Posted on 10/20/2023 5:43:09 AM PDT by CFW
A panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 18 struck down lawsuits challenging a Nasdaq stock market rule requiring companies listed on the exchange to have "diverse" directors on their boards or explain why they don't.
In a lengthy opinion, the appeals court rejected lawsuits seeking to block the rule by the National Center for Public Policy Research and the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment, a group formed by conservative legal activist Edward Blum.
The rule at the center of the lawsuit was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in August 2021.
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
US Appeals Court Upholds Nasdaq Rule Requiring Companies to Have 'Diverse' Directors on Board
----
"Diversity" is going to be the death of our nation.
How is that constitutionally (is that still a concern?)
Every board must have at least one female moron of color.
“Every board must have at least one female moron of color.”
What about a white male pretending to be a female moron of color?
No longer the best and brightest are sought, but how colorful a group you have.....MLK is buried so no one seeks his wisdom from God but from man.
Unless Christians arise and right this ship now, we are going to be thrown into the slavery of evil just like the Israelites and woe is us for 40 years wondering around Satan’s desert.
it seems to me if that is the case then diversity shouldn’t solely be limited to race but to political and religious views. And then we need to go to every leftist run corporation and college and demand they hire the same percentage of conservatives or Christians as exist in the population at large.
I’m guessing the court’s reason is the Nasdaq is private and listing is voluntary.
This is BS. While ‘we’ are worried about protecting other nations we are being destroyed from within.
How does a rule that requires abrogation of one’s fiduciary duties under law pass constitutional muster?
But the rule requires abrogating the company’s fiduciary responsibility - under law - to stockholders. That’s my sticking point.
“…or explain why they don’t.”
That should be easy.
Even recruit them from prisons, especially death row. You could pay them in commissary script.
Apparently, the 5th Circuit court has a majority of ignorant, woke justices.
I am wondering, with the free market side of my brain, is it truly a “free market” when a single private entity - NASDAQ - controls certain “open market” financial trades, on an exchange, and can compel companies listed on that exchange to not only live up to certain financial standards but to change other, non-financial related behavior just to suit the whims of NASDAQ.
I am not certain of a solution, beyond somehow setting up another exchange and drawing companies away from listing their offerings on NASDAQ. Barring that option I think some sort of legal reform of our “open markets” might be in order, with a least a law that bars ALL financial trading markets from attempting to control or coerce companies to performing non-financial related behaviors just to suit an exchange.
You mean prospective board directors are no longer being considered for the content of their character, but rather for the color of their skin?
So given these stats, how many people are available for the position? The candidate pool is reduced to 35,172 people. There are other dimensions to look at. I assume a business will want college graduates, in particular a gender studies and African American studies dual major. I have to guesstimate this one a little bit. I do know that in 2022 that 36.2% of males have college degrees. We’re looking for a transgender female, so it makes sense that we want a male graduate as there are not statistics on transgenders. Now, here’s my guesstimate. I estimate that there are only 0.03% of college graduates with a dual major in gender and African American studies. Cranking the numbers we get: exactly 381.96 qualified candidates in America.
This is a robust figure. The business can proudly claim that for their top corporate position that the methods they used reduced the number of candidates in the most rigorous and diverse way possible.
But we might have a problem considering there are more companies listed on NASDAQ than there are qualified black, transgender, lesbians with the requisite education. But never fear, diversity will solve the problem. We can tweak the qualifications. We can broaden our employment search to include anyone who identifies as having the required college degrees.
In a way, this make the candidate search much easier than in the past when there were weaker diversity requirements and just about anyone with a degree and a decade or two of relevant experience would get a look.
[[ or explain why they don’t. ]]
Um because there were no viable candidates from various ethnicities and genders who were applying for the positions at the time of hiring.
Hiring unqualified people to fill positions just because the “law” states that you must should be struck down as it puts an undue stress on a company and forces that company to be less than it could be if it had been ‘allowed to hire people based o. Experience rather than skin color or anatomy.
The probl3m is that the left will argue that political positions aren’t “constitutionally protected” like skin color and gender are. We know that their argument is bogus, but the corrupt powers that be have bastardized the constitution until its unrecognizable
But if diversity is our strength, shouldn’t all forms of diversity, even diversity of thought and opinion be the goal?
I just want the left to live by the standards they set for others.
What next? “Not hiring people to jobs of leadership with iq’s less than 50 is discrimination”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.