Boston Review
DECEMBER 2000/JANUARY 2001
Promoting diversity in education and employment requires us to rethink testing and “meritocracy.” Susan Sturm and Lani Guinier
For more than two decades, affirmative action has been under sustained assault. In courts, legislatures, and the media, opponents have condemned it as an unprincipled program of racial and gender preferences that threatens fundamental American values of fairness, equality, and democratic opportunity. Such preferences, they say, are extraordinary departures from prevailing “meritocratic” modes of selection, which they present as both fair and functional: fair, because they treat all candidates as equals; functional, because they are well suited to picking the best candidates.
This challenge to affirmative action has met with concerted response. Defenders argue that affirmative action is still needed to rectify continued exclusion and marginalization. And they marshal considerable evidence showing that conventional standards of selection exclude women and people of color, and that people who were excluded in the past do not yet operate on a level playing field. But this response has largely been reactive. Proponents typically treat affirmative action as a crucial but peripheral supplement to an essentially sound framework of selection for jobs and schools.
We think it is time to shift the terrain of debate. We need to situate the conversation about race, gender, and affirmative action in a wider account of democratic opportunity by refocusing attention from the contested periphery of the system of selection to its settled core. The present system measures merit through scores on paper-and-pencil tests. But this measure is fundamentally unfair. In the educational setting, it restricts opportunities for many poor and working-class Americans of all colors and genders who could otherwise obtain a better education. In the employment setting, it restricts access based oninadequate predictors of job performance. In short, it is neither fair nor functional in its distribution of opportunities for admission to higher education, entry-level hiring, and job promotion.
To be sure, the exclusion experienced by women and people of color is especially revealing of larger patterns. The race- and gender-based exclusions that are the target of current affirmative action policies remain the most visible examples of bias in ostensibly neutral selection processes. Objectionable in themselves, these exclusions also signal the inadequacy of traditional methods of selection for everyone, and the need to rethink how we allocate educational and employment opportunities. And that rethinking is crucial to our capacity to develop productive, fair, and efficient institutions that can meet the challenges of a rapidly changing and increasingly complex marketplace.
Full Article: http://bostonreview.net/BR25.6/sturm.php
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Compliance Pitfalls Arise in Negotiations on Starting Salaries
Workforce Management
October 2008
Under pressure to land top candidates, recruiters and hiring managers may yield to starting salary demands that touch off wage discrimination claims down the road. By Fay Hansen
A recruiter brings in a highly qualified white male candidate to interview for one of multiple openings in a hard-to-fill position.
The candidate negotiates aggressively for a starting salary that exceeds the initial offer, citing a generous total compensation package from his current employer and competing offers from other firms. The new employer caves, meets the candidate’s demands and seals the deal. The employer also hires equally qualified female and black candidates who accept the original starting salary offer without negotiating.
This scenario, played out at hundreds of companies where a particular skill set is in short supply, carries the potential for gender- and race-based wage discrimination charges. The risk of charges stemming from starting salary disparities or reaching back to those disparities is rising as the economic downturn deepens, new legislation moves through Congress and the federal enforcement agencies respond to a recent government report that calls for greater scrutiny of pay practices.
The current economic downturn sharpened just as the Government Accountability Office released a report in August that strongly recommends greater equal-pay enforcement actions by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Sponsors of several bills pending in Congress seized on the GAO report to renew their calls for the Senate to pass new bills on pay discrimination that have already cleared the House.
These bills include provisions that increase penalties for Equal Pay Act violations, prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information and extend the time frame for filing wage discrimination charges. The extended time frame will facilitate efforts by the enforcement agencies and the courts to reach back into starting salary data for evidence of discrimination. In addition, reinforcing the right to discuss salary information may increase pay comparisons and bring more starting salary disparities to light.
Full Article: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/25/83/63/index.php
October 2008
Under pressure to land top candidates, recruiters and hiring managers may yield to starting salary demands that touch off wage discrimination claims down the road. By Fay Hansen
A recruiter brings in a highly qualified white male candidate to interview for one of multiple openings in a hard-to-fill position.
The candidate negotiates aggressively for a starting salary that exceeds the initial offer, citing a generous total compensation package from his current employer and competing offers from other firms. The new employer caves, meets the candidate’s demands and seals the deal. The employer also hires equally qualified female and black candidates who accept the original starting salary offer without negotiating.
This scenario, played out at hundreds of companies where a particular skill set is in short supply, carries the potential for gender- and race-based wage discrimination charges. The risk of charges stemming from starting salary disparities or reaching back to those disparities is rising as the economic downturn deepens, new legislation moves through Congress and the federal enforcement agencies respond to a recent government report that calls for greater scrutiny of pay practices.
The current economic downturn sharpened just as the Government Accountability Office released a report in August that strongly recommends greater equal-pay enforcement actions by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Sponsors of several bills pending in Congress seized on the GAO report to renew their calls for the Senate to pass new bills on pay discrimination that have already cleared the House.
These bills include provisions that increase penalties for Equal Pay Act violations, prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information and extend the time frame for filing wage discrimination charges. The extended time frame will facilitate efforts by the enforcement agencies and the courts to reach back into starting salary data for evidence of discrimination. In addition, reinforcing the right to discuss salary information may increase pay comparisons and bring more starting salary disparities to light.
Full Article: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/25/83/63/index.php
DHS Seeks Mandatory E-Verify for Federal Contractors
Workforce Management
July 8, 2009
After delaying it three times, the Department of Homeland Security has embraced a regulation that would require all federal contractors to use a government-run electronic employment verification system that has drawn criticism from many employers.
Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano announced on Wednesday, July 8, that the rule would go into effect on September 8. At that point, federal contractors and subcontractors would have to use the government’s E-Verify system to ensure that all employees who work on federal projects are legal.
The move is another step in the Obama administration’s effort to crack down on employers to stem illegal immigration. Last week, the homeland department announced that it would conduct audits of I-9 forms at 652 companies, an increase from 503 inspections in the previous fiscal year.
Napolitano also rescinded a regulation, first proposed by the George W. Bush administration, that could have led to employers firing workers whose name and Social Security numbers on earnings reports don’t match information in the Social Security database. That rule had been tied up in court proceedings.
In another immigration development on Wednesday, the Senate approved an amendment to a homeland department appropriations bill that would codify the federal contractor E-Verify mandate and make E-Verify a permanent program.
E-Verify authorization runs out at the end of September. In June, the House approved the homeland funding bill with a two-year extension. The Senate bill has a three-year reauthorization.
The Senate amendment, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, may not survive House-Senate negotiations on the homeland appropriations bill because similar language is not included in the House measure.
Meanwhile, a federal court in Maryland is considering a lawsuit filed by business groups who assert that the DHS has overstepped its legal authority in promulgating the federal contractor rule.
Full Story: http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2067627502127745578
July 8, 2009
After delaying it three times, the Department of Homeland Security has embraced a regulation that would require all federal contractors to use a government-run electronic employment verification system that has drawn criticism from many employers.
Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano announced on Wednesday, July 8, that the rule would go into effect on September 8. At that point, federal contractors and subcontractors would have to use the government’s E-Verify system to ensure that all employees who work on federal projects are legal.
The move is another step in the Obama administration’s effort to crack down on employers to stem illegal immigration. Last week, the homeland department announced that it would conduct audits of I-9 forms at 652 companies, an increase from 503 inspections in the previous fiscal year.
Napolitano also rescinded a regulation, first proposed by the George W. Bush administration, that could have led to employers firing workers whose name and Social Security numbers on earnings reports don’t match information in the Social Security database. That rule had been tied up in court proceedings.
In another immigration development on Wednesday, the Senate approved an amendment to a homeland department appropriations bill that would codify the federal contractor E-Verify mandate and make E-Verify a permanent program.
E-Verify authorization runs out at the end of September. In June, the House approved the homeland funding bill with a two-year extension. The Senate bill has a three-year reauthorization.
The Senate amendment, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, may not survive House-Senate negotiations on the homeland appropriations bill because similar language is not included in the House measure.
Meanwhile, a federal court in Maryland is considering a lawsuit filed by business groups who assert that the DHS has overstepped its legal authority in promulgating the federal contractor rule.
Full Story: http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2067627502127745578
President Obama Taps Xavier Alumna Dr. Regina Benjamin for Surgeon General
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by Michelle J. Nealy
Jul 14, 2009, 09:14
President Barack Obama on Monday nominated Dr. Regina Benjamin, a family physician and Xavier University of Louisiana alumna, to be the next Surgeon General.
Benjamin, 52, is founder of the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic, which serves the poor, uninsured and other underserved patients in Mobile County, Ala.
Benjamin gained acclaim for her determination to rebuild her clinic after hurricanes George in 1998 and Katrina in 2005 shuttered the building. In 2006, a fire destroyed Benjamin's clinic just after flood damage was repaired. During this period, Benjamin, who often administers medical services to her patients for free, and her staff operated the clinic from a Federal Emergency Management Agency trailer.
Benjamin received a bachelor’s degree in 1979 from Xavier University, a historically Black institution known for its ability to place its students in medical school. She received medical degrees from the Morehouse School of Medicine and the University of Alabama, Birmingham. She also holds a master's degree in business administration from Tulane University.
Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12724.shtml
by Michelle J. Nealy
Jul 14, 2009, 09:14
President Barack Obama on Monday nominated Dr. Regina Benjamin, a family physician and Xavier University of Louisiana alumna, to be the next Surgeon General.
Benjamin, 52, is founder of the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic, which serves the poor, uninsured and other underserved patients in Mobile County, Ala.
Benjamin gained acclaim for her determination to rebuild her clinic after hurricanes George in 1998 and Katrina in 2005 shuttered the building. In 2006, a fire destroyed Benjamin's clinic just after flood damage was repaired. During this period, Benjamin, who often administers medical services to her patients for free, and her staff operated the clinic from a Federal Emergency Management Agency trailer.
Benjamin received a bachelor’s degree in 1979 from Xavier University, a historically Black institution known for its ability to place its students in medical school. She received medical degrees from the Morehouse School of Medicine and the University of Alabama, Birmingham. She also holds a master's degree in business administration from Tulane University.
Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12724.shtml
Whose Identity Politics?
The Washington Post
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The only real suspense in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is whether the Republican Party will persist in tying its fortunes to an anachronistic claim of white male exceptionalism and privilege.
Republicans' outrage, both real and feigned, at Sotomayor's musings about how her identity as a "wise Latina" might affect her judicial decisions is based on a flawed assumption: that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any "identity" -- black, brown, female, gay, whatever -- has to be judged against this supposedly "objective" standard.
Thus it is irrelevant if Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. talks about the impact of his background as the son of Italian immigrants on his rulings -- as he did at his confirmation hearings -- but unforgivable for Sotomayor to mention that her Puerto Rican family history might be relevant to her work. Thus it is possible for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to say with a straight face that heritage and experience can have no bearing on a judge's work, as he posited in his opening remarks yesterday, apparently believing that the white male justices he has voted to confirm were somehow devoid of heritage and bereft of experience.
The whole point of Sotomayor's much-maligned "wise Latina" speech was that everyone has a unique personal history -- and that this history has to be acknowledged before it can be overcome. Denying the fact of identity makes us vulnerable to its most pernicious effects. This seems self-evident. I don't see how a political party that refuses to accept this basic principle of diversity can hope to prosper, given that soon there will be no racial or ethnic majority in this country.
Yet the Republican Party line assumes a white male neutrality against which Sotomayor's "difference" will be judged. Sessions was accusatory in quoting Sotomayor as saying, in a speech years ago, that "I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage, but attempt . . . continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."
This is supposed to be a controversial statement? Only, I suppose, if you assume that there are judges who have no opinions, sympathies or prejudices -- or, perhaps, that the opinions, sympathies and prejudices of the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court are somehow especially problematic.
There is, after all, a context in which these confirmation hearings take place: The nation continues to take major steps toward fulfilling the promise of its noblest ideals. Barack Obama is our first African American president. Sonia Sotomayor would be only the third woman, and the third member of a minority group, to serve on the nation's highest court. Aside from these exceptions, the White House and the Supreme Court have been exclusively occupied by white men -- who, come to think of it, are also members of a minority group, though they certainly haven't seen themselves that way.
Full Editorial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302605.html
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The only real suspense in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is whether the Republican Party will persist in tying its fortunes to an anachronistic claim of white male exceptionalism and privilege.
Republicans' outrage, both real and feigned, at Sotomayor's musings about how her identity as a "wise Latina" might affect her judicial decisions is based on a flawed assumption: that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any "identity" -- black, brown, female, gay, whatever -- has to be judged against this supposedly "objective" standard.
Thus it is irrelevant if Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. talks about the impact of his background as the son of Italian immigrants on his rulings -- as he did at his confirmation hearings -- but unforgivable for Sotomayor to mention that her Puerto Rican family history might be relevant to her work. Thus it is possible for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to say with a straight face that heritage and experience can have no bearing on a judge's work, as he posited in his opening remarks yesterday, apparently believing that the white male justices he has voted to confirm were somehow devoid of heritage and bereft of experience.
The whole point of Sotomayor's much-maligned "wise Latina" speech was that everyone has a unique personal history -- and that this history has to be acknowledged before it can be overcome. Denying the fact of identity makes us vulnerable to its most pernicious effects. This seems self-evident. I don't see how a political party that refuses to accept this basic principle of diversity can hope to prosper, given that soon there will be no racial or ethnic majority in this country.
Yet the Republican Party line assumes a white male neutrality against which Sotomayor's "difference" will be judged. Sessions was accusatory in quoting Sotomayor as saying, in a speech years ago, that "I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage, but attempt . . . continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."
This is supposed to be a controversial statement? Only, I suppose, if you assume that there are judges who have no opinions, sympathies or prejudices -- or, perhaps, that the opinions, sympathies and prejudices of the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court are somehow especially problematic.
There is, after all, a context in which these confirmation hearings take place: The nation continues to take major steps toward fulfilling the promise of its noblest ideals. Barack Obama is our first African American president. Sonia Sotomayor would be only the third woman, and the third member of a minority group, to serve on the nation's highest court. Aside from these exceptions, the White House and the Supreme Court have been exclusively occupied by white men -- who, come to think of it, are also members of a minority group, though they certainly haven't seen themselves that way.
Full Editorial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302605.html
'The Price of Defiance'
Inside Higher Ed
July 14, 2009
Scott Jaschik
In 1962, with court backing, James Meredith became the first black person to enroll at the University of Mississippi. His struggle to enroll, and the violent actions by mobs trying to keep him out, led to a legal and political showdown that reached the White House. While there have been previous studies of this period, Charles W. Eagles had access to previously unavailable federal and state records, and personal records, for his new book, The Price of Defiance: James Meredith and the Integration of Ole Miss (University of North Carolina Press). The book discusses not only Meredith's push to integrate the university, but Meredith's background (and how it set up his historic role) and the (quite critical) history of the university and the state during this period. Eagles, a professor of history at the university he studied, describes some of his findings and their meaning in the e-mail interview that follows.
Q: How do the new materials you obtained change the view of James Meredith?
A: Meredith emerges as a complicated, thoughtful, and in many ways consistently conservative individual, not a stereotypical movement hero or a bizarre crusader. The importance of his family background in Attala County, Mississippi, in particular becomes clear from research in unexplored public records and in James Meredith’s personal papers. His parents, for example, demonstrated personal strength and resilience. They owned their own farm and registered to vote (his father in 1919), and they also protected their children from local whites and the abuses of racial segregation. Documents from Meredith’s years in the Air Force and as a student at Jackson State record his financial support for his aging parents, as well as his developing entrepreneurial spirit through savings and investments and his commitment to continuing his education. His military records and papers for college classes reveal his intellectual and political growth in the years before applying to Ole Miss. By 1962 his family background and his experiences in the Air force had equipped him in unusual ways to challenge racial segregation at Ole Miss.
Materials from the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI, and the U.S. Marshals Service permit for the first time an examination of Meredith’s 10 months as a student at the University of Mississippi. An appreciation for his courage and tenacity results from an understanding of the intense pressures he felt, not the least from constantly harassing Ole Miss students.
Q: How do these materials change the view of the University of Mississippi?
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/14/eagles
July 14, 2009
Scott Jaschik
In 1962, with court backing, James Meredith became the first black person to enroll at the University of Mississippi. His struggle to enroll, and the violent actions by mobs trying to keep him out, led to a legal and political showdown that reached the White House. While there have been previous studies of this period, Charles W. Eagles had access to previously unavailable federal and state records, and personal records, for his new book, The Price of Defiance: James Meredith and the Integration of Ole Miss (University of North Carolina Press). The book discusses not only Meredith's push to integrate the university, but Meredith's background (and how it set up his historic role) and the (quite critical) history of the university and the state during this period. Eagles, a professor of history at the university he studied, describes some of his findings and their meaning in the e-mail interview that follows.
Q: How do the new materials you obtained change the view of James Meredith?
A: Meredith emerges as a complicated, thoughtful, and in many ways consistently conservative individual, not a stereotypical movement hero or a bizarre crusader. The importance of his family background in Attala County, Mississippi, in particular becomes clear from research in unexplored public records and in James Meredith’s personal papers. His parents, for example, demonstrated personal strength and resilience. They owned their own farm and registered to vote (his father in 1919), and they also protected their children from local whites and the abuses of racial segregation. Documents from Meredith’s years in the Air Force and as a student at Jackson State record his financial support for his aging parents, as well as his developing entrepreneurial spirit through savings and investments and his commitment to continuing his education. His military records and papers for college classes reveal his intellectual and political growth in the years before applying to Ole Miss. By 1962 his family background and his experiences in the Air force had equipped him in unusual ways to challenge racial segregation at Ole Miss.
Materials from the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI, and the U.S. Marshals Service permit for the first time an examination of Meredith’s 10 months as a student at the University of Mississippi. An appreciation for his courage and tenacity results from an understanding of the intense pressures he felt, not the least from constantly harassing Ole Miss students.
Q: How do these materials change the view of the University of Mississippi?
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/14/eagles
Welch: 'No Such Thing as Work-Life Balance'
The Wall Street Journal
MANAGEMENT
JULY 14, 2009, 4:52 A.M. ET
By CARI TUNA and JOANN S. LUBLIN
Former General Electric Co. Chief Executive Jack Welch has some blunt words for women climbing the corporate ladder: you may have to choose between taking time off to raise children and reaching the corner office.
"There's no such thing as work-life balance," Mr. Welch told the Society for Human Resource Management's annual conference in New Orleans on June 28. "There are work-life choices, and you make them, and they have consequences."
Mr. Welch said those who take time off for family could be passed over for promotions if "you're not there in the clutch."
"The women who have reached the top of Archer Daniels, of DuPont, I know these women. They've had pretty straight careers," he said in an interview with journalist Claire Shipman, before thousands of HR specialists.
"We'd love to have more women moving up faster," Mr. Welch said. "But they've got to make the tough choices and know the consequences of each one."
Taking time off for family "can offer a nice life," Mr. Welch said, "but the chances of going to the top on that path" are smaller. "That doesn't mean you can't have a nice career," he added.
Full Story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726415198325373.html?mod=dist_smartbrief
MANAGEMENT
JULY 14, 2009, 4:52 A.M. ET
By CARI TUNA and JOANN S. LUBLIN
Former General Electric Co. Chief Executive Jack Welch has some blunt words for women climbing the corporate ladder: you may have to choose between taking time off to raise children and reaching the corner office.
"There's no such thing as work-life balance," Mr. Welch told the Society for Human Resource Management's annual conference in New Orleans on June 28. "There are work-life choices, and you make them, and they have consequences."
Mr. Welch said those who take time off for family could be passed over for promotions if "you're not there in the clutch."
"The women who have reached the top of Archer Daniels, of DuPont, I know these women. They've had pretty straight careers," he said in an interview with journalist Claire Shipman, before thousands of HR specialists.
"We'd love to have more women moving up faster," Mr. Welch said. "But they've got to make the tough choices and know the consequences of each one."
Taking time off for family "can offer a nice life," Mr. Welch said, "but the chances of going to the top on that path" are smaller. "That doesn't mean you can't have a nice career," he added.
Full Story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726415198325373.html?mod=dist_smartbrief
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
