Source: Robert K. Robinson, Ph.D., SPHR, Geralyn McClure Franklin, Ph.D., and Karen Epermanis, Ph.D., Public Personnel Management, Volume 36, No. 1, Spring 2007
On June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a five to four decision, substantially altered the nature of state imposed affirmative action permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it held that diversity could serve as a compelling government interest, thus justifying public sector preferential programs. Though this ruling pertained specifically to race-based preferential university admissions, it is likely to have wide ranging implications for all public sector affirmative action programs. One implication may include making it easier to justify state initiated affirmative action by diminishing the requirement to demonstrate the remedial motive behind such action. This article discusses the impact that the Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger decisions are likely to have on preferential admissions policies in public higher education.
Source: Nina Williams-Mbengue and Steve Christian, State Legislatures, Vol. 33 no. 4, April 2007
Legislators are seeking answers to difficult questions about race and child welfare.
Thirty-three percent of kids in foster care are African American, but they make up only 15 percent of the child population. Yet federal studies indicate that child abuse and neglect is actually lower for black families than it is for whites.
Source: Victor Narro, Kent Wong, and Janna Shadduck-Hernández, New Labor Forum, Vol. 16 no. 1, Winter 2007
For three months between March 10 and May 1, 2006, five million mostly Latino Immigrants and their supporters demonstrated in over one hundred cities throughout the United States. The marches and rallies demanded full rights for immigrants, and opposed the anti-immigrant legislation pending in Congress. Immigrant families – women and men, grandparents and grandchildren – came out of the shadows of society to demand justice and equality.
Source: Steven Pitts, New Labor Forum, Vol. 16 no. 1, Winter 2007
Thirty-five years after the end of the modern civil rights movement and the end of legal segregation, the United States still has a blind spot which renders invisible the impact of institutional racism on black life. In the arena of employment, this blind spot results in the limited view of the job crisis in the Black community – a view which focuses exclusively on unemployment. Just as white supremacy is rarely seen as a constituent aspect of U.S society, the plight of low-wage Black workers is rarely seen. The racism which only sees two segments of Black society – the elite who have made it and the “underclass” who has not – also keeps Blacks who toil in bad jobs in the shadows. This limited view results in a set of policies and programs which are ill equipped to address the complexities surrounding the reality of work facing Black Americans.
Source: Joshua Green, The Atlantic, Vol. 299 no. 2, March 2007
The software mogul Tim Gill has a mission: Stop the Rick Santorums of tomorrow before they get started. How a network of gay political donors is stealthily fighting sexual discrimination and reshaping American politics.
Source: Sally Coleman Selden, Public Administration Review, November/December 2006, Vol. 66 no. 6
Since the arrival of equal opportunity and affirmative action in the 1960s, government employment has become a major force for social mobility among disadvantaged groups and had made the public workforce more broadly representative of the population at large. Is a representative workforce still necessary to ensure equitable outcomes? Alternatively, have societal attitudes changed sufficiently that a competent workforce – assembled on the basis of merit alone, irrespective of race, ethnicity, or gender – is capable of ensuring desired policy outcomes?
Source: Mohamad G. Alkadry and Leslie E. Tower, Public Administration Review, November/December 2006, Vol. 66 no. 6
This essay, reporting on the results of a large-scale nationwide survey of public employees, detects a persistent gender bias in government wages despite applicable antibias statutes, considerable advocacy by interest groups, and alleged social change over the last 30 years. A complex mix of factors contributes to this inequity, including glass ceilings, labor segregation, and shorter job tenure, presumably to fulfill traditional female family roles. So what can be done about such wage disparities based on gender?