements, probably.

This sort of misandrist heterophobia isn't entirely new. I encountered an
organisation with the same "no straight white men" policy and the way they did
it was by insisting you present evidence of your sexual orientation from
Facebook or similar. Really.

~~~
brighton36
That's completely insane.

------
wakeywakeywakey
What about Caucasian immigrants? Does my white privilege counterbalance my
immigrant struggle?

~~~
dextralt
Sorry, but no. You may be descendant of Eastern European serfs, you still
carry the blood guilt.

~~~
busymom0
I hope this is sarcastic.

~~~
keanzu
Has it gotten so bad that you genuinely can't tell? I'm confident that it was
a joke. Want some satire where it is difficult enough to tell that a number of
people have been taken in?

[https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath](https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath)

------
rzmnzm
Wow, sexist and racist.

------
turk73
So sick of this garbage. White people are not the bane of society, far from
it.

Clown world.

I grew up pretty damn poor. Anyone that looked at me as a kid would have said
I had no future at all. I picked myself up and worked hard, sacrificed good
times, and cut as many financial corners as I could for too many years. It's
been a fucking grind. Regardless of my skin color, it was no cake walk, I felt
very little "privilege" as the accusation goes. It was just work, endless
work. Especially bad was coming behind the Boomer generation that absolutely
hated my guts just for being young. You might say mentors were few and far
between and every time I reached out, I got my hand slapped. I was looked at
(and still am looked at) as a labor commodity and little else.

Also, it is truly hilarous to me that Goldman Sachs, the bank that the US
Govt. BAILED OUT during the financial crisis, a bank largely run mostly by
people of a certain ethnicity, has any moral standing whatsoever. These fools
should be out of business for what they did, not laying down this crap!

Also BlackRock--what a POS company that is! They came in to a well regarded
local firm and absolutely gutted it. Want to know why? PENSIONS. They had to
get rid of anyone with a pension, so they did all kinds of miserable fuckery
to pull that off.

------
HenryKissinger
So long, Goldman. It was nice knowing you.

~~~
oarsinsync
Unlikely, given Blackrock and State Street are apparently leading the way.
From the article:

> The mandate is the latest in a series of signals that non-diverse boards and
> management are unacceptable. BlackRock Inc. and State Street Global Advisors
> are voting against directors at companies without a female director.

BlackRock AUM: ~$6.9T, State Street AUM: ~$2.8T, Goldman Sachs AUM: ~$1.5T.

(Morgan Stanley AUM ~$2T, JPM ~$2.6T)

