Reading Comprehension 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 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.

31. The author believes that the bills sponsored by Lewis and Haddad will

[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. 

32. Which of the following is true of the California measure?

[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. 

33. The author mentions the study by Catalyst to illustrate

[A]

the harm from arbitrary board decisions. 

[B]

the importance of constitutional guarantees. 

[C]

the pressure on women in global corporations. 

[D]

the needlessness of government interventions. 

34. Norway’s adoption of a nationwide corporate gender quota has led to

[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. 

35. Which of the following can be inferred from the text?

[A]

Women’s needs 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. 

答案与解析 (Answers)

31. [A] help little to reduce gender bias.
解析：第一段奠定全文基调，指出这种政策“does little to help average people（对普通人毫无帮助）”。第二段将两位议员的法案作为该观点的“case in point（恰当例子）”。最后一段再次重申这些政策“do little to help average women”，说明其对于真正减少性别偏见无济于事，仅使少数精英获益。

32. [C] It may go against the Constitution.
解析：第四段末尾提到，加州州长在签署法案时承认该法律“is probably unconstitutional（可能违宪）”。第五段解释了违宪的原因：最高法院反对基于性别的分类（frowns on sex-based classifications），因此法院可能会裁定该法律违反了平权保障。

33. [D] the needlessness of government interventions.
解析：第七段指出，“The number of women on corporate boards has been steadily increasing without government interference.（在没有政府干预的情况下，女性在董事会的数量一直在稳步增加）”，紧接着引用 Catalyst 的研究数据来支撑这一论点，即政府的强制配额干预是“没有必要的（needlessness）”。

34. [C] the entry of unqualified candidates into the board.
解析：第八段指出，强制性别配额将不可避免地导致“less experienced private sector boards（经验不足的私营部门董事会）”。紧接着以挪威为例，说明这正是挪威实施配额制后所发生的情况。经验不足（less experienced）对应选项中的不合格候选人（unqualified candidates）。

35. [B] Feasibility should be a prime concern in policymaking.
解析：文章通篇在批判一种“听起来很美好但实际上不起作用（或不公平、违宪）”的政策（美德信号/强制配额）。作者强调，如果不扩大合格女性的人才库，仅靠强制定额是行不通的（只会导致“金裙”现象和经验不足）。这说明在制定政策时，“可行性及实际效果（Feasibility）”才是应该首要考虑的。

核心长难句精解 (Highlighted Sentences)

1. 嵌套从句与抽象词汇运用：
"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."
【解析】that 引导定语从句修饰 virtue-signaling。从句中由 and 连接两个并列的谓语 benefits 和 does little to help。virtue-signaling（美德信号/道德作秀）是理解作者批判态度的核心词。
【翻译】但通常情况下，这类政策只是一种不真诚的“美德作秀”形式，它仅仅让享有最高特权的人受益，而对帮助普通大众毫无用处。

2. 条件状语与原因状语的逻辑链：
"The US Supreme Court frowns on sex-based classifications unless they are designed to address an “important” policy interest."
【解析】frown on 意为“不赞成/反对”。unless 引导条件状语从句，表明了最高法院在处理性别分类问题时的豁免前提。
【翻译】美国最高法院不赞成基于性别的分类，除非它们被设计用来解决一项“重要”的政策利益。

3. 无灵主语与并列结果：
"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."
【解析】that 引导宾语从句。从句的主语是动名词短语 increasing... without increasing...。where 引导非限制性定语从句，具体解释“golden skirt”现象的内容（同一批精英女性霸占多个席位）。
【翻译】爱丽丝·李指出，只增加董事会成员的机会，却不增加能够在其上任职的合格女性人才库，这导致了“金裙”现象：同一批精英女性包揽了各种董事会的多个席位。