Antidiscrimination - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Antidiscrimination

The Experts below are selected from a list of 4383 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Marieka Klawitter – 1st expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • multilevel analysis of the effects of Antidiscrimination policies on earnings by sexual orientation
    Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2011
    Co-Authors: Marieka Klawitter

    Abstract:

    This study uses the 2000 U.S. Census data to assess the impact of Antidiscrimination policies for sexual orientation on earnings for gays and lesbians. Using a multilevel model allows estimation of the effects of state and local policies on earnings and of variation in the effects of sexual orientation across local labor markets. The results suggest that gay men face an earnings penalty that varies significantly (though not sizably) across local areas, and that state Antidiscrimination policies may decrease that penalty in private sector employment. There is, however, no evidence that lesbians in any sector average higher earnings or wages in areas with Antidiscrimination policies. The strongest evidence of effects for Antidiscrimination policies is for weeks of employment and for gay men who are in the private sector, white, and in the upper half of the earnings distribution. © 2011 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

  • the effects of state and local Antidiscrimination policies on earnings for gays and lesbians
    Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1998
    Co-Authors: Marieka Klawitter, Victor Byers Flatt

    Abstract:

    In the last 25 years, many cities and counties, as well as a few states, have adopted policies that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in private or public employment. These policies may increase earnings for gays and lesbians by decreasing discrimination in hiring, firing, promotion, or pay. This study uses data from the 1990 U.S. census to estimate the effects of these policies on individual earnings and household income. The results suggest that the policies have been adopted in places with higher earnings and that same-sex couples are more likely to live in areas that have adopted policies. However, after controlling for individual and location characteristics, the results show no evidence of a direct effect of Antidiscrimination policies on average earnings or income for members of same-sex couples. Antidiscrimination policies may be more important both for a small number of individuals and as symbols of full citizenship and legitimacy for gays and lesbians.

  • spatial and temporal diffusion of local Antidiscrimination policies for sexual orientation
    , 1998
    Co-Authors: Marieka Klawitter, B Hammer

    Abstract:

    In 1972 East Lansing Michigan adopted the first public policy banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Since then hundreds of cities and counties and a few states have followed suit. These laws and policies have banned discrimination in private employment government employment housing public accommodations education and credit. Recent federal attention focused on these policies as the Supreme Court ruled that states could not selectively ban local governments from adopting sexual orientation protections (Romer v. Evans 1996) and the U.S. Senate turned down a federal Antidiscrimination policy by one vote (Employment Nondiscrimination Act vote 1996). This paper tells the story of the diffusion over time and space of local Antidiscrimination policies for sexual orientation. Over time the rate of new adoptions could be influenced by previous adoptions or by changes in public opinion or political conditions. Neighboring jurisdictions may influence adoptions because policy-makers or citizens learn about policies from near-by jurisdictions or because political interest group organization efforts spill over into nearby areas. Alternatively policies may be adopted in close jurisdictions because they are similar in economic or demographic characteristics. Adoptions by encompassing jurisdictions could dampen the demand for local policies. Previous research has investigated the effects of political and demographic determinants on the passage of these policies. No studies have yet investigated the geographic and temporal diffusion of the Antidiscrimination laws. (excerpt)

Samuel R Bagenstos – 2nd expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • bottlenecks and Antidiscrimination theory
    Texas Law Review, 2014
    Co-Authors: Samuel R Bagenstos

    Abstract:

    Bottlenecks and Antidiscrimination Theory BOTTLENECKS: A NEW THEORY OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. By Joseph Fishkin. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. 288 pages. $35.00.IntroductionIn American Antidiscrimination theory, two positions have competed for primacy.1 One, anticlassification, sees the proper goal of Antidiscrimination law as being essentially individualistic.2 The problem with discrimination, in this view, is that it classifies individuals on the basis of an irrelevant or arbitrary characteristic-and that it, as a result, denies them opportunities for which they are otherwise individually qualified. The other position, antisubordination, sees the proper goal of Antidiscrimination law as being more group oriented.3 The problem with discrimination, in this view, is that it helps constitute a social system in which particular groups are systematically subject to disadvantage and stigma. Anticlassification and antisubordination may provide equal support for some aspects of the Antidiscrimination project: Brown v. Board of Education4 can bear both an anticlassification and an antisubordination reading.5 Loving v. Virginia6 expressly relied on both anticlassification and antisubordination arguments.7 But on other key issues-such as disparate impact and affirmative action-advocates of anticlassification theory have squared offagainst advocates of antisubordination theory.8The stakes in the dispute between anticlassification and antisubordination thus have appeared to be quite high.9 Yet there is something that seems inadequate about both anticlassification and anti-subordination theories. Adherents to anticlassification theory have not given a good explanation for why an individualist should care about race or sex discrimination any more than discrimination based on eye color, for example. Any explanation of this difference seems necessarily to fall back on the historic wrong and continuing effects of discrimination against racial minorities and women-and the need to continue to disestablish that wrong and those effects. Anticlassification theory thus seems, at bottom, to be rooted in antisubordination-like principles.10 Antisubordination theory, by contrast, has uncomfortable overtones of group rights, which stand in tension with widespread notions of individualism and merit and which threaten to further underscore and entrench divisions based on race and sex.11 As Reva Siegel has shown, key Supreme Court Justices have responded to that threat by developing a third approach to Antidiscrimination theory; an approach she labels antibalkanization.12 But antibalkanization may be best understood as a pragmatic set of ad hoc compromises between anticlassification and antisubordination, rather than a theory on which to build Antidiscrimination law.One of the many contributions of Joey Fishkin’s impressive new book is to offer a possible way out of this morass. Professor Fishkin offers an “anti-bottleneck” theory of equal opportunity. Like anticlassification theory, Professor Fishkin’s theory is fundamentally individualistic. The theory aims to attack or mitigate the effects of practices that keep individuals from pursuing the full range of opportunities to construct and live out their lives as they choose. Professor Fishkin argues that the fundamental value served by equal opportunity is not equality so much as a form of autonomy or choice.13 He contends that we care about equal opportunity because we care about ensuring that people can, to the extent possible, be the authors of their own life stories-that they can formulate, and have means to reach, their own goals for a life well lived.14 Rather than simply redistributing resources and opportunities to equalize people’s chances of fairly competing for or obtaining a set of societally valued outcomes, Professor Fishkin argues that we should structure society so that individuals can effectively choose what sorts of lives and outcomes they value. …

  • implicit bias science and Antidiscrimination law
    Harvard Law and Policy Review, 2007
    Co-Authors: Samuel R Bagenstos

    Abstract:

    In recent years, scholars of Antidiscrimination law have increasingly come to focus on the problem of implicit or unconscious bias. They have pointed to an expanding mass of evidence from experimental psychology that appears to demonstrate the pervasiveness of unconscious bias on the basis of race, gender, and other legally salient characteristics, and that raises troubling questions about the effects of that bias on legally relevant behaviors. Now, however, the arguments for using Antidiscrimination law to respond to implicit bias face a new, more fundamental challenge. Gregory Mitchell and Philip Tetlock contend, in a recent piece, that the psychological research purporting to demonstrate the pervasiveness of implicit bias fails to satisfy key scientific tests of validity. Mitchell and Tetlock make some effective points. But this essay, which is framed as a response to their piece, contends that Mitchell and Tetlock’s argument does not at all undermine the case for taking account of implicit bias in Antidiscrimination policy. Even if one accepts every scientific critique they offer of the implicit bias literature – and there is substantial dispute within psychology on some of those critiques – the case for using the law to respond to the problem of implicit bias remains strong. In the end, many of Mitchell and Tetlock’s critiques of implicit bias research rest, not on any scientific ground, but on normative assumptions about what kinds of discrimination the law should seek to prevent and punish. Mitchell and Tetlock’s argument thus does not demonstrate the scientific weakness of implicit bias research; instead, it points the way to the normative work to which advocates of the implicit bias law-reform project must turn their attentions.

  • the structural turn and the limits of Antidiscrimination law
    California Law Review, 2006
    Co-Authors: Samuel R Bagenstos

    Abstract:

    The notion of institutional racism or sexism has been around a long time. Many of the original drafters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to address more than just discrete acts of discrimination. They sought as well to respond to what Senator Humphrey called the many impersonal institutional processes which nonetheless determine the availability of jobs for nonwhite workers, but the statute Congress ultimately enacted fell short of their hopes on that score. Hints of a structural approach to discrimination persist in the doctrine of disparate impact. But that doctrine can no longer be said to have much practical significance. In the past decade, however, a number of academics have sought to revive the structural focus urged by Senator Humphrey and the exponents of institutional racism and sexism theory. Their efforts have been fueled by three significant developments: changes in the workplace that have made traditional tools of Antidiscrimination law less effective in attacking problems of job bias; important empirical and experimental findings of social psychologists that demonstrate the persistence of (frequently unconscious or subtle) bias; and developments in regulatory theory that seem to offer a way effectively to address structural discrimination. In this paper, I examine these recent proposals for a structural employment discrimination law. But unlike much of the existing literature, my story is not an optimistic one. To the contrary, I believe that the structural turn in employment discrimination scholarship is best understood as highlighting the limits of Antidiscrimination law. Perhaps paradoxically, that is in part because I find the case for a structural approach to employment discrimination law so compelling. Unconscious bias, interacting with a changing workplace, creates equality problems that our current Antidiscrimination law is poorly suited to solving. A structural approach seems to be the best hope for addressing these problems. But there are very significant obstacles to the success of a structural approach to employment discrimination law. In the areas of the law that already seem to impose on courts the obligation to police workplace structures that might facilitate discrimination, judges have proven unwilling or unable to discharge that responsibility with rigor. The new proposals seek to sidestep that history, but they do so largely by urging deference to professional communities that are as likely to subvert as to promote norms of workplace equality. And these difficulties are mere symptoms of a deeper problem: To address structural employment discrimination issues effectively will require going beyond the generally accepted normative underpinnings of employment discrimination law. Because courts (and legislatures) are unwilling to take that step, structural discrimination advocates must proceed by indirection and seek to empower workplace constituencies that (those advocates hope) will serve the cause of equality. But unless courts have some normative idea of what workplace equality should mean, they will be unable to assure that those workplace constituencies will serve the purposes of Antidiscrimination law. Employment discrimination law thus faces a challenge: The individualistic remedies provided by existing law are no match for the problems that the new structural-discrimination literature identifies. Those problems – unconscious bias interacting with flexible workplace structures – are likely to become more and more significant as time goes on, and other structural equality problems are likely to become more significant as well. But employment discrimination law is an insufficient tool for addressing these problems.

Victor Byers Flatt – 3rd expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • the effects of state and local Antidiscrimination policies on earnings for gays and lesbians
    Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1998
    Co-Authors: Marieka Klawitter, Victor Byers Flatt

    Abstract:

    In the last 25 years, many cities and counties, as well as a few states, have adopted policies that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in private or public employment. These policies may increase earnings for gays and lesbians by decreasing discrimination in hiring, firing, promotion, or pay. This study uses data from the 1990 U.S. census to estimate the effects of these policies on individual earnings and household income. The results suggest that the policies have been adopted in places with higher earnings and that same-sex couples are more likely to live in areas that have adopted policies. However, after controlling for individual and location characteristics, the results show no evidence of a direct effect of Antidiscrimination policies on average earnings or income for members of same-sex couples. Antidiscrimination policies may be more important both for a small number of individuals and as symbols of full citizenship and legitimacy for gays and lesbians.