Category Archives: Discrimination

“Hope Not Hate”: A Roadmap for Navigating the Racist Backlash Against Neoliberalism

Source: Kate Aronoff, In These Times, December 20, 2016

Anti-fascist organizing in post-Brexit Britain offers lessons for Trump’s America. ….

….For months, organizers in Britain have been grappling with questions their U.S. counterparts are now facing. What does defending those communities most vulnerable to xenophobic attacks entail, and what does bringing those same communities into the ground-floor of a multi-racial movement-building strategy look like? Why are progressive organizations—most housed in major cities—so out of touch with voters who feel the economy has left them behind? And how can movements honor feelings of voicelessness and economic pain while excising white supremacy? What does taking back power look like?….

How ancient wisdom can help managers give their employees better feedback

Source: Khatera Sahibzada, The Conversation, December 19, 2016

Giving feedback is unquestionably one of the most challenging tasks for any leader, as it can be painful to both the giver and receiver. It is nonetheless invaluable: Research has shown that employees recognize the importance of feedback – whether positive or negative – to their career development.

Many even welcome it, provided it’s given well. One study of nearly a thousand employees both in the U.S. and abroad found that 92 percent believed that negative feedback is effective at improving performance – “if delivered appropriately.”….

….In another example, a study conducted at New York University found that men and women received different evaluations after demonstrating the same altruistic behavior, such as volunteering to help a co-worker who was in a bind even though the employee would end up being late for another co-worker’s party.

The employees were then given performance evaluations and reward recommendations – that is whether they should get salary increases, promotions, high-profile projects or bonus pay. Women were consistently evaluated more harshly than their male counterparts and were penalized to a greater degree if they were unwilling to help…..

New reports document link between Trump election, hate incidents

Source: Rebekah Barber, Facing South, December 1, 2016

This week the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) released two reports documenting the correlation between hate incidents and President-elect Donald Trump’s win on Nov. 8. The reports shows that racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic people nationwide have been emboldened by Trump’s win and the divisive campaign he led…..
Related:
Ten Days After: Harassment and Intimidation in the Aftermath of the Election
Source: Southern Poverty Law Center, November 29, 2016

The Trump Effect: The Impact of The 2016 Presidential Election on Our Nation’s Schools
Source: Southern Poverty Law Center, November 28, 2016

The Shifting Sands of Employment Discrimination: From Unjustified Impact to Disparate Treatment in Pregnancy and Pay

Source: Deborah L. Brake, University of Pittsburgh – School of Law, University of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-36, December 13, 2016

From the abstract:
In 2015, the Supreme Court decided its first major pregnancy discrimination case in nearly a quarter century. The Court’s decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., made a startling move: despite over four decades of Supreme Court case law roping off disparate treatment and disparate impact into discrete and separate categories, the Court crafted a pregnancy discrimination claim that permits an unjustified impact on pregnant workers to support the inference of discriminatory intent necessary to prevail on a disparate treatment claim. The decision cuts against the grain of established employment discrimination law by blurring the impact/treatment boundary and relaxing the strictness of the similarity required between comparators in order to establish discriminatory intent. This article situates the newly-minted pregnancy discrimination claim in Young against the backdrop of employment discrimination law generally and argues that the Court’s hybrid treatment-by-impact claim is in good company with other outlier cases in which courts blur the boundaries of the impact/treatment line. The article defends the use of unjustified impact to prove pregnancy discrimination as well-designed to reach the kind of implicit bias against pregnant workers that often underlies employer refusals to extend accommodations to pregnant workers. While Young is not likely to prompt an earthquake in employment discrimination doctrine, this article identifies and defends a parallel development in the law governing pay discrimination that similarly incorporates unjustified impact into a disparate treatment framework. This move has already begun in some lower courts and is a central feature of the primary focal point of legislative reform, the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act. As is the case with pregnancy discrimination, pay discrimination largely stems from implicit judgments devaluing women as workers rather than conscious decisions to disfavor women because of their sex. Importing the Young theory of unjustified impact into the pay claim is necessary to make it a more viable tool for reaching the kind of bias that manifests as pay discrimination in the modern workforce. The insights developed in this article from exploring the theory and doctrine in Young provide support for the parallel development that is on the cusp of taking hold in the equal pay claim. The article concludes with some thoughts about why, given the malleability in fact, if not in judicial rhetoric, of the treatment and impact categories, disparate treatment provides the preferable grounding for these developments. Doctrinal advantages aside, the disparate treatment framing of pregnancy and pay discrimination claims best resonates with the social movement work of contesting the gender ideologies at the heart of these injustices.

Hate Index: Tracking the Toll of Intolerance Post-Election 2016

Source: City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism, 2016

What is The Hate Index?
The Hate Index represents a journalistic effort to chronicle hate crimes and other acts of intolerance since the Nov. 8, 2016 Presidential Election victory of Republicans Donald Trump and Mike Pence over Democrats Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine.

The idea is to tally as many verifiable incidents as possible, and create an easily searchable data base that lets users slice and dice the data points (e.g. location, type of incident, etc.) in various ways.

Who is behind The Hate Index?
The Hate Index is a faculty-led product of the City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism’s NYCity News Service. Our volunteer crew consists primarily of students, staff and faculty members.

#Libraries4Blacklives

Source: Libraries 4 Black Lives, 2016

Recent events have highlighted the undeniable travesty of systemic racism in America. This “call to action” unifies library efforts and demonstrates our unequivocal professional commitment to social justice and equity. We publicly affirm our support for the Movement for Black Lives and we commit to deepening racial equity work in our institutions and communities. Join the call for #FreedomNow. Help define the role libraries can play.

Why Can’t We Stop Sexual Harassment at Work?

Source: Claire Suddath, Bloomberg Businessweek, November 28, 2016

f you run a company in California, you have to take state-mandated anti-harassment training every two years. This October, Matt MacInnis, founder of a digital distribution business called Inkling, clicked through two hours’ worth of slides about inappropriate touching and sexual comments in an online course produced by an HR services company. As he answered multiple-choice questions to prove he’d paid attention, a thought occurred to him: This is a farce. MacInnis couldn’t see how an online training course would keep “an a–hole from still being an a–hole,” as he puts it. “There is a laudable goal, but the way we address sexual harassment now, the whole system is flawed,” he says. “I mean, is there anti-murder training?”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which by law must investigate all federal harassment claims before they can proceed in court, received 13,000 sexual-harassment complaints last year (16 percent of them from men), outpacing the number it received for racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination. “We by no means think that’s the extent of the harassment,” says Peggy Mastroianni, the organization’s legal counsel. She estimates that as many as 90 percent of people who experience sexually inappropriate behavior at work never take formal action. Many who do are contractually obligated to litigate through private arbitration, which the EEOC can’t track. But decades of surveys show that harassment remains prevalent: In a 1981 Harvard Business Review survey, 60 percent of women said they’d been “eyed up and down” by male co-workers; last year the EEOC reported that somewhere from 50 percent to 75 percent of women have experienced sexual comments or touches that made them feel uneasy at work.

For more than three decades, U.S. companies and institutions have addressed such behavior through corporate policies and awareness programs, although there’s little evidence they’re effective…..

Related:
Nine Women Talk About On-the-Job Harassment

Sexual Orientation in the Labor Market

Source: Trenton D. Mize, American Sociological Review, Published online before print November 15, 2016
(subscription required)

From the abstract:
Most analyses of sexual orientation and earnings find that gay men face a wage gap, whereas lesbian women earn higher wages than similar heterosexual women. However, analyses rarely consider bisexual men and women as a unique group separate from other sexual minorities. I argue that such binary views of sexual orientation—treating sexual minorities as a homogenous non-heterosexual group—have obscured understandings of the impact of sexual orientation on labor market outcomes. Specifically, I predict that unequal outcomes for gay men and lesbian women are partly due to the influence of family arrangements and their effects on earnings. In contrast, I argue that bisexual men and women should be the most disadvantaged in the labor market, due to particularly disadvantaging stereotypes, perceptions of choice to their sexual orientation, and prejudicial treatment. Using data from the General Social Survey (N = 13,554) and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (N = 14,714), I show that family arrangements explain some of the observed earnings differentials for gay men and lesbian women. Bisexual men and women, in contrast, face wage penalties that are not explained by human capital differences or occupational characteristics. Perceptions of prejudicial treatment partially explain the observed wage gaps.

Voter Suppression Laws Cost Americans Their Voices at the Polls

Source: Liz Kennedy, Center for American Progress, November 11, 2016

From the summary:
The integrity of U.S. elections depends on every eligible American being able to cast a vote that is counted. Yet this year, the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protection of the Voting Rights Act, many Americans across the country were blocked from having their voices heard in the democratic process….