1 . Progressives often support diversity missions 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 equality" on boards and commissions, provide a case in point.
Haddad and Lewis are concerned that more than half the state-government board are less than 40 percent female. In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities, they have proposed imposing government quotas（配额）. 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 clearly 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 occupy 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.
1. 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. |
| A．the harm from absolute board decision. |
| B．the importance of constitutional guarantees. |
| C．the pressure on women in global corporations. |
| D．the needlessness of government interventions. |
| 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. |
| A．Women's need in employment should be considered. |
| B．Feasibility should be a prime concern in policy making. |
| C．Everyone should try hard to promote social justice. |
| D．Major social issues should be the focus of the government. |
2 . Financial regulations in Britain have imposed a rather unusual rule on the bosses of big banks. Starting next year, any guaranteed bonus of top executives could be delayed 10 years if their banks are under investigation for wrongdoing. The main purpose of this “clawback” rule is to hold bankers responsible for harmful risk-taking and to restore public trust in financial institution. Yet officials also hope for a much larger benefit: more long-term decision-making not only by banks but also by all corporations, to build a stronger economy for future generations.
“Short-termism” or the desire for quick profits, has worsened in publicly traded companies, says the Bank of England’s top economist, Andrew Haldane. He quotes a giant of classical economies, Alfred Marshall, in describing this financial impatience as acting like “Children who pick the strawberries out of their pudding to eat them at once” rather than putting them aside to be eaten last.
The average time for holding a stock in both the United States and Britain, he notes, has dropped from seven years to seven months in recent decades. Transient(短期的) investors, who demand high quarterly profits from companies, can hold back a firm’s efforts to invest in long-term research or to build up customer loyalty. This has been called “quarterly capitalism”.
In addition, new digital technologies have allowed more rapid trading of equities( 股 票 ), quicker use of information, and thus shortens attention spans in financial markets. “There seems to be an advantage of short-term thinking at the expense of long-term investing,” said Commissioner Daniel Gallagher of the US Securities and Exchange Commission in speech this week.
In the US, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has pushed most public companies to delay performance bonuses for senior executives by about a year, slightly helping reduce “short-termism.” In its latest survey of CEO pay, The Wall Street Journal finds that “a substantial part” of executive pay is now tied to performance.
Much more could be done to encourage “long-termism,” such as changes in the tax code and quicker disclosure(披露) of stock acquisitions. In France, shareholders who hold onto a company investment for at least two years can sometimes earn more voting rights in a company.
Within companies, the right compensation design can provide motivation for executives to think beyond their own time at the company and on behalf of all shareholders. Britain’s new rule is a reminder to bankers that society has an interest in their performance, not just for the short term but for the long term.
1. According to Paragraph 1, one reason for imposing the new rule is the _______.| A．enhance banker’s sense of responsibility |
| B．help corporations achieve larger profits |
| C．build a new system of financial regulation |
| D．guarantee the bonuses of top executives |
| A．indirect | B．negative |
| C．favorable | D．temporary |
| A．the obstacles to preventing “short-termism”. |
| B．the significance of long-term thinking. |
| C．the approaches to promoting “long-termism” |
| D．the popularity of short-term thinking. |
| A．Failure of Quarterly Capitalism |
| B．Patience as a Corporate Virtue |
| C．Decisiveness Required of Top Executives |
| D．Frustration of Risk-taking Bankers |
3 . What happens when the right to know comes up against the right not to know? The ease of genetic testing has brought this question to light. Two
Both cases involve Huntington’s disease (HD). whose
In the British case,
The German case is in some ways the mirror image of the British one. Unlike in Britain, in Germany the right not to know genetic information is protected in law.
Both cases test a legal grey area. If the right to know is
It is the law’s job to
| A．remarkable | B．distinct | C．contrasting | D．dominant |
| A．consequences | B．symptoms | C．indications | D．diagnoses |
| A．influenced | B．affected | C．inherited | D．annoyed |
| A．scheduled | B．determined | C．approved | D．implemented |
| A．possession | B．status | C．health | D．identity |
| A．revealing | B．sharing | C．reminding | D．concealing |
| A．convinced | B．suspicious | C．infected | D．positive |
| A．Nevertheless | B．Thus | C．Additionally | D．Fundamentally |
| A．in advance of | B．in the course of | C．at the close of | D．at the risk of |
| A．inevitable | B．inextinguishable | C．incurable | D．intolerable |
| A．as a result | B．after all | C．above all | D．in return |
| A．financially | B．academically | C．legally | D．culturally |
| A．on occasion | B．by comparison | C．in effect | D．for example |
| A．reserve | B．balance | C．defend | D．draft |
| A．lawmakers | B．victims | C．patients | D．doctors |
A ban on distracted walking
You can’t walk down the street without passing so-called ''smart-phone zombies(僵尸). '' They are too absorbed in their screen
Now the city of Honolulu, Hawaii, has decided it’s time to take immediate action and make it illegal to cross the road while using a mobile phone. Those
Honolulu is the first major U. S. city to ban
To explain the decision, mayor Kirk Caldwell said, ''We hold the unfortunate honor of being a major city
Under the fine systems.
The law, which is called the Distracted Walking Law, does permit an exception. Pedestrians
If you still want to text while walking, you could avoid
5 . The purpose of the American court system is to protect the rights of the people. According to American law, if someone is accused of a crime, he or she is considered innocent until the court proves that the person is guilty. In other words, it is the responsibility of the court to prove that a person is guilty. It is not the responsibility of the person to prove that he or she is innocent.
In order to arrest a person, the police have to be reasonable sure that a crime has been committed. The police must give the suspect the reasons why they are arresting him and tell him his rights under the law. Then the police take the suspect to the police station to “book” him. “Booking means that the name of the person and the charges against him are formally listed at the police station.
The next step is for the suspect to go before a judge. The judge decides whether the suspect should be kept in jail or released. If the suspect has no previous criminal record and the judge feels that he will return to court rather than run away -- for example, because he owns a house and has a family -- he can go free. Otherwise, the suspect must put up bail（保释金）. At this time, too, the judge will appoint a court layer to defend the suspect if he can’t afford one.
The suspect returns to court a week or two later. A lawyer from the district attorney’s office presents a case against the suspect. This is called a hearing. The attorney may present evidence as well as witnesses. The judge at the hearing then decides whether there is enough reason to hold a trial. If the judge decides that there is sufficient evidence to call for a trial, he or she sets a date for the suspect to appear in court to formally plead guilty（认罪）or not guilty.
At the trial, a jury of 12 people listens to the evidence from both attorneys and hears the testimony of the witnesses. Then the jury goes into a private room to consider the evidence and decide whether the defendant is guilty of the crime. If the jury decides that the defendant is innocent, he goes free. However, if he is convicted, the judge sets a date for the defendant to appear in court again for sentencing. At this time, the judge tells the convicted（宣判有罪的）person what his punishment will be. The judge may sentence him to prison, order him to pay a fine, or place him on probation（缓刑）.
The American justice system is very complex and sometimes operates slowly. However, every step is designed to protect the rights of the people. These individual rights are the basis, or foundation, of the American government.
1. What is the main idea of the passage?| A．The American court system requires that a suspect prove that he or she is innocent. |
| B．The US court system is designed to protect the rights of the people. |
| C．Under the American court system, judge decides if a suspect is innocent or guilty. |
| D．The US court system is designed to help the police present a case against the suspect. |
| A．the suspect is free to choose a lawyer to defend him |
| B．the suspect does not have to go to trial because the judge has decided he is innocent |
| C．the suspect will be informed by mail whether he is innocent or not |
| D．the suspect does not have to wait in jail or pay money until he goes to trial |
| A．To pay for the judge and the trial. |
| B．To pay for a court lawyer to defend the suspect. |
| C．To ensure that the suspect will return to court. |
| D．To ensure that the suspect will appear in prison. |
| A．The American justice system sometimes operates slowly |
| B．The police can arrest a suspect without giving any reasons. |
| C．It is the responsibility of the suspect to prove he is innocent. |
| D．The jury considers the evidence in the court room. |
To sue or not to sue?
The rise and rise of the compensation culture
Perhaps it’s not surprising that Roslyn Darch of Houston, Texas, USA felt annoyed when she tripped (绊倒) over a kid running around furniture store, and broke her ankle.
Some argue that this is just greed --- that the amount of money is far too much for the injury suffered---and it’s not the shop’s fault that a mother can’t control her child anyway.
If you think that going on holiday is a good way to get away from all this trouble, think again ---millions of people complain to the British Tourist Authority every year, and many receive some form of compensation. Staff at British travel company Thomson Holidays are used to dealing with requests for compensation following poor weather, cancelled flights and lost luggage, but one spokesman revealed, “We recently had a claim from someone who said their holiday was ruined because they didn’t get on with their travelling companion.
| A．Not everyone takes it for granted to ask for compensation for physical injuries. |
| B．And it’s not the only claim for physical injuries that are keeping the lawyers busy. |
| C．And we regularly get complaints from holidaymakers travelling abroad who say the locals don’t speak English! |
| D．Others would say that it’s good to see the law taking the side of the individual against the big corporations, for a change. |
| E．It’s difficult for the British Tourist Authority to settle the complaints. |
| F．But a few months later, she was $780,000 richer after successfully suing (起诉) the shop. |
It is a common sight on campus or in the streets: a young person rides by on an electric scooter, traveling quickly and proudly. But Beijing’s traffic authorities have said that starting on Sept.5, people who are caught riding electric scooters on public roads or bicycle lanes will be fined 10 yuan. They will also be given a warning not to use the vehicles on public roads again.
The announcement was made after traffic police in Shanghai started a campaign to get electric scooters off public roads, with police officers stopping riders because the scooters could cause traffic problems.
The Beijing Consumer Association said it had tested more than 20 electric scooters of different brands recently and found that most had substandard brakes. It added that 16 of the tested scooters could go faster than the maximum 20 km per hour set for electric bikes. According to the traffic police, people who ride electric scooters at certain speeds can easily bump into the vehicles in the vehicle lane and hurt people who walk in the bicycle lanes.
But seeing the benefits that electric scooters have brought to young people, experts are worried that the ban may take effect slowly.
Electric scooters are a great answer to the ‘last mile problem’ of getting from a public transport station to one’s home. They’re light enough to throw over your shoulder. They’re easy to ride just about anywhere and don’t need a lot of physical effort. The scooter can travel 25 km on one charge. It’s convenient and easy to control.
They are also good for environment. Unlike cars and buses, electric scooters produce no carbon dioxide, need no fuel and make almost no noise.
For many young people, they use them to copy cool celebrities they have seen in videos.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Enough ＂meaningless drivel＂. That’s the message from a group of members of the UK government who have been examining how social media firms like LinkedIn gather and use social media data.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s report, released last week, has blamed firms for making people sign up to long incomprehensible legal contracts and calls for an international standard or kitemark (认证标记) to identify sites that have clear terms and conditions.
＂The term and conditions statement that we all carelessly agree to is meaningless drivel to anyone,＂ says Andrew Miller, the chair of the committee. Instead, he says, firms should provide a plain-English version of their terms. The simplified version would be checked by a third party and awarded a kitemark if it is an accurate reflection of the original.
It is not yet clear who would administer the scheme, but the UK government is looking at introducing it on a voluntary basis. ＂we need to think through how we make that work in practice,＂ says Miller.
Would we pay any more attention to a kitemark? ＂I think if you went and did the survey, people would like to think they would,＂ says Nigel Shadbolt at the University of Southampton, UK, who studies open data. ＂We do know people worry a lot about the inappropriate use of their information.＂ But what would happen in practice is another matter, he says.
Other organisations such as banks ask customers to sign long contracts they may not read or understand, but Miller believes social media requires special attention because it is so new. ＂We still don’t know how significant the long-term impact is going to be of unwise things that kids put on social media that come back and bite them in 20 years’ time,＂ he says.
Shadbolt, who gave evidence to the committee, says the problem is that we don’t know how companies will use our data because their business models and uses of data are still evolving. Large collections of personal information have become valuable only recently, he says.
The shock and anger when a social media firm does something with data that people don’t expect, even if users have apparently permission, show that the current situation isn’t working. If properly administered, a kitemark on terms and conditions could help people know what exactly they are signing up to. Although they would still have to actually read them.
1. What does the phrase ＂ meaningless drivel＂ in paragraphs 1 and 3 refer to?
| A．Legal contracts that social media firms make people sign up to. |
| B．Warnings from the UK government against unsafe websites. |
| C．Guidelines on how to use social media websites properly. |
| D．Insignificant data collected by social media firms. |
| A．social media firms would conduct a survey on the kitemark scheme |
| B．people would pay as much attention to a kitemark as they think |
| C．a kitemark scheme would be workable on a nationwide scale |
| D．the kitemark would help companies develop their business models |
| A．their users consist largely of kids under 20 years old |
| B．the language in their contracts is usually harder to understand |
| C．the information they collected could become more valuable in future |
| D．it remains unknown how users’ data will be taken advantage of |
| A．think carefully before posting anything onto such websites |
| B．read the terms and conditions even if there is a kitemark |
| C．take no further action if they can find a kitemark |
| D．avoid providing too much personal information |
| A．Say no to social media? |
| B．New security rules in operation? |
| C．Accept without reading? |
| D．Administration matters! |
