If we were ever at the point where companies were hiring the best people for the job, this wouldn't be necessary as the companies would already have a diverse board.
Except that everywhere, including when admission is solely based on performance on a test you can study for, there end up being massive racial disparities.
The whole point is it’s not innate differences but it’s a bad solution. There are better ways of providing equal opportunity that don’t compromise the integrity of the system
But these are board positions. They are not chosen based on measurable skills, but rather almost always on some combination of connections and a specific mindset.
This has often been called the "old boys club", and the persistent pattern of boards being overwhelmingly white and male is great evidence that there has a (predominately unconscious) bias in the selections.
Since the makeup of these boards affects the decisions made by these companies, and those decisions have a large impact on society, society (California) has decided that they have to clean up their act and make those decision makers at least vaguely reflect the makeup of that society.
There are ways of preventing unconscious bias in which you don’t degrade the integrity of the position. As I pointed out in my original post the army has solved this well, because in the army of you put someone in a position that isn’t right for it you put lives at stake.
reply