Skip to comments.Seeking Guidance on Dodd-Frank’s Diversity Clause
Posted on 11/12/2010 8:21:36 AM PST by reaganaut1
As Wall Street scrambles to comply with the regulations of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul, one little-noticed provision has executives scratching their heads.
The statute, included in Section 342 of the bill, creates 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion at the various regulatory agencies, including the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the 12 Federal Reserve banks and the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Once established, the offices are charged with monitoring the diversity at the agencies as well as at any contractors or subcontractors, including law firms, accounting firms and investment banks. These contracts, totaling in the billions a year, are typically awarded to private firms for services like debt issuances and sales of government assets, as well as more general advisory services.
Section 342 was proposed by Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, who argued that putting diversity regulators in the agencies would help to correct racial and gender imbalances at Wall Street firms, as well as in the subcontracting process.
Qualified minority- and women-owned businesses continue to be excluded from contracting opportunities made available by the governments historic intervention at banks and other financial institutions, Ms. Waters said in a floor speech in 2009.
According to the bills text, if an agencys compliance director concludes that a contractor has not made a good faith effort to include minorities and women in its work force, the agency head is authorized to cancel the contract, refer the matter to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs or take other unspecified remedial actions.
The clause also requires the agencies to recruit at historically black universities and womens colleges, sponsor job fairs in urban communities and submit detailed yearly reports summarizing their diversity efforts to Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at dealbook.nytimes.com ...
They want “affirmative action” in this bill just like they did for mortgages
Because look how good that worked out.
This is what happens when they do not read the bill they vote FOR
Hey! That’s just what we need to straighten out this financial mess! 20 new bureaucracies with 20 new sets of high-paid bureaucrats imposing useless regulations and delays on private businesses!
And when the Republicans take over, none of them can be fired! I’m sure that’s part of the deal.
“Firms clearly need to review their diversity profiles and minority outreach programs to make sure everything’s within a range of acceptability.”Oh, do they? How can this sort of Soviet crap be constitutional?
We cannot compete on the world market when we have to hire certain numbers of certain types of people, whether or not they are qualified.
And now, thanks to Mr. Frank, Mr. Dodd, and others, we have damn near destroyed our entire economy by forcing banks to make loans for houses that the borrowers can't afford — for diversity's sake.
We HAVE to take our country back.
How come nobody is fighting for the diversity of trash collectors?
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that Diversity Claus is NOT going to be bringing nice gifts to all good little boys and girls...
And, speaking of diversity:
Why are short people underrepresented on basketball teams?
Why aren't there more skinny guys on football teams?
Why are there no flat-chested Dallas cheerleaders?
What happens if the Republican House decides not to fund these offices???
I think we need an office for diversity in the NBA.
Never mind. White people are destine to self destruct.
Response: The Nazi's and Soviet Communists had people implanted to monitor compliance with their doctrines.