阅读理解
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.
单选题
The author believes that the bills sponsored by Lewis and Haddad will ______.
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】 观点态度题。题干问的是作者认为Lewis和Haddad发起的议案将会如何。根据题干中的关键词bills，sponsored和Lewis and Haddad可以定位到原文第二段。该段提到，Lewis和Haddad提出的两项法案就是很好的例子，它们旨在确保董事会和委员会的“性别平等”。由此可知，该段是上文内容的一个例证。再结合第一段可知，论点是这些政策往往是一种虚假的美德信号，只惠及最有特权的人，对普通人帮助甚微。显然，作者认为他们提出的议案对减少性别偏见帮助甚微。故答案为A(对减少性别偏见没什么帮助)。 B项(对州政府构成威胁)和D项(极大地拓宽了职业选择)原文均未提及，故排除。原文第三段提到，半数以上的州政府董事会成员中女性不到40%，为了确保精英女性有更多这样的机会，他们提议实施政府配额，但并没有说这样就能提高女性的政治地位，C项(提高女性的政治地位)属于过度推理，故排除。 [参考译文] 进步党往往支持多元化授权，认为这是一条通向平等的道路，也是一条创造公平竞争环境的道路。但是，这些政策往往是一种虚假的美德信号，只惠及最有特权的人，对普通人帮助甚微。 马萨诸塞州参议员Jason Lewis和众议院临时议长Patricia Haddad提出的两项法案就是很好的例子，它们旨在确保董事会和委员会的“性别平等”。 Haddad和Lewis担心的是，半数以上的州政府董事会成员中女性不到40%。为了确保精英女性有更多这样的机会，他们提议实施政府配额。如果这些法案一旦通过成为法律，各州的董事会和委员会将被要求在2022年之前为女性留出50%的董事会席位。 这些法案与加州最近采取的一项措施类似，加州去年成为第一个要求私营企业实施性别配额的州。在签署这项措施时，加州州长Jerry Brown承认，这项将人按性别明确分类的法律可能是违宪的。 美国最高法院不同意基于性别的分类，除非它们是为了解决“重要”的政策利益。由于加州法律适用于所有的董事会，哪怕在那些之前没有歧视现象的地区，法院可能会裁定这项法律违反了宪法对“平等保护”的保障。 但这些政府指令有必要吗?目前，女性在公司董事会的参与度或许不能反映出女性在一般人口中的比例，但那又怎样呢? 在没有政府干预的情况下，公司董事会中的女性人数一直在稳步增加。Catalyst的一项研究显示，2010年至2015年间，全球企业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主要任职资格将不可避免地导致出现缺乏经验的私营部门董事会。这正是挪威采用全国企业性别配额时所发生的情况。 Alice Lee在《新共和国周刊》杂志上撰文指出，在不增加合格女性董事数量的情况下增加董事会成员的机会数量，导致了一种“金裙”现象，即同一名精英女性在不同的董事会占据了多个席位。 下次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，这些政策在很大程度上是自私的措施，它们让发起人感觉良好，但对普通女性的帮助微乎其微。
单选题
Which of the following is true of the California measure? ______