July 11, 2021
Hello,
I am taking the time to write to you now. I have a background in data analytics and quality assurance processes. This proposal sounds to me to be very similiar to affirmative action x1000 with a broader scope on the overall company's diversity statistics. If the company is not meeting mandated criteria (by NASDAQ enforced by the SEC) then that company or organization will incure fees and penalties based on what sounds like ideological bias? I would very much like to see the metrics and data validating the need and scale of this proposal. Mandating specific sex directors, LGBTQ+ or specific racial identities within certain positions inside of a listed company comes with many ethical issues and sounds very ideologically based rather than fact or logic based. Take female occupation statistics for example, many more women tend to go into the Healthcare and social science industries so the pool is much greater to choose from when hiring employees in these fields (see Gender Equality Paradox, SOURCE - HESA). Conversely the STEM fields tend to attract more males to the field with the same results. This puts employers at
a disadvantage from the start based on biological facts of the world we live in. Government over reach and social engineering is not an answer to these types of \"diversity\" issues as this proposal seems to try to achieve. I also do not see how mandating a quota for LGBTQ+, female or underrepresented people of color into director positions of companies offers optimal diversity since its not a product of fact or logic based decision making and hiring practices. The best people for the job should be put into these roles regardless of color, race, ethnicity or orientation and those decisions should be fully up to the NASDAQ listed company (they take the risk not NASDAQ or the SEC). I would ask, do we have many instances of minorities, LGBTQ+, or females with the same or better qualifications as others candidates but are not being promoted or hired to these representative positions? We should also understand that initiatives like this while im sure are well intended may also affect people who were more qualified but did not receive the position because they weren't the correct color, sex, or orientation that NASDAQ or the government mandates. That to me sounds much more like overt discrimination than anything like this requirement proposes to remedy. I would ask again to please forward any metrics and reporting data justifying this new requirement for our US companies to allocate resources to follow and report on.