Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

Slaven Vlasic / Stringer / Getty ImagesLast Tuesday, TPG Chairman David Bonderman resigned as a director of Uber Technologies, Inc. after making a seemingly sexist comment about women directors. The comment was made at a company-wide meeting to discuss measures to improve the culture of the workplace at Uber, which has been alleged to be male-dominated and tolerant of sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying.At this meeting, Uber director Arianna Huffington announced the addition of a second woman to the board: Nestlé executive Wan Ling Martello. Ms. Huffington shared that her personal goal has been to increase the diversity of the Uber board "much though I love my white male colleagues." She also noted that there is a lot of data that shows when there is one woman on a board, it is much more likely that a second woman will join the board. "Actually," Mr. Bonderman interjected, "what it shows is that it's much more likely to be more talking."Mr. Bonderman has acknowledged, as indeed he should, that his comment was "careless" and "inappropriate," particularly given the context in which it was made. However, having served as a director of numerous companies, Mr. Bonderman likely based his views on what he has observed first-hand: that adding women to a board often does lead to increased talking in the boardroom. That's true, and it's a good thing. But it is not because female directors are more "chatty" than their male counterparts. It is because the addition of women to a homogenous board can meaningfully improve the diversity of skills, experiences and perspectives in the boardroom, thus facilitating greater and more insightful dialogue among directors. The same can be expected if a director that enhances racial diversity or an activist investor who brings new insights and perspectives is added to a board.Studies have shown that increased discussion and debate resulting from improved boardroom diversity can be highly beneficial. Bringing together individuals with differing ideas, opinions and perspectives can create an environment of "collaborative tension" that results in a more thorough consideration of alternatives, less groupthink, and ultimately, improved decision-making. As noted by Professor Katherine Phillips of Columbia Business School, people work harder in diverse settings to understand and reconcile differing perspectives in order to try to reach a consensus. Directors may not necessarily enjoy the process, but, as Professor Phillips observes, "the hard work can lead to better outcomes."Mr. Bonderman has stated that his comment came across in a way that was the opposite of what he intended. It is possible that he appreciates the benefits of a diverse board and only wished to make light of the increased "work" brought about by improving diversity. Regardless of what his personal views may be, it is clear that too many companies are failing to recognize the full benefits that a diverse board can provide given the low number of directorships held by women and minorities. Last year, women held only 21% of all directorships at S&amp;P 500 companies, while minorities held only 14% of all such directorships.Uber is one company that can undoubtedly benefit from a more diverse board. Its aggressive corporate culture has led to a wide array of scandals that are plaguing the firm, resulting in its CEO taking an indefinite leave of absence and numerous executives being dismissed from the company. Yes, improving board diversity at Uber likely means that there will be more talking in the boardroom. This will be a good thing, and hopefully translates into improved decision-making and board oversight. Given what has transpired at Uber over the past year, all of its directors should see the need for more dialogue and join the conversation.Jared L. Landaw is a Partner and the Chief Operating Officer of Barington Capital Group, L.P., an activist investment firm. <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/ivanka-trump-instagram-controversy-donald-jared-kushner-social-media-art-collection-2017-5">Ivanka Trump's Instagram put her at the center of a controversy over her lavish art collection</a></h3> Please enable Javascript to watch this video

Actually, more talking in the boardroom is a good thing

The BJP MP <keyword id="6431260" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Meenakshi-Lekhi">Meenakshi Lekhi</keyword> says that the corporate sector is gender-biased. She has stressed that corporate restrain women employee from chairing the coveted position in their organization.

	Addressing an event organized by <keyword id="6355988" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Assocham">ASSOCHAM</keyword>, Lekhi stated, “It is not about the amount of work women put in but the positions which are restrained, they are restrained by certain circumstances not to achieve certain positions and those restrains should be cut down.” <o:p></o:p>

	She added, “Director is the most coveted posts in a corporate governance sector and women definitely deserve to get there.” <o:p></o:p>

	Quoting a study done in UK, Lekhi noted that companies that had women in important position have generated higher revenues along with progress in other aspect of business including relationship with the employees. <o:p></o:p>

	“So, if these are the benefits which women bring on the table how is it that we still continue to deny directorship to women, it is a very-very gender biased atmosphere because of which they are not able to achieve,” averred Lekhi.<o:p></o:p>

	Taking a potshot at the previous UPA government, Lekhi said that amendments and protection mechanism need to be implemented so that unsuspecting people don't get trapped.<o:p></o:p>

	“Governance took a back seat for past 10-15 years and that too in a very-very bad shape as the kind of scams which we have seen with the liaison between corporate and politicians is mind boggling, in any other country people would have been behind bars for 300 years and more,” she said. <o:p></o:p>

BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi Calls India Inc. Gender-Biased

<div class="KonaFilter image-container float_right"><div class="image on-image"></div></div>It would not be a huge stretch to say that University of North Carolina -Chapel Hill professor Jan Boxill wrote the book on sports ethics.
Boxill - a philosophy professor who until recently served as the director of the UNC Parr Center for Ethics - is currently working on a manuscript titled "Front Porch Ethics," dealing with ethics in sports. She has given multiple presentations and papers on the topic, and in 2003, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sports-Ethics-Anthology-Jan-Boxill/dp/0631216979">edited a book of essays titled "Sports Ethics: An Anthology."</a>
There is no questioning her expertise in the field, or the level of respect she enjoyed at UNC, where she had served as Chair of the Faculty. As attorney Kenneth Wainstein noted in his recent investigative report detailing the scandal surrounding UNC's fake "paper classes" - which never met and only required one final paper from students - "Numerous interviewees told us of their admiration for Boxill and how much Boxill has given of herself to the University and to the women's basketball team."
So the question is, how did this well-regarded ethics professor and faculty leader find herself at the center of the scandal?
For many years, Boxill was the academic counselor for the UNC women's basketball team. As revealed in the Wainstein investigation, Boxill was actively colluding with members of the African and Afro-American Studies department to secure specific grades for student athletes, as well as to cover up plagiarism and other academic policy violations.
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div>
According to the Wainstein report, "Jan Boxill was fully aware of the lax work requirements and grading standards in the paper classes and that [former AFAM administrative assistant Deborah Crowder] played a substantive and substantial role in the classes and the grading."
In one particularly blatant email exchange, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/outrageous-email-reveals-how-unc-staff-ignored-university-rules-to-reward-student-athletes-2014-10">Boxill and Crowder agreed to give a women's basketball player a D for a final paper</a> that cited no sources, didn't answer the original prompt, and appeared to be "recycled" from a separate class.
As described in UNC's report last week, Boxill and Crowder "simply ignored the glaring deficiencies in [the basketball player's] paper so as to allow her to graduate." At the time of these emails, Boxill was the director of undergraduate studies for the Department of Philosophy, as well as the director of the Parr Center for Ethics.
According to a UNC spokesperson, Boxill's only current title with the university is teaching professor. UNC did not confirm that Boxill lost her directorship, but released on a memo on Friday announcing an interim head for the Parr Center for Ethics. The press release did not mention Boxill, who had been director since 2006.
Last week, student newspaper The Daily Tar Heel <a href="http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2014/10/nine-employees-facing-disciplinary-action">confirmed that Boxill was one of nine employees facing disciplinary action</a> following the Wainstein report.
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div>
Boxill's friends and colleagues seem unable to make sense of the revelations in the report.
"Jan is so, so ethical. It just - I don't know - I can't even make sense out of it. It doesn't feel right to me," one <a href="http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2014/10/campus-shocked-by-former-faculty-chairwoman-jan-boxills-involvement-in-academic-scandal">biology professor who is good friends with Boxill told The Tar Heel</a>. "Clearly bad things happened. I mean, clearly bad things happened. It just does not ring true to me that Jan would cross a line so completely."
One explanation for Boxill's apparently out of character actions may have an ethical base - that she was trying to help students who were ill-prepared for the academic rigors of a UNC <keyword id="6355445" type="COMPANY" weightage="100" keywordseo="Education">education</keyword>. Various reports on the school's athletic program have found serious issues in basic skills in many student athletes' reading and writing abilities.
A University of South Carolina sport management professor who collaborated with Boxill on a book chapter on sports ethics <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/The-Ethicist-Who-Crossed-the/149619/">described her potential ethical dilemma to the Chronicle of Higher Education</a> as, "If you have students who are plopped down within an inherently corrupt system, do you have a moral obligation to help them?"
This very well may have been the question she struggled with. A UNC business school professor who is friends with Boxill told the Chronicle, "It would be easy, knowing her spirit of being a very caring person, to imagine that she would try to do whatever she could to help ... But I'll never know what Jan was thinking at the time."
Boxill's actions, as detailed in the Wainstein report, may have a negative impact on her campus presence. Campus leaders should be seen as people who will guide policy development and are "expected to be standard bearers," says Ann Skeet, the director of leadership ethics at Santa Clara University's Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.
"A university's mission is the creation and transmission of knowledge. Students need to feel that there is some authenticity. She'll now have young people who had been looking up to her questioning how much of standard bearer she really is," Skeet told Business Insider.
Skeet said that while she understands the desire to help students who "are working beyond the scope of their abilities," this kind of aid may be more harmful than beneficial.
"Even if she's looking at it as sort of supporting the student's individual rights, it would be hard for me to understand how just brokering the grade is serving the student fully. More effective would be to help the student actually learn how to write a paper," Skeet said.
Business Insider has reached out to Jan Boxill in multiple emails, and will update this post with any comment.

How A Sports Ethics Expert Became Embroiled In The UNC Fake Class Scandal

<div class="KonaFilter image-container float_right"><div class="image">AP Photo/Alfred Riethausen<keyword id="6355231" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Sex">Sex</keyword> researcher Dr. <keyword id="1907375" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="Alfred-C-Kinsey">Alfred C. Kinsey</keyword>, author of books on human sexual behavior, shown at a press conference on November 22, 1955.</div></div>William Masters and Virginia Johnson - the duo currently portrayed in the television series "<a href="http://www.sho.com/sho/masters-of-sex/home" target="_blank">Masters of Sex</a>" - <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/11-findings-that-revolutionized-our-understanding-of-sex-2013-10">advanced the study of sex</a> in the 1950s and beyond by observing people in the act.
Although their methods and findings often led to criticism, what they faced was nothing compared to the controversy that surrounds their predecessor - Alfred C. Kinsey.
It's not surprising that Kinsey would generate controversy by being the first to break so many taboos, demonstrating the commonness of things like sex before marriage, masturbation, and homosexuality. What is notable is how much criticism his methods have faced despite him doing no more than interview people.
The problem was that Kinsey sometimes interviewed sex criminals and failed to report their behavior to the police, risking public safety for the sake of scientific data.
As Kinsey's biographer Gathorne-Hardy told <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/movies/03crai.html?_r=0&amp;pagewanted=all&amp;position=">The New York Times</a>: "In a sort of way he was ruthless. And one could almost go as far as to say immoral, at least not conventionally moral. If someone had sexual information that was germane, Kinsey would use it."
Between 1938 and his death in 1956, Kinsey and his research team conducted more than 17,000 face-to-face interviews with a diverse group of people - college students, prostitutes, and even prison inmates - about their sexual experiences.
His most notorious subject, interviewed in 1944, was a sexual omnivore, "whose history of sexual encounters with men, women, boys, girls, animals and family members took 17 hours to record," <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/movies/03crai.html?_r=0&amp;pagewanted=all&amp;position=">according to The New York Times</a>. Not only did Kinsey fail to report this man, but it was also later revealed that he pretended that ample data taken from this source - including extensive documentation of the sexual response of young boys - came from multiple sources.
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_left"><div><div class="image on-image">Wiki Media</div></div></div>
The results of his interviews were published in two separate volumes that together make up the "Kinsey Reports" -"Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" in 1948 followed by "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" in 1953. 
Both books became bestsellers. Their sensational revelations (i.e. 90% of American males masturbated, 85% had had premarital intercourse, and 70% had paid a prostitute at least once in their lives) were met with both awe and disgust. 
"Some criticized his methods (and conclusions) because of inadequate sampling techniques; others extravagantly praised him as another Galileo or Darwin," says a 2003 article <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447862/" target="_blank">published in the American Journal for Public Health</a>. 
Critics also question Kinsey's sexuality. Paul Gebhard, an associate of Kinsey's between 1946 until his death in 1956, is tight-lipped about Kinsey's sex life: "One of the cardinal rules of the Institute is we do not talk about the sexual behavior of anyone we've interviewed," <a href="http://www.pbs.org/fmc/interviews/gebhard.htm" target="_blank">Gebhard said in an interview with PBS</a>. "So all I can say is, Kinsey was an experimenter. He was interested in things, and so he did some experimentation. But it was rather infrequent."
The strongest opposition to Kinsey came more than 50 years after his famous reports were published, as dissenters have tried to rebrand the "father of the sexual revolution" as a "<a href="http://www.jillstanek.com/rapeincest-coverup/alfred-kinsey-s.html" target="_blank">sexual psychopath</a>."
Leading the anti-Kinsey campaign is a women named Judith Reisman, author of the 1990 book "Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud." In an <a href="http://www.illuminati-news.com/alfred-kinsey2.htm" target="_blank">1998 interview with Illuminati News</a>, Reisman blames Kinsey's work for "the skyrocketing incidence of all the social pathologies afflicting us today: divorce, abortion, sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, illegitimate births, cohabitation, pornography, homosexuality, sadomasochism, rape, child molestation, sexual crimes of all types, family breakup, endemic violence, etc."
Reisman's even alleges that Kinsey was a pedophile himself, and today, <a href="http://www.cwfa.org/kinsey.asp" target="_blank">Concerned Women for America</a> claims on its website that Kinsey "aided and abetted the molestation of hundreds of children in order to obtain data on 'child sexuality.'"
<a href="http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/about/contro-03.html">The Kinsey Institute</a> rejects these claims, while admitting that the doctor's work may offend some. John Bancroft, who ended his directorship in 2004, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16913278">offered this response</a>:
[Kinsey] obtained information about children's sexual responses from a few of his adult male research subjects, one in particular, who had been involved in sexual activity with children. Resiman [sic] is entitled to disagree with Kinsey's use of such evidence; she is entitled to the opinion that no researcher should obtain information from a sexual offender without reporting it to the police; she is entitled to question the validity of such evidence; but she is not entitled to make the allegations of criminal behavior on Kinsey's part. He did not promote this activity; he did not train anyone to carry out such observations; neither Kinsey nor any of his research team was involved in any sexual experiments on children; and none of them was in any sense, a pedophile.

You Searched For "women directorships" and got 6 results

Actually, more talking in the boardroom is a good thing

Jared L. Landaw, Barington Ca…

BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi Calls India Inc. Gender-Biased

Purba Das

How A Sports Ethics Expert Became Embroiled In The UNC Fake Class Scandal

Peter Jacobs

Why Kinsey's Research Remains Even More Controversial Than The 'Masters Of Sex'

Dina Spector

A Saudi princess, silenced

Bill Bostock

Topless dancers, champagne, and David Bowie: Inside the crash of London's $2.7 billion unicorn Powa

Oscar Williams-Grut

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides

You Searched For "women directorships" and got 6 results

Actually, more talking in the boardroom is a good thing

Jared L. Landaw, Barington Ca…

BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi Calls India Inc. Gender-Biased

Purba Das

How A Sports Ethics Expert Became Embroiled In The UNC Fake Class Scandal

Peter Jacobs

Why Kinsey's Research Remains Even More Controversial Than The 'Masters Of Sex'&#160;&#160;&#160;

Dina Spector

A Saudi princess, silenced

Bill Bostock

Topless dancers, champagne, and David Bowie: Inside the crash of London's $2.7 billion unicorn Powa

Oscar Williams-Grut

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides

Why Kinsey's Research Remains Even More Controversial Than The 'Masters Of Sex'