2020（一）阅读Text 3 解析

2020（一） Text 3

     （1）Progressives often support diversity mandates 进步人士经常支持性别多样性命令  as a path to equality and a way to level the playing field. 作为通向性别平等和公平竞争的途径。 But all too often such policies are an insincere form of virtue-signaling 但此类政策往往是不真诚的道德作秀that benefits only the most privileged and does little to help average people. 只对特权阶级有利而对一般人没有帮助。

（2）A pair of bills sponsored by Massachusetts state Senator Jason Lewis and House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad, 由马萨诸塞州参议员JL和众议院临时议长PH发起的两项议案，to ensure “gender parity” on boards and commissions, 以确保董事会和委员会中“性别平等”，provide a case in point. 就是例子。

（3）Haddad and Lewis are concerned H和L担心 that more than half the state-government boards are less than 40 percent female. 超过半数的州政府委员会中女性议员不到40%。In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities, 为了确保精英女性有更多此类机会，they have proposed imposing government quotas. 他们已经提议（强行）实施政府配额。If the bills become law, 如果这些议案称为法律，state boards and commissions will be required to set aside 50 percent of board seats for women by 2022. 那么到2022年，州政府委员会将被要求为女性流出50%的席位。

（4）The bills are similar to a measure recently adopted in California, （马萨诸塞州的）这两项议案类似最近在加利福尼亚州采取的法案，which last year became the first state to require gender quotas for private companies. 加州于去年成为首个要求私企实行性别配额的州。In signing the measure, 在签署这项法案时，California Governor Jerry Brown admitted that the law, 加州州长JB承认这项法律，which expressly classifies people on the basis of sex, 直白地将人们以性别为基础来分类，is probably unconstitutional. 可能是违宪的。

（5）The US Supreme Court frowns on sex-based classifications 美国最高法院对这种以性别为基础的分类皱眉unless they are designed to address an “important” policy interest. 除非它们是被设计来解决非常“重要”的政治利益问题， Because the California law applies to all boards, 因为加州的法律适用于所有董事会，even where there is no history of prior discrimination, 甚至是没有性别歧视历史的地方，courts are likely to rule that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of “equal protection”. 法院可能判决这些法案违背了“平等保护”的宪法保障。

（6）But are such government mandates even necessary? 但是这种此类的政府指令真的有必要吗？Female participation on corporate boards 公司董事会中的女性成员占比may not currently mirror the percentage of women in the general population, 也许现在并没有反映出女性在总人口中的比例，but so what? 但这又如何呢？

（7）The number of women on corporate boards has been steadily increasing 公司董事会中的女性成员数量一直在稳步增长without government interference. 即使没有政府的干预。According to a study by Catalyst, 根据C的一项研究，between 2010 and 2015 在2010至2015年间，the share of women on the boards of global corporations increased by 54 percent. 全球公司董事会中女性成员比例增长了54%。

（8）Requiring companies to make gender the primary qualification for board membership 要求公司把性别作为董事会成员的首要资格will inevitably lead to less experienced private sector boards. 势必导致私企董事会成员缺乏经验。That is exactly what happened when Norway adopted a nationwide corporate gender quota. 这正是挪威要求全国公司采取性别配额时所发生的。

（9）Writing in The New Republic, 在为《新共和》撰文时，Alice Lee notes AL指出that increasing the number of opportunities for board membership without increasing the pool of qualified women to serve on such boards 增加进入董事会的数量机会而不增加能胜任董事的女性has led to a “golden skirt” phenomenon，导致了“金裙子”现象，where the same elite women scoop up multiple seats on a variety of boards. 即，同一位精英女性在不同的董事会中占据了多个席位。

（10）Next time somebody pushes corporate quotas as a way to promote gender equity, 下一次再有人促进公司配额以实现推动性别平等时，remember that such policies are largely self-serving measures 请记住那很大程度上是自私的措施that make their sponsors feel good but do little to help average women. 它让发起者自我感觉良好但是对一般女性没有帮助。