There are a number of mechanisms by which differential results can be arrived to by mechanisms that can reasonably be described as non-discriminatory. The easier to describe one is a winner take all election system (like most U.S. elections.) If an identity group minority has a strong and cohesive set of preferences that are in opposition to the majority, then the results of fair elections can look discriminatory and non representative. If 65% of group A that represent 80% of the population prefer option X and 90% of group B that represents 20% of the population prefer option Y, then a huge portion of group B is going to be disappointed that they don’t win free and fair elections. What’s more, if candidates are randomly selected from the pool of people that support X or Y, the victors will come from group A close to 96% of the time, despite group A only representing 80% of the population.
All that’s to say that if shareholders (who theoretically appoint and are represented by the board) as a group have legitimate and real preference differences from the average person from the these other minority groups, you can get easily get boards that are unrepresentative of the minority groups.
Now, as to why those shareholders might have preferences that differ from those minority groups so much, you can start making class based or structural inequality/racism arguments. But I’ve written enough :)
> All that’s to say that if shareholders (who theoretically appoint and are represented by the board) as a group have legitimate and real preference differences from the average person from the these other minority groups, you can get easily get boards that are unrepresentative of the minority groups.
Sure. But the point of the CA law was to say, "nuh-uh, you can't do that. Society has its own interest in board composition, and that trumps (on the grand scale) the shareholder preference." I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that, but I think it's not a ridiculous or even obviously unconstitutional law.
All that’s to say that if shareholders (who theoretically appoint and are represented by the board) as a group have legitimate and real preference differences from the average person from the these other minority groups, you can get easily get boards that are unrepresentative of the minority groups.
Now, as to why those shareholders might have preferences that differ from those minority groups so much, you can start making class based or structural inequality/racism arguments. But I’ve written enough :)