Progressives often support diversity mandates as a path to equality and a way to level the playing field. But all too often such policies are an insincere form of virtue-signaling that benefits only the most privileged and does little to help average people.
A pair of bills sponsored by Massachusetts state Senator Jason Lewis and House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad, to ensure “gender parity” on boards and commissions, provide a case in point.
Haddad and Lewis are concerned that more than half the state-government boards are less than 40 percent female. In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities, they have proposed imposing government quotas. If the bills become law, state boards and commissions will be required to set aside 50 percent of board seats for women by 2022.
The bills are similar to a measure recently adopted in California, which last year became the first state to require gender quotas for private companies. In signing the measure, California Governor Jerry Brown admitted that the law, which expressly classifies people on the basis of sex, is probably unconstitutional.
The US Supreme Court frowns on sex-based classifications unless they are designed to address an “important” policy interest. Because the California law applies to all boards, even where there is no history of prior discrimination, courts are likely to rule that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of “equal protection”.
But are such government mandates even necessary? Female participation on corporate boards may not currently mirror the percentage of women in the general population, but so what?
The number of women on corporate boards has been steadily increasing without government interference. According to a study by Catalyst, between 2010 and 2015 the share of women on the boards of global corporations increased by 54 percent.
Requiring companies to make gender the primary qualification for board membership will inevitably lead to less experienced private sector boards. That is exactly what happened when Norway adopted a nationwide corporate gender quota.
Writing in The New Republic, Alice Lee notes that increasing the number of opportunities for board membership without increasing the pool of qualified women to serve on such boards has led to a “golden skirt” phenomenon, where the same elite women scoop up multiple seats on a variety of boards.
Next time somebody pushes corporate quotas as a way to promote gender equity, remember that such policies are largely self-serving measures that make their sponsors feel good but do little to help average women.
1. The author believes that the bills sponsored by Lewis and Haddad will ________.
2. Which of the following is true of the California measure?
3. The author mentions the study by Catalyst to illustrate ________.
4. Norway’s adoption of a nationwide corporate gender quota has led to ________.
5. Which of the following can be inferred from the text?
问题1选项
A.help little to reduce gender bias
B.pose a threat to the state government
C.raise women’s position in politics
D.greatly broaden career options
问题2选项
A.It has irritated private business owners.
B.It is welcomed by the Supreme Court.
C.It may go against the Constitution.
D.It will settle the prior controversies.
问题3选项
A.the harm from arbitrary board decision
B.the importance of constitutional guarantees
C.the pressure on women in global corporations
D.the needlessness of government interventions
问题4选项
A.the underestimation of elite women’s role
B.the objection to female participation on boards
C.the entry of unqualified candidates into the board
D.the growing tension between labor and management
问题5选项
A.Women’s need in employment should be considered.
B.Feasibility should be a prime concern in policymaking.
C.Everyone should try hard to promote social justice.
D.Major social issues should be the focus of legislation.
第1题:A
第2题:C
第3题:D
第4题:C
第5题:B
第1题:
【整体分析】
来源:The Boston Globe《波士顿环球报》于2019年8月5日刊登的文章Corporate gender quotas reinforce privilege(企业性别配额强化了特权)。
主题:文章批评了政府要求在企业中实行性别配额的想法。作者认为,这种政策往往只对最有特权的人有利,而对普通女性没有帮助。
结构:
【试题解析】
【选项释义】
The author believes that the bills sponsored by Lewis and Haddad will ________. 作者认为,由刘易斯和哈达德提出的法案将________。
A. help little to reduce gender bias A. 几乎对减少性别偏见没有帮助
B. pose a threat to the state government B. 对州政府构成威胁
C. raise women’s position in politics C. 提高女性在政治中的地位
D. greatly broaden career options D. 大大拓宽了职业选择
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词可以定位到文章第二段“由马萨诸塞州参议员杰森·刘易斯和众议院临时议长帕特里夏·哈达德提出的两项法案,旨在确保董事会和委员会的‘性别平等’,就是一个很好的例子(provide a case in point)”,作者提到这一例子是为了论证第一段最后一句的观点“但通常情况下,这样的政策是一种虚伪的美德信号,只对最有特权的人有利(benefits only the most privileged),对普通人几乎没有帮助(does little to help average people)”,说明作者认为由刘易斯和哈达德提出的法案对促进性别平等没有帮助。因此A选项“几乎对减少性别偏见没有帮助”正确。
【干扰项排除】
B选项“对州政府构成威胁”和D选项“大大拓宽了职业选择”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有;
C选项“提高女性在政治中的地位”,由A pair of bills sponsored by Massachusetts state Senator Jason Lewis and House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad, to ensure “gender parity” on boards and commissions(由马萨诸塞州参议员杰森·刘易斯和众议院临时议长帕特里夏·哈达德提出的两项法案,旨在确保董事会和委员会的“性别平等”)可知,提高女性地位是刘易斯和哈达德提出法案的目的,而不是作者对其的看法,属于张冠李戴。
第2题:
【选项释义】
Which of the following is true of the California measure? 以下哪项关于加利福尼亚州措施的说法是正确的?
A. It has irritated private business owners. A. 它激怒了私营企业主。
B. It is welcomed by the Supreme Court. B. 它受到最高法院的欢迎。
C. It may go against the Constitution. C. 它可能违背了宪法。
D. It will settle the prior controversies. D. 它将解决之前的争议。
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词California measure可以定位到文章第四段最后一句“加利福尼亚州州长杰里·布朗在签署这项法案时承认,这项明确根据性别对人进行分类的法律可能违宪(unconstitutional)”,说明加利福尼亚州的措施可能是违宪的。因此C选项“它可能违背了宪法。”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“它激怒了私营企业主。”和D选项“它将解决之前的争议。”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有;
B选项“它受到最高法院的欢迎。”,由The US Supreme Court frowns on sex-based classifications unless they are designed to address an “important” policy interest.(美国最高法院反对基于性别的分类,除非它们是为了解决“重要的”政策利益。)可知,最高法院反对根据性别对人进行分类的措施,属于反向干扰。
第3题:
【选项释义】
The author mentions the study by Catalyst to illustrate ________. 作者提到了Catalyst公司的研究,以说明________。
A. the harm from arbitrary board decision A. 董事会武断决定的危害
B. the importance of constitutional guarantees B. 宪法保障的重要性
C. the pressure on women in global corporations C. 女性在全球企业中的压力
D. the needlessness of government interventions D. 政府干预的非必要性
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词Catalyst可以定位到文章第七段第二句“根据Catalyst公司的一项研究,从2010年到2015年,全球公司董事会中的女性比例增加了54%(the share of women on the boards of global corporations increased by 54 percent)”,说明女性在全球公司董事会中的比例是增加的,文章提到Catalyst公司的例子是为了论证上一句的观点“在没有政府干预的情况下(without government interference),企业董事会中的女性人数一直在稳步增长”,体现了政府干预是不必要的。因此D选项“政府干预的非必要性”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“董事会武断决定的危害”和C选项“女性在全球企业中的压力”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有;
B选项“宪法保障的重要性”,文章说的是加利福尼亚州的措施可能违宪,与Catalyst公司的研究无关,属于出处错位。
第4题:
【选项释义】
Norway’s adoption of a nationwide corporate gender quota has led to ________. 挪威在全国范围内采用企业性别配额的做法,导致________。
A. the underestimation of elite women’s role A. 低估了精英女性的作用
B. the objection to female participation on boards B. 反对女性进入董事会
C. the entry of unqualified candidates into the board C. 不合格的候选人进入董事会
D. the growing tension between labor and management D. 劳资双方的关系越来越紧张
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词Norway可以定位到文章第八段最后一句“这正是挪威在全国范围内实施公司性别配额(Norway adopted a nationwide corporate gender quota)时所发生的情况”,这种情况是上一句提到的“要求公司将性别作为董事会成员的首要条件,将不可避免地导致私营企业董事会经验不足(inevitably lead to less experienced private sector boards)”,说明挪威的做法会导致进入董事会的成员没有经验,是不合格的。因此C选项“不合格的候选人进入董事会”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“低估了精英女性的作用”和D选项“劳资双方的关系越来越紧张”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有;
B选项“反对女性进入董事会”,实施性别配额是为了增加女性进入董事会的人数,属于反向干扰。
第5题:
【选项释义】
Which of the following can be inferred from the text? 从文中可以推断出以下哪项内容?
A. Women’s need in employment should be considered. A. 应该考虑女性在就业方面的需要。
B. Feasibility should be a prime concern in policymaking. B. 可行性应该是决策中的首要考虑因素。
C. Everyone should try hard to promote social justice. C. 每个人都应该努力促进社会公正。
D. Major social issues should be the focus of legislation. D. 重大的社会问题应该是立法的重点。
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】本文首先提出支持多元化的政策不能有效地帮助普通人,接着介绍了两项为了确保董事会和委员会性别平等而实施性别配额的法案,然而作者指出政府干预是不必要的,性别配额对普通女性几乎没有帮助,由此可知实施性别配额的措施是不可行的,制定政策时不能只符合特权者的利益,而要考虑是否对普通人有帮助。因此B选项“可行性应该是决策中的首要考虑因素。”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“应该考虑女性在就业方面的需要。”,C选项“每个人都应该努力促进社会公正。”和D选项“重大的社会问题应该是立法的重点。”在文中均没有体现,属于无中生有。
【重点词汇】
progressive /prəˈɡresɪv/ n. 进步人士;开明人士;改革派
mandate /ˈmændeɪt/ n. 授权;权力
parity /ˈpærəti/ n. 平等;相同;对等
elite /eɪˈliːt/ n. 上层集团;掌权人物;社会精英
quota /ˈkwəʊtə/ n. 定额;限额;配额
unconstitutional /ˌʌnˌkɒnstɪˈtjuːʃənl/ adj. 违背宪法的;违反宪章的
mirror /ˈmɪrə(r)/ v. 反映
interference /ˌɪntəˈfɪərəns/ n. 干涉;干预;介入
set aside 留出;拨出
frown on 不赞成
scoop up 拿起
self-serving 只为个人打算的;一心谋私利的
【长难句分析】
1. Because the California law applies to all boards, even where there is no history of prior discrimination, courts are likely to rule that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of “equal protection”.
【结构分析】
【补充分析】
① Because引导原因状语从句,表示法院做出违宪裁决的原因;
② where引导定语从句修饰boards,表示没有歧视前科的董事会,even意为“甚至”,用来强调这项法律不加区别地适用于所有委员会,而不管它们是否有歧视的历史。
【参考译文】因为加利福尼亚州法律适用于所有董事会,甚至是之前没有歧视前科的董事会,所以法院很可能会裁定该法律违反了宪法对“平等保护”的保障。
2. Writing in The New Republic, Alice Lee notes that increasing the number of opportunities for board membership without increasing the pool of qualified women to serve on such boards has led to a “golden skirt” phenomenon, where the same elite women scoop up multiple seats on a variety of boards.
【结构分析】
【补充分析】
① Writing in The New Republic作伴随状语,用来说明爱丽丝•李是在《新共和》杂志上撰文时提出了自己的观点;
② without increasing the pool of qualified women to serve on such boards作伴随状语,修饰increasing,用来说明合格的女性董事后备数量没有增加;
③ where引导定语从句修饰a “golden skirt” phenomenon,解释了“金裙”现象是一种什么样的现象。
【参考译文】爱丽丝•李在《新共和》杂志上撰文指出,在不增加合格的女性董事后备数量的情况下增加她们成为董事会成员的机会,导致了“金裙”现象,即同样的精英女性在不同的董事会中占据了多个席位。
【全文翻译】
进步人士通常支持将多元化作为实现平等和公平竞争环境的途径。但通常情况下,这样的政策是一种虚伪的美德信号,只对最有特权的人有利,对普通人几乎没有帮助。
由马萨诸塞州参议员杰森•刘易斯和众议院临时议长帕特里夏•哈达德提出的两项法案,旨在确保董事会和委员会的“性别平等”,就是一个很好的例子。
哈达德和刘易斯担心的问题是,超过一半的州政府董事会女性比例不到40%。为了确保精英女性有更多这样的机会,他们建议政府实施配额。如果这些法案成为法律,到2022年,各州董事会和委员会将被要求为女性留出50%的董事会席位。
这些法案与加利福尼亚州最近采取的一项措施类似。加利福尼亚州去年成为美国第一个要求私营公司实行性别配额的州。加利福尼亚州州长杰里•布朗在签署这项法案时承认,这项明确根据性别对人进行分类的法律可能违宪。
美国最高法院反对基于性别的分类,除非它们是为了解决“重要的”政策利益。因为加利福尼亚州法律适用于所有董事会,甚至是之前没有歧视前科的董事会,所以法院很可能会裁定该法律违反了宪法对“平等保护”的保障。
但这样的政府命令有必要吗?目前,女性在公司董事会中的比例可能无法反映女性在总人口中的比例,但那又如何呢?
在没有政府干预的情况下,企业董事会中的女性人数一直在稳步增长。根据Catalyst公司的一项研究,从2010年到2015年,全球公司董事会中的女性比例增加了54%。
要求公司将性别作为董事会成员的首要条件,将不可避免地导致私营企业董事会经验不足。这正是挪威在全国范围内实施公司性别配额时所发生的情况。
爱丽丝•李在《新共和》杂志上撰文指出,在不增加合格的女性董事后备数量的情况下增加她们成为董事会成员的机会,导致了“金裙”现象,即同样的精英女性在不同的董事会中占据了多个席位。
下次如果有人把企业配额作为促进性别平等的一种方式来推行时,请记住,这种政策在很大程度上是自私自利的措施,只会让倡导者感觉良好,而对普通女性几乎没有帮助。