Text 3
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 Califomia, 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 pereentage 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.
Wrting 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 clite 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 litle to help average women.
The author believes that the bills sponsored by Lewis and Haddad wills ________.
纵观全文，文章一直在论述该法案，在最后一段作者提出了自己的想法，下次有人把企业配额作为促进性别平等的一种方式。请记住，这些基本上都是自私自利的措施，让他们的赞助商感觉良好，但其实并没有什么帮助，由此可见作者对此法案采取否定态度，A help little to reduce gender bias对减少性别偏见没什么帮助为同义替换的正确选项、
Which of the following is true of the California measure?
根据题干中的关键词 California measures定位到原文第五段第二句，Because the California law applies to all boards, ... courts are likely to rule that the law violate the constitutional guarantee of "equal protection" violate 违反宪法，选项C against替换violate为正确选项。
The author mentions the study by Catalyst to ilustrate ________.
根据题干中catalyst替换到第7段，论点为上一句The number of women on corporate boards has been steadily increasing without government . 在没有政府的情况下，公司董事会中的妇女人数一直在稳步增加。可见D选项中the needlessness of government interventions政府干预的不必要性。
Norway's adoption of a nationwide corporate gender quota has led to ________.
根据Norway定位到倒数第三段第一句，要求将性别作为董事会成员的主要资格，必然会导致私营部门董事会减少。紧接着下文董事会成员的机会越来越多，却没有合格的女性来担任董事会成员， 由此可见会有不合格的人进入董事会，正确选项C 不合格候选人进入董事会。
Which of the following can be inferred from the text?
由最后一段可知，下次有人把企业配额作为促进性别平等的一种方式。请记住，这些基本上都是自私自利的措施，让他们的赞助商感觉良好，但其实并没有什么帮助。由此可知该政策并不可取，正确选项B可行性应是决策的首要考虑因素。