Discrimination
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2008) |
 |
This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
|
Discrimination toward or against a person or group is the prejudicial treatment of them based on certain characteristics. It can be positive behavior directed towards a certain group (e.g. affirmative action), or it can be negative behavior directed against a certain group (e.g. redlining). The latter is the more common meaning.
|
|
Unlawful discrimination can be characterized as direct or subtle. Direct discrimination involves treating someone less favorably because of their possession of an attribute (e.g., sex, age, race, religion, family status, national origin, military status, sexual orientation, disability, body size/shape), compared with someone without that attribute in the same circumstances.
An example of direct discrimination would be not offering a job to a woman because she is likely to take maternity leave whereas a man is not. Indirect or subtle discrimination involves setting a condition or requirement which a smaller proportion of those with the attribute are able to comply with, without reasonable justification. The U.S. case of Griggs v. Duke Power Company[2] provides an example of indirect discrimination, where an aptitude test used in job applications was found "to disqualify Negroes at a substantially higher rate than white applicants".[1]
Racial discrimination differentiates between individuals on the basis of real and perceived racial differences, and has been official government policy in several countries, such as South Africa in the apartheid era, and the USA.
In the United States, racial profiling of minorities by law enforcement officials has been called racial discrimination.[2] As early as 1865, the Civil Rights Act provided a remedy for intentional race discrimination in employment by private employers and state and local public employers. The Civil Rights Act of 1871 applies to public employment or employment involving state action prohibiting deprivation of rights secured by the federal constitution or federal laws through action under color of law. Title VII is the principal federal statute with regard to employment discrimination prohibiting unlawful employment discrimination by public and private employers, labor organizations, training programs and employment agencies based on race or color, religion, gender, and national origin.
Title VII also prohibits retaliation against any person for opposing any practice forbidden by statute, or for making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in a proceeding under the statute. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 expanded the damages available in Title VII cases and granted Title VII plaintiffs the right to a jury trial. Title VII also provides that race and color discrimination against every race and color is prohibited.
In the UK the inquiry following the murder of Stephen Lawrence accused the police of institutional racism.
- Weaver v NATFHE (now part of the UCU) Race/sex discrimination case. An Industrial (Employment) Tribunal in the UK in 1987 decided that a trade union was justified in not assisting a Black woman member, complaining of racist/sexist harassment, regardless of the merits of the case, because the accused male would lose his job. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision, which still stands today as the definitive legal precedent in this field. Also known as the Bournville College Racial Harassment issue.
Age discrimination is or group on the grounds of age. Although theoretically the word can refer to the discrimination against any age group, age discrimination usually comes in one of three forms: discrimination against youth (also called adultism), discrimination against those 40 years old or older [3], and discrimination against elderly people.
In the United States, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits employment discrimination nationwide based on age with respect to employees 40 years of age or older. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act also addresses the difficulty older workers face in obtaining new employment after being displaced from their jobs, arbitrary age limits.
In many countries, companies more or less openly refuse to hire people above a certain age despite the increasing lifespans and average age of the population. The reasons for this range from vague feelings that younger people are more "dynamic" and create a positive image for the company, to more concrete concerns about regulations granting older employees higher salaries or other benefits without these expenses being fully justified by an older employees' greater experience.
Some people consider that teenagers and youth (around 15-25 years old) are victims of adultism, age discrimination framed as a paternalistic form of protection. In seeking social justice, they feel that it is necessary to remove the use of a false moral agenda in order to achieve agency and empowerment.
This perspective is based on the grounds that youth should be treated more respectfully by adults and not as second-class citizens. Some suggest that social stratification in age groups causes outsiders to incorrectly stereotype and generalize the group, for instance that all adolescents are equally immature, violent or rebellious, listen to rock tunes, and do drugs. Some have organized groups against age discrimination.
Ageism is the causal effect of a continuum of fears related to age.[citation needed] This continuum includes:
- Pediaphobia: the fear of infants or small children.
- Ephebiphobia: the fear of youth.
- Gerontophobia: the fear of elderly people.
Related terms include:
- Adultism: Also called adultarchy, adult privilege, and adultcentrism/adultocentrism, this is the wielding of authority over young people and the preference of adults before children and youth.
- Jeunism: Also called "youthism" is the holding of beliefs or actions taken that preference 'younger' people before adults.
- See also: Sexism
Though gender discrimination and sexism refers to beliefs and attitudes in relation to the gender of a person, such beliefs and attitudes are of a social nature and do not, normally, carry any legal consequences. Sex discrimination, on the other hand, may have legal consequences.
Though what constitutes sex discrimination varies between countries, the essence is that it is an adverse action taken by one person against another person that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. Discrimination of that nature in certain enumerated circumstances is illegal in many countries.
Currently, discrimination based on sex is defined as adverse action against another person, that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. This is considered a form of prejudice and is illegal in certain enumerated circumstances in most countries.
Sexual discrimination can arise in different contexts. For instance an employee may be discriminated against by being asked discriminatory questions during a job interview, or because an employer did not hire, promote or wrongfully terminated an employee based on his or her gender, or employers pay unequally based on gender.
In an educational setting there could be claims that a student was excluded from an educational institution, program, opportunity, loan, student group, or scholarship due to his or her gender. In the housing setting there could be claims that a person was refused negotiations on seeking a house, contracting/leasing a house or getting a loan based on his or her gender. Another setting where there have been claims of gender discrimination is banking; for example if one is refused credit or is offered unequal loan terms based on one’s gender.[3]
Another setting where there is usually gender discrimination is when one is refused to extend his or her credit, refused approval of credit/loan process, and if there is a burden of unequal loan terms based on one’s gender.
Socially, sexual differences have been used to justify different roles for men and women, in some cases giving rise to claims of primary and secondary roles.[4]
While there are alleged non-physical differences between men and women, major reviews of the academic literature on gender difference find only a tiny minority of characteristics where there are consistent psychological differences between men and women, and these relate directly to experiences grounded in biological difference.[5]
Unfair discrimination usually follows the gender stereotyping held by a society.
The United Nations had concluded that women often experience a "glass ceiling" and that there are no societies in which women enjoy the same opportunities as men. The term "glass ceiling" is used to describe a perceived barrier to advancement in employment based on discrimination, especially sex discrimination.
In the United States, the Glass Ceiling Commission, a government-funded group, stated: "Over half of all Master’s degrees are now awarded to women, yet 95% of senior-level managers, of the top Fortune 1000 industrial and 500 service companies are men. Of them, 97% are white." In its report, it recommended affirmative action, which is the consideration of an employee's gender and race in hiring and promotion decisions, as a means to end this form of discrimination.[6]
A counter-perspective is presented in the work of Warren Farrell[7] and Rory Ridley-Duff[8]. Farrell argues that men are subject to a "lace curtain" in areas of publishing and the media, and that studies into equal pay ignore the risque professions where women receive much higher pay than men (such as cocktail waitressing in private clubs, pornographic modelling, lap-dancing and prostitution).
Moreover, Farrell's 2005 work on the pay gap found that women are paid higher starting salaries in 80 of 250 professions. While he acknowledges men in full-time work are paid more than women in full-time work, he also finds that women in part-time work are paid more than men in part-time work. The pay gap, therefore, is complex with each sex dominating the 'best' jobs in work areas it most common seeks out[9]. Ridley-Duff, on the other hand, tracks the power dynamics that lead to men handling the majority of conflicts in society, and provides a case study of women inducing men to protect their interests, thereby exercising power to delegate tasks but simultaneously creating the glass ceiling.[10].
Taken together these authors argue that sex discrimination applies to both women and men in different arenas of social life (against women in areas of pay, career choice and full-time work, and against men in family life, occupational risk and part-time work).[11][12].
Transgender individuals, both male to female and female to male, often experience problems which often lead to dismissals, underachievement, difficulty in finding a job, social isolation, and, occasionally, violent attacks against them.
- Sex Discrimination Ordinance (1996)
- Equal Pay Act 1970 - provides for equal pay for comparable work
- Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - makes discrimination against women or men, including discrimination on the grounds of marital status, illegal in the workplace
- Human Rights Act 1998 - provides more scope for redressing all forms of discriminatory imbalances
- Equal Pay Act of 1963[4] - (part of the Fair Labor Standards Act) - prohibits wage discrimination by employers and labor organizations based on sex
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[5] - broadly prohibits discrimination in the workplace including hiring, firing, workforce reduction, benefits, and sexually harassing conduct
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - covers discrimination based upon pregnancy in the workplace[13]
According to UNICEF and Human Rights Watch, caste discrimination affects an estimated 250 million people worldwide.[14][15][16]
The American federal laws that protect against:
- race, color and national origin discrimination include the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order Number 11478 among other numerous laws that protect people from race, color and national origin discrimination.
- sex and gender discrimination include the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Equal Pay Act of 1963.
- age discrimination include the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
- physical and mental disability discrimination include the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
- religious discriminationinclude the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- military status discrimination include the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
- An example of employment discrimination
Most other western nations have similar laws protecting these groups.
Diversity of language is protected and respected by most nations who value cultural diversity. However, people are sometimes subjected to different treatment because their preferred language is associated with a particular group, class or category. Commonly, the preferred language is just another attribute of separate ethnic groups. Discrimination exists if there is prejudicial treatment against a person or a group of people who speak a particular language or dialect. Language discrimination is suggested to be labeled Linguacism or logocism.
Reverse discrimination is a common term used to describe policies or acts that discriminate in favor of a group historically discriminated against (e.g. women, blacks, Hispanics, the disabled, people over 40 years of age, etc). Most academic and expert opponents of preferential policies that favor historically-discriminated groups, such as Carl Cohen, avoid the term "reverse discrimination" on the grounds that "discrimination is discrimination" and that the label "reverse" is a misnomer. Groups such as the American Civil Rights Institute, run by Ward Connerly, have opted for the more politically correct and less politically charged terms such as "race preference," "gender preference," or "preferential treatment" generally, esp since these terms are contained and defined within existing civil rights law, such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In this vein, Ward Connerly has promoted and won a series of ballot initiatives in the states of California (California Proposition 209 (1996)), Washington (1998 - I-200), and Michigan (the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative - MCRI, or Proposal 2, 2006). California's initiative was co-authored by academics Tom Wood and Glynn Custred in the mid-1990s and was taken up by Connerly after he was appointed in 1994 by Governor Pete Wilson to the University of California Board of Regents.
Each of the ballot initiatives have won, and Connerly plans what he calls a "Super-Tuesday" of five additional states in 2008. The language of these ballot initiatives all use the terms "preferential treatment" as their operative clauses.
Arguments abound on all sides of this highly sensitive issue. Some argue that while affirmative action often has ended up as a reverse discrimination quota system for companies, this was and is necessary to compensate for historical discrimination against (for example) minorities and women and allow them to become a large part of the mainstream work force.
Others argue that this is a highly outdated idea given that such groups now ARE very much in the mainstream, and, along with the quantum change in attitudes about such groups over the last few decades, is an idea whose time has long since passed and now only promotes the very thing it was created to combat (discrimination).
Academics such as Cohen, who was a supporter of Michigan's Proposal 2, have argued that the term "affirmative action" should be defined differently than "race preference," and that while socio-economically based or anti-discrimination types of affirmative action should be permissible, those that give preference to individuals solely based on their race or gender should not be permitted.
Cohen also helped find evidence in 1996 through the Freedom of Information Act that lead to the cases filed by Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter against the University of Michigan for its undergraduate and law admissions policy - cases which were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2003.
Bloggers and internet resources against preferential types of affirmative action include John Rosenberg's Discriminations, Tim Fay's Adversity.net, and Chetly Zarko's Power, Politics, & Money.
 |
Please help improve this section by expanding it with: further examples of disability discrimination. Further information might be found on the talk page. (June 2007) |
People with disabilities face discrimination in all levels of society. The attitude that disabled individuals are inferior to non-disabled individuals is called "ableism".
Chronic pain is a debilitating condition which is often neglected in modern society. According to the American Chiropractic Association, over 50% of all working US citizens complain of back pain each year. An estimated 80% of the population will experience back pain at some point in their life. Many times pain can become chronic and debilitating.
Ergonomic seating and work environments are not only be a reasonable accommodation for those who suffer, they are also a preventative measure to counteract the soaring cost of medical treatment for pain conditions. Ergonomic seating in all public institutions would be a positive step to providing access to public services for all those who need it.
In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act provides guidelines for providing wheelchair access for public institutions, but ergonomic devices for those who suffer from pain are something that has yet to be implemented. This is just one of many accessibility issues still faced by disabled individuals.
Disabled people may also face discrimination by employers. They may find problems with securing employment as their handicap can be seen as a risk to the company, and once in employment they may find they are overlooked for promotion opportunities. Similarly, if an employee becomes disabled while employed they may also find themselves being managed out the company by HR departments.
Unsympathetic employers can make life very difficult for such employees and can often make their health problems worse. Disability discrimination laws mean that in theory the employee has a method of redress in such instances.
Almost every person with a syndrome is discriminated. They may not be able to join organizations, and they may even be neglected by schools and other public utilities.
Social theories such as Egalitarianism claim that social equality should prevail. In some societies, including most developed countries, each individual's civil rights include the right to be free from government sponsored social discrimination.[17] Taking into account the capacity to perceive pain and/or suffering that all animals have, 'abolitionist' or 'vegan' egalitarianism maintains that every individual, regardless their species, should have at least the basic right not to be an object.[citation needed] See also speciesism.
In contrast, conservative writer and law professor Matthias Storme has claimed that the freedom of discrimination in human societies is a fundamental human right, or more precisely, the basis of all fundamental freedoms and therefore the most fundamental freedom. Author Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in an essay[18] about his book Democracy: The God That Failed, asserts that a natural social order is characterized by increased discrimination.
- Adultism
- Ableism
- Apartheid
- Allport's scale
- Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
- Atheism
- Classism
- Anti-discrimination law
- Eagle feather law
- Economic discrimination
- English-only movement
- Homophobia
- Institutionalized discrimination
- Lookism
- Police Brutality
- Heightism
- Racism
- Sexism
- Speciesism
- Anthropocentrism
- Second-class citizen
- State racism
- Racial segregation
- List of anti-discrimination acts
- Equal opportunity
- Egalitarianism
- Affirmative action
- Reverse discrimination
- Equal rights
- Social issues
- Intercultural competence
- Neurodiversity
- Genetic discrimination
- Public international law
- ^ Kirton, G. & Green. A. (2004) The Dynamics of Managing Diversity, Butterworth-Heinemann (2nd Edition).
- ^ Callahan, Gene; Anderson, William (2001 August-September >?). "The Roots of Racial Profiling", Reason Online, Reason Foundation. Retrieved on 27 July 2006.
- ^ Wilson, F. (2003) Organizational Behaviour and Gender (2nd Edition), Aldershot: Ashgate.
- ^ Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2008) "Gendering, Courtship and Pay Equity: Developing Attraction Theory to Understand Work-Life Balance and Entrepreneurial Behaviour", paper to the 31st ISBE Conference, 5th-7th November, Belfast
- ^ Hyde, J. S. (2005) “The Gender Similarities Hypothesis”, American Psychologist, 60(6): 581 592.
- ^ "A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital" (1995-11). Retrieved on 2008-05-23.
- ^ Farrell, W. (1994) The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex, London: Fourth Estate.
- ^ Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2007) Emotion, Seduction and Intimacy: Alternative Perspectives on Organisation Behaviour, Bracknell: Men's Hour Books, ISBN 978-0975430019
- ^ Farrell, W. (2005) Why Men Earn More, New York: Amacom.
- ^ Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2005) "Interpersonal Dynamics: A Communitarian Perspective", paper to the 1st ENROAC-MCA Conference 7th-9th April, Antwerp This peer-reviewed conference paper is available from the Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive.
- ^ Farrell, W. (2000) Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say: Destroying Myths, Creating Love, New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam.
- ^ Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2008) "Gendering, Courtship and Pay Equity: Developing Attraction Theory to Understand Work-Life Balance and Entrepreneurial Behaviour", paper to the 31st ISBE Conference, 5th-7th November, Belfast
- ^ "Pregnancy Discrimination Act". Retrieved on 2008-05-14.
- ^ Discrimination, UNICEF
- ^ Global Caste Discrimination
- ^ Caste - The Facts
- ^ "Civil rights". Retrieved on 2006.bbb;
- ^ [1]Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (2001). "Democracy: The God That Failed". Retrieved on 2006.
- Discrimination.com
- Transgender Workplace Diversity blog
- Discriminations blog
- Discrimination in the Czech Republic: When A Bookseller Prefers Older To Younger
- Project Lookism
- [6] Facial Discrimination
- Legal definitions
- Employment Discrimination Laws in the United States
- Discrimination Laws in Europe
- American Pictures
