While I think this is probably the right decision (I’m no constitutional scholar or lawyer though, to be fair), it does bring up the question of why boards and C-suites are still pretty homogeneous, when most research supports the idea that diverse boards and executive teams perform better in the market. And that’s not even considering the fact that I believe our society (including our companies) has a moral imperative to fix the pretty stark inequities many minority populations in the US have and are still facing.
Is it because groups of white men are more comfortable hiring other white men? Or is it because the pipeline for producing executive-level managers is only producing similar individuals because of those societal inequities? I’d guess a mixture of both.
There are generally three levels of people involved in a business:
1) The lowest level are the rank-and-file employees. These are individual contributors and middle management. These are the youngest employees given their lack of experience. Because they're the youngest, they've grown up with the most opportunities for traditionally unrepresented groups and thus are the most diverse group.
2) The second level is upper management. These people are older than the low-level employees and are slightly less diverse.
3) The last level, the board level, is largely made up of corporate retirees and are thus the oldest group. Given the lack of opportunity this generation experienced if you weren't part of a specific demographic, it's no surprise the board level is not diverse. The duties of a board member require experience in running a corporation and corporate governance. There just isn't a diverse set of people to draw from due to the average age of qualified people looking to be board members.
You don't need to look far for an explanation, it's right here in this discussion. Others do not see diversity of representation as an imperative. What you or I might consider massive iniquity in perpetuity isn't considered something that needs a remedy, or even something that should be acknowledged as meaningful.
IMO, one factor is that women are still the ones to bear children, and legislation, diversity guidelines, and complete elimination of prejudice aren't going to change that. Several women I know have said that after having children, their priorities changed instantly. Some tried to go back to work for a while, but in the end could not handle being separated from their baby. My sister is an example: she's a CPA, tried to go back to work, but ended up starting her own practice and working from home. She did this through both of her kids' childhoods, so a good 24 years.
I'm not saying there is no prejudice against women or other minorities. Only that it's not easy to look at statistics and conjure up always-correct reasons behind the statistics.
Is it because groups of white men are more comfortable hiring other white men? Or is it because the pipeline for producing executive-level managers is only producing similar individuals because of those societal inequities? I’d guess a mixture of both.