On July 23, 2016, the Massachusetts Legislature became the latest state legislature to pass comprehensive pay equity legislation, following the lead of similar measures in California and New York in the past year. Governor Baker has been reported to have said that he will sign the new law, which is named The Act to Establish Pay Equity (the Act). The Act will become effective on January 1, 2018.
Read more by Goodwin Law here.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
A University Makes a Rare Call to Ditch Its Title IX Exemption
Early this year Pepperdine University’s president quietly sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The subject line was nearly identical to that of a letter that a previous president had sent, in 1976: "Pepperdine University’s Title IX Exemption."
But the two letters had opposite goals. In 1976 Pepperdine had asked to be made exempt from Title IX, a law that bans sex discrimination at educational institutions that receive federal funds. Now, four decades later, the university was taking the unusual step of asking to waive that exemption.
"Please accept this letter as Pepperdine University’s withdrawal of its 1976 request for an exemption from certain provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972," wrote Andrew K. Benton, president of the university, which is affiliated with the Churches of Christ, in the January letter. Within two months, Catherine E. Lhamon, the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights, acknowledged the request, promising to "take steps to ensure that Pepperdine’s status will be accurately reflected."
Read the full Chronicle of Higher Education story here.
But the two letters had opposite goals. In 1976 Pepperdine had asked to be made exempt from Title IX, a law that bans sex discrimination at educational institutions that receive federal funds. Now, four decades later, the university was taking the unusual step of asking to waive that exemption.
"Please accept this letter as Pepperdine University’s withdrawal of its 1976 request for an exemption from certain provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972," wrote Andrew K. Benton, president of the university, which is affiliated with the Churches of Christ, in the January letter. Within two months, Catherine E. Lhamon, the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights, acknowledged the request, promising to "take steps to ensure that Pepperdine’s status will be accurately reflected."
Read the full Chronicle of Higher Education story here.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
U.S. Department of Education Releases Guidance On Civil Rights of Students with ADH
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Communications & Outreach, Press Office
400 Maryland Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 26, 2016
CONTACT:
Press Office, (202) 401-1576 or press@ed.gov
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) today issued guidance clarifying the obligation of schools to provide students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with equal educational opportunity under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
“On this 26th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I am pleased to honor Congress’ promise with guidance clarifying the rights of students with ADHD in our nation’s schools,” said Catherine E. Lhamon, assistant secretary for civil rights. “The Department will continue to work with the education community to ensure that students with ADHD, and all students, are provided with equal access to education.”
Over the last five years, OCR has received more than 16,000 complaints that allege discrimination on the basis of disability in elementary and secondary education programs, and more than 10 percent involve allegations of discrimination against students with ADHD. The most common complaint concerns academic and behavioral difficulties students with ADHD experience at school when they are not timely and properly evaluated for a disability, or when they do not receive necessary special education or related aids and services.
Today’s guidance provides a broad overview of Section 504 and school districts’ obligations to provide educational services to students with disabilities, including students with ADHD. The guidance:
In addition to the guidance, the Department also released a Know Your Rights document that provides a brief overview of schools’ obligations to students with ADHD.
The mission of OCR is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation through the vigorous enforcement of civil rights. Among the federal civil rights laws OCR is responsible for enforcing are Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title IX of the Education Act of 1972; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. For more information about OCR and the anti-discrimination laws that it enforces, please visit its website and follow OCR on twitter @EDcivilrights.
Office of Communications & Outreach, Press Office
400 Maryland Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 26, 2016
CONTACT:
Press Office, (202) 401-1576 or press@ed.gov
U.S. Department of Education Releases Guidance On Civil Rights of Students with ADHD
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) today issued guidance clarifying the obligation of schools to provide students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with equal educational opportunity under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
“On this 26th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I am pleased to honor Congress’ promise with guidance clarifying the rights of students with ADHD in our nation’s schools,” said Catherine E. Lhamon, assistant secretary for civil rights. “The Department will continue to work with the education community to ensure that students with ADHD, and all students, are provided with equal access to education.”
Over the last five years, OCR has received more than 16,000 complaints that allege discrimination on the basis of disability in elementary and secondary education programs, and more than 10 percent involve allegations of discrimination against students with ADHD. The most common complaint concerns academic and behavioral difficulties students with ADHD experience at school when they are not timely and properly evaluated for a disability, or when they do not receive necessary special education or related aids and services.
Today’s guidance provides a broad overview of Section 504 and school districts’ obligations to provide educational services to students with disabilities, including students with ADHD. The guidance:
- Explains that schools must evaluate a student when a student needs or is believed to need special education or related services.
- Discusses the obligation to provide services based on students’ specific needs and not based on generalizations about disabilities, or ADHD, in particular. For example, the guidance makes clear that schools must not rely on the generalization that students who perform well academically cannot also be substantially limited in major life activities, such as reading, learning, writing and thinking; and that such a student can, in fact, be a person with a disability.
- Clarifies that students who experience behavioral challenges, or present as unfocused or distractible, could have ADHD and may need an evaluation to determine their educational needs.
- Reminds schools that they must provide parents and guardians with due process and allow them to appeal decisions regarding the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of students with disabilities, including students with ADHD.
In addition to the guidance, the Department also released a Know Your Rights document that provides a brief overview of schools’ obligations to students with ADHD.
The mission of OCR is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation through the vigorous enforcement of civil rights. Among the federal civil rights laws OCR is responsible for enforcing are Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title IX of the Education Act of 1972; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. For more information about OCR and the anti-discrimination laws that it enforces, please visit its website and follow OCR on twitter @EDcivilrights.
Monday, July 25, 2016
Brown & Brown Insurance Brokerage Firm Is Sued By EEOC in Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit
Job Offer Rescinded After Company Learned of Applicant's Pregnancy, Federal Agency Charged
MIAMI - A Daytona Beach-based insurance brokerage firm violated federal law by rescinding a job offer to a woman because of her pregnancy, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
According to EEOC's suit, Brown & Brown, which owns and operates 180 offices across the United States, made a written employment offer to the applicant and also sent her an employment agreement for a "personal lines technical assistant" position at its Daytona Beach location. The company proposed start dates of either March 30 or April 6, 2015. Upon receipt of the offer letter, the applicant emailed the department leader, affirming her interest and seeking to ask a few questions regarding the offer. About two hours later, the applicant spoke with the department leader's assistant and inquired about maternity benefits because she was pregnant. The assistant immediately advised the department leader of the applicant's pregnancy and, minutes later, the applicant received an email rescinding the job offer because, according to Brown & Brown, it "had a very urgent need to have somebody in the position long term …We appreciate you telling us beforehand."
Read more here.
Oilfield Instrumentation Unlawfully Rescinded Job Offer Because Of Disability, EEOC Charges in Lawsuit
Company Denied Job Based on View That All Type I Insulin-Dependent Diabetics Are 'Fragile' and Not Suited to Work Offshore, Federal Agency Charges
NEW ORLEANS - Oilfield Instrumentation, USA, Inc., an oilfield services company, violated federal law by withdrawing a job offer to an applicant because of his diabetes, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
According to EEOC's lawsuit, on Feb. 4, 2013, Carl J. Devalcourt, III, a Type I insulin-dependent diabetic, applied for a service technician position at Oilfield Instrumentation. Two days later, he interviewed with Tom Walker, a hiring manager. Devalcourt received a job offer and informed Walker that he would like to move forward with the hiring process, which included taking a required drug test and physical examination.
Read more here.
Federal Judge Awards $1,470,000 in EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Case Against Z Foods
Workers Who Were Sexually Harassed and Fired for Complaining Vindicated in Court's Ruling
FRESNO, Calif. - A federal judge has ordered Z Foods, Inc., once one of the largest dried fruit processors in the United States, to pay $1,470,000 in damages in a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
EEOC had charged that Z Foods allowed male supervisors to sexually harass a class of female employees and fired male and female employees when they complained about the sexual harassment. The court awarded the maximum allowed by the statute, offset by a previous settlement, and ruled that the claimants suffered severe emotional distress as a result of actions of Z Foods.
EEOC Issues Resource Document, Announces Plans to Improve Data Collection and Outreach on Religious Discrimination
New Fact Sheet Addresses Rights, Responsibilities for Youth
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Chair Jenny Yang and Commissioner Charlotte Burrows participated in an interagency briefing at the White House today and announced the release of a one-page fact sheet designed to help young workers better understand their rights and responsibilities under the federal employment anti-discrimination laws prohibiting religious discrimination. The fact sheet is available at EEOC's Youth@Work website, which presents information for teens and other young workers about employment discrimination.
Combating Religious Discrimination Today, a community engagement initiative coordinated by the White House and the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, brought together EEOC and other federal agencies to promote religious freedom, challenge religious discrimination, and enhance efforts to combat religion-based hate violence and crimes.
Read more here.
View the one-page fact sheet here.
View the report from the U.S. Department of Justice here.
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Why Some Diversity Thinkers Aren't Buying The Tech Industry's Excuses
"It's certainly commendable that tech giants have gotten in the habit of airing their diversity efforts and commitment to doing better. But the numbers show that actual progress in hiring more underrepresented minorities — for tech, that's black, Latino and female — seems to be stuck in neutral."
Read the full NPR story here.
Read the full NPR story here.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity Statement on the Gallup Opinion Poll on Affirmative Action
Association takes issue with July 8th Opinion Poll on Affirmative Action and calls it "Misleading and Inaccurate"
Washington, DC, July 20, 2016 - The American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity (AAAED), an association of equal opportunity, affirmative action, diversity and human resources professionals, has taken issue with an opinion poll's results published by Inside Higher Ed (IHE) on July 8, 2016.
The article is titled "Poll: Public Opposes Affirmative Action." This poll was released on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin case, where the plaintiff, Abigail Fisher, claimed that the University violated the Constitution by using race as a factor in admitting students. Ms. Fisher failed to gain admission. The Court held in favor of the University.
In a letter to Inside Higher Ed dated July 13, 2016, AAAED wrote:
"At issue is the way the questions were presented, which yielded the predictable results. The primary question posed is: 'Which comes closer to your view about evaluating students for admission into a college or university - applicants should be admitted solely on the basis of merit, even if that results in few minority students being admitted....?'"
The Association's letter stated: "The decision is never race vs. merit. Selective colleges and universities have for decades considered a number of factors including test scores and grades. Geography, athletics, musical ability and other talents, socio-economic status, legacies, being first generation college-going, or extra-curricular activities are examples of these factors."
"Race is also not simply a matter of skin color and is an equally valid consideration as is athletic ability or socio-economic status," added AAAED Executive Director Shirley J. Wilcher. The letter states: Race "reflects experiences as members of minority groups, like, e.g., being profiled by police or subjected to sub-standard schools."
The article is titled "Poll: Public Opposes Affirmative Action." This poll was released on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin case, where the plaintiff, Abigail Fisher, claimed that the University violated the Constitution by using race as a factor in admitting students. Ms. Fisher failed to gain admission. The Court held in favor of the University.
In a letter to Inside Higher Ed dated July 13, 2016, AAAED wrote:
"At issue is the way the questions were presented, which yielded the predictable results. The primary question posed is: 'Which comes closer to your view about evaluating students for admission into a college or university - applicants should be admitted solely on the basis of merit, even if that results in few minority students being admitted....?'"
The Association's letter stated: "The decision is never race vs. merit. Selective colleges and universities have for decades considered a number of factors including test scores and grades. Geography, athletics, musical ability and other talents, socio-economic status, legacies, being first generation college-going, or extra-curricular activities are examples of these factors."
"Race is also not simply a matter of skin color and is an equally valid consideration as is athletic ability or socio-economic status," added AAAED Executive Director Shirley J. Wilcher. The letter states: Race "reflects experiences as members of minority groups, like, e.g., being profiled by police or subjected to sub-standard schools."
Read the Inside Higher Ed article here.
Read the complete AAAED statement here.
Read the AAAED letter to Inside Higher Ed here.
Time to Think More Inclusively About Accessibility
Access to all aspects of the college experience is a critical component of the work we do in higher education. Since the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act 26 years ago, all campuses have seen an increase in accommodations—mobility ramps, adjusted restrooms, braille signage, and more—leading to a more diverse campus population. But recent, successful law suits brought by students against several universities across the country should remind us there is much more to be done, and it begins with being open to thinking about access in all its many forms.
The National Technical Institute for the Deaf, one of the nine colleges of Rochester Institute of Technology, was established nearly 50 years ago as the first and largest technological college in the world for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. It was designed with accessibility in mind and can serve as a model for other campuses to follow.
Read the full Inside Higher Ed story here.
The National Technical Institute for the Deaf, one of the nine colleges of Rochester Institute of Technology, was established nearly 50 years ago as the first and largest technological college in the world for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. It was designed with accessibility in mind and can serve as a model for other campuses to follow.
Read the full Inside Higher Ed story here.
[Tech Tuesday] Facebook's Excuse for Its Lack of Workplace Diversity
Facebook is among many multi-million corporations that struggles with diversifying its workforce.
Last week, the corporation's head of diversity blamed what those inside tech refer to as "the pipeline" for the company's unimpressive percentage of Black and Hispanic employees. The numbers? Two percent and four percent respectively.
Forbes reports that Williams told the Wall Street Journal that "it has become clear that at the most fundamental level, appropriate representation in technology or any other industry will depend upon more people having the opportunity to gain necessary skills through the public education system."
Last week, the corporation's head of diversity blamed what those inside tech refer to as "the pipeline" for the company's unimpressive percentage of Black and Hispanic employees. The numbers? Two percent and four percent respectively.
Forbes reports that Williams told the Wall Street Journal that "it has become clear that at the most fundamental level, appropriate representation in technology or any other industry will depend upon more people having the opportunity to gain necessary skills through the public education system."
Read the full story by Ebony here.
EEOC Sues Rent-A-Center for Sex Discrimination Against Transgender Employee
Assistant Manager of Rantoul Store Was Fired Because of Her Gender Identity, Federal Agency Charges
URBANA, Ill. - Rent-A-Center violated federal civil rights law by discharging an employee from its Rantoul, Ill., store because she is transgender, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today. Rent-A-Center owns and operates more than 3,000 stores across the United States, offering furniture, electronics, appliances and computers through rent-to-own agreements.
According to Julianne Bowman, the EEOC's district director in Chicago, the EEOC's pre-suit administrative investigation revealed that the company's managers disapproved of the employee's gender transition and found a pretext for firing her.
Read more here.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) Announces 2016 Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act Hiring Benchmark
On June 15, 2016, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) published the 2016 Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) benchmark on its website based on data released by theBureau of Labor Statistics on March 4, 2016.
Read the full National Law Review article here.
Why Removing Bias Is Not Enough For A Balanced Workplace
Last week we had the pleasure of attending the Celebrating Women Creators event, organized by Build and Makers.com, focused on the growth of female leadership in the entertainment industry. Katie Couric moderated a panel that featured Katie Dippold, Jenni Konner and Lucia Aniello.
The entertainment industry has recently come under fire for its dismal record on diversity, including heavy criticism for the lack of people of color nominated for Oscars earlier this year. More recently, a report by Slated revealed striking disparities between women and men at virtually all levels of cinema in terms of representation, access to budgets and distribution.
When the moderator brought up the subject of diversity, Jenni Konner (of HBO’s Girls fame) made a strong statement: “ You have to mandate diversity, you can’t leave people to figure it out .” She explained that even if a filmmaker indicates they are open to any race and gender, the existing biases and imbalances in the industry mean that casting agents and recruiters will continue to present imbalanced pools of candidates. She pointed out that mandating diversity will require longer times for hiring and casting, but it’s the only way to make it work.
Read the full Forbes story here.
The entertainment industry has recently come under fire for its dismal record on diversity, including heavy criticism for the lack of people of color nominated for Oscars earlier this year. More recently, a report by Slated revealed striking disparities between women and men at virtually all levels of cinema in terms of representation, access to budgets and distribution.
When the moderator brought up the subject of diversity, Jenni Konner (of HBO’s Girls fame) made a strong statement: “ You have to mandate diversity, you can’t leave people to figure it out .” She explained that even if a filmmaker indicates they are open to any race and gender, the existing biases and imbalances in the industry mean that casting agents and recruiters will continue to present imbalanced pools of candidates. She pointed out that mandating diversity will require longer times for hiring and casting, but it’s the only way to make it work.
Read the full Forbes story here.
Here’s the Next Sleeper Challenge to Affirmative Action
The guy who engineered the Fisher case in the Supreme Court isn’t done yet.
Now that her legal saga is over, it seems Fisher hasn't given up attacking affirmative action. She's become a board member of Students for Fair Admissions, a group founded and run by former Texas stockbroker Edward Blum, the same man who recruited her to file suit against the University of Texas.
Read the full Mother Jones article here.
American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity Statement on the Tragedies in Baton Rouge, Dallas, St. Paul, and other Cities
Association expresses sympathy for the victims of the shootings and support for those seeking an end to discrimination and violence
Contact: Shirley J. Wilcher, Executive Director
240-893-9475
execdir@aaaed.org
www.aaaed.org
www.twitter.com/affirmativeact
Washington, DC, July 18, 2016 - The American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity (AAAED) joins the nation in expressing its deep sorrow for the horrific tragedies that occurred in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Dallas, Texas and in other cities in the past weeks. We especially send our condolences to the families and loved ones of those slain and wounded.
AAAED, an organization committed to justice and equal rights for all, and whose members work to promote these ideals daily in their professional lives, stands unequivocally with other organizations in our condemnation of violence, no matter the motivation. In the words attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, who gave his life seeking freedom, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." As the President of the United States stated, these are attacks "on the rule of law, and on civilized society."
Now is the time for reflection and action, to honestly acknowledge and resolve the root issues that are the cause of this violence. We must come together as one nation.
For more information about AAAED, go to www.aaaed.org .
AAAED is a national nonprofit association of professionals managing affirmative action, equal opportunity, diversity, and other human resources programs. Founded in 1974 as the American Association for Affirmative Action, AAAED is the oldest operating association of professionals in the Equal Opportunity profession.
Myron R. Anderson, Ph.D. Shirley J. Wilcher, J.D. , CAAP
President Executive Director
Monday, July 18, 2016
Federal Judge Awards EEOC $179,000 Default Judgment Against Workplace Staffing Solutions For Sex Discrimination
Louisiana Staffing Firm Failed to Hire Six Qualified Women Because of Their Sex While Hiring Only Men, Federal Agency Charged
JACKSON, Miss. - A federal judge has ruled in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in its sex discrimination lawsuit against a Louisiana staffing firm, the federal agency announced today.
The EEOC had charged that Workplace Staffing Solutions, LLC, which operates an office in Gulfport, Miss., violated federal law when it failed to hire six women for residential temporary trashcan collector (RTCC) positions in Harrison County, Miss., because of their gender.
Read more here.
American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity Statement on the Tragedies in Baton Rouge, Dallas, St. Paul, and other Cities
Association expresses sympathy for the victims of the shootings and support for those seeking an end to discrimination and violence
For Immediate Release: July 18, 2016
Contact: Shirley J. Wilcher, Executive Director
240-893-9475
execdir@aaaed.org
www.aaaed.org
www.twitter.com/affirmativeact
Washington, DC, July 18, 2016 - The American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity (AAAED) joins the nation in expressing its deep sorrow for the horrific tragedies that occurred in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Dallas, Texas and in other cities in the past weeks. We especially send our condolences to the families and loved ones of those slain and wounded.
AAAED, an organization committed to justice and equal rights for all, and whose members work to promote these ideals daily in their professional lives, stands unequivocally with other organizations in our condemnation of violence, no matter the motivation. In the words attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, who gave his life seeking freedom, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." As the President of the United States stated, these are attacks "on the rule of law, and on civilized society."
Now is the time for reflection and action, to honestly acknowledge and resolve the root issues that are the cause of this violence. We must come together as one nation.
For more information about AAAED, go to www.aaaed.org .
About the American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity
AAAED is a national nonprofit association of professionals managing affirmative action, equal opportunity, diversity, and other human resources programs. Founded in 1974 as the American Association for Affirmative Action, AAAED is the oldest operating association of professionals in the Equal Opportunity profession.
Read more here.
Disturbed by Protests, State Lawmakers Appoint a Panel to Audit the U. of Missouri
After a tumultuous year at the University of Missouri, state legislators haven’t kept quiet.
Even before protests rocked the Columbia campus last fall, Republican lawmakers had targeted its relationship with Planned Parenthood, prompting the cancellation of 10 agreements with the organization. After the protests, legislators threatened to withhold university funding if Melissa Click, the professor caught on camera obstructing student journalists, was not fired. (She eventually was.)
Friday marks the start of yet another effort by state legislators to tell the system how it should be run, with the convening of a newly formed review commission.
Even before protests rocked the Columbia campus last fall, Republican lawmakers had targeted its relationship with Planned Parenthood, prompting the cancellation of 10 agreements with the organization. After the protests, legislators threatened to withhold university funding if Melissa Click, the professor caught on camera obstructing student journalists, was not fired. (She eventually was.)
Friday marks the start of yet another effort by state legislators to tell the system how it should be run, with the convening of a newly formed review commission.
Read the full Chronicle of Higher Education story here.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
AAAED Letter to IHE re: Opinion Poll on AA 07/13/2016
July 13, 2016
Scott Jaschik, Editor
Inside Higher Ed
1015 18th Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Scott:
Regarding your July 8, 2016 article "Poll: Public Opposes Affirmative Action:"
Thank you for your work providing the results of opinion polls related to higher education. Inside Higher Ed is generally quite far on matters involving racial justice and diversity in higher education. We must, however, take issue with the Opinion Poll conducted with the Gallup Organization that was reported on July 8, 2016. At issue is the way the questions were presented, which yielded the predictable results.
The primary question posed is: "Which comes closer to your view about evaluating students for admission into a college or university - applicants should be admitted solely on the basis of merit, even if that results in few minority students being admitted...?"
 |
| http://www.gallup.com/poll/193508/oppose-colleges-considering-race-admissions.aspx |
The decision is never race vs. merit. Selective colleges and universities have for decades considered a number of factors including test scores and grades. Geography, athletics, musical ability and other talents, socio-economic status, legacies, being first generation college-going, or extra-curricular activities are examples of these factors. It would be vastly preferable if IHE and other members of the news media would portray the panoply of admissions factors that are routinely used and not set up this duality that forces respondents to choose. Selective colleges and universities can undoubtedly fill their student bodies with students having perfect scores and grades. They choose not to because they want a diversity of abilities, potential and talent to enrich the educational experience.
Moreover, “race” as a factor reflects experiences as members of minority groups, like, e.g., being profiled by police or subjected to sub-standard schools. Overcoming these obstacles are valid considerations and should not be glossed over in polls. Lastly, this poll implies that standardized tests reflect merit when it has been long established that they are racially biased and not necessarily predictive of success in college.
The poll question described the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin decision as “a case that confirms that colleges can consider the race or ethnicity of students when making decisions on who (sic) to admit to the college." While the Court in Fisher did permit the use of race as one of several factors used to decide whom to admit, the question as presented suggests that race was a sole or primary factor. The Supreme Court has been scrupulous in ruling that race should not be used as a quota or part of a point system and that a review of students must be done in a holistic manner. This nuanced assessment in college admissions, set forth by the Court in 2003, is totally absent in the poll question.
Following the cases that went on before Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: Bakke v. Regents of the University of California and Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court in Fisher emphasized that student body diversity is a compelling interest under the Constitution. In the Fisher case, race, however, was a “factor of a factor of a factor,” according to Justice Kennedy. Moreover, consideration of race is contextual and does not operate as a mechanical “plus” factor. Further, the vast majority of students in Texas were admitted through the Ten Percent Plan, which accepted students in the state who had graduated in the top ten percent of their graduating classes.
In polls preceding the IHE-Gallup Poll, the results indicated that the majority of Americans actually support affirmative action. For example, the 2014 Pew Research Center Poll asked: “In general, do you think affirmative action programs designed to increase the number of black and minority students on college campuses are a good thing or a bad thing?” The results showed that 63% of respondents found that affirmative action was a “good thing.” http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy questionnaires/4- 22-14%20Affirmative%20Action%20Topline.pdf
Similarly, a 2013 CBS News/ New York Times Poll found that: “In general, 53 percent of Americans support affirmative action programs in hiring, promoting and college admissions, while 38 percent oppose such programs.” The 2013 Gallup Poll yielded results similar to those reported by IHE this year on the matter of taking race into account for college admissions. However, when asked about affirmative action generally, the results differed: “Americans Support Affirmative Action in General”
In June 2009 the Pew Research Center found that there was general support for affirmative action, but not preferences: Note how the question is phrased:Even though Americans largely reject the idea of using race as a factor in college admissions they still support affirmative action programs more generally. A separate question in the poll finds 58% of Americans saying they favor "affirmative action programs for racial minorities," including 51% of whites, 76% of blacks, and 69% of Hispanics. http://www.gallup.com/poll/163655/reject-considering-racecollegeadmissions.aspxutm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%5C
 |
| http://www.pewresearch.org/2009/06/02/public-backs-affirmative-action-but-not-minority-preferences/ |
Using the terms “special preferences” or “preferential treatment,” which affirmative action is not, can considerably reduce support for affirmative action. In a 2007 Pew Research Center poll when using the term “preferences” to describe affirmative action, support for such policies dropped by double digits among all races. Likewise when affirmative action is proposed as an alternative to a strictly merit-based system, support for affirmative action declines. In a 2013 Gallup poll a similar question was asked as in 2016:
Here two-thirds of Americans claimed they were opposed to considering race and ethnicity in college admissions. In the same questionnaire, however, 58 percent of Americans said they were in favor of “affirmative action programs for racial minorities.” Attitudes toward affirmative action would likely have been similar if such phrasing were used in the 2016 Gallup poll, which you cited.“Which comes closer to your view about evaluating students for admission into a college or university—applicants should be admitted solely on the basis of merit, even if that results in few minority students being admitted (or) an applicant’s racial and ethnic background should be considered to help promote diversity on college campuses, even if that means admitting some minority students who otherwise would not be admitted?”
To say that the “Public Opposes Affirmative Action” based on the 2016 Gallup poll is seriously misleading and inaccurate. As in any opinion poll, if the wording of the poll is biased, the results will be as well.
Sincerely,
Shirley J. Wilcher
Executive Director
execdir@aaaed.org
High-Profile Push for Bystander Intervention
At a Senate education committee hearing, witnesses call for colleges to implement prevention programs and adopt antiharassment policies.
As sexual violence on college campuses has attracted more attention in recent years, discussion has often turned to bystander intervention, the practice of intervening in a situation when another person needs help.
At a U.S. Senate education committee hearing Wednesday, bystander intervention got a boost as a possible solution not only to sexual violence, but also harassment and bullying. Several senators and witnesses raised concerns that colleges are not doing enough to prevent harassment and bullying. Institutions could do more, they said, by providing bystander intervention training for incoming freshmen and adopting antiharassment policies.
Read the complete Inside Higher Ed story here.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
What You Should Know about EEOC's Proposal to Collect Pay Data
On July 14, 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published its revised proposal to collect summary pay data by race, ethnicity, and sex from employers that already file the EEO-1 report.
For information on the proposal, why the EEOC is proposing pay data collection, and for further details visit this webpage.
For information on the proposal, why the EEOC is proposing pay data collection, and for further details visit this webpage.
EEOC Announces Second Opportunity for Public to Submit Comments on Proposal to Collect Pay Data
Public Can Submit Comments on Proposed Update of EEO-1 Report Through August 15, 2016
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the publication of its revised proposal to collect pay data through the Employer Information Report (EEO-1), a longstanding joint information collection of EEOC and the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). The proposed revision would include collecting summary pay data from employers, including federal contractors, with 100 or more employees. The pay data will assist the agencies in identifying possible pay discrimination and assist employers in promoting equal pay in their workplaces.
Read more here.
HospitalityStaff Sued by EEOC for Religious Discrimination
Orlando Staffing Company Fired Rastafarian Employee Because of His Dreadlocks, Federal Agency Charges
ORLANDO, Fla. - An Orlando staffing company dedicated to Central Florida's massive hospitality industry violated federal law by firing an employee over his Rastafarian religious practices, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
Read more here.
Rooms to Go Sued by EEOC for Pregnancy Discrimination
Furniture Company Fired Employee After She Disclosed She Was Pregnant, Federal Agency Charges
RALEIGH, N.C. - RTG Furniture Corp. of Georgia, a Florida corporation that operates a chain of Rooms to Go furniture stores and distributions centers nationwide, violated federal law when it fired an employee because she was pregnant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
Read more here.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
It is of the Constitution we speak
Much has been written about the tragic events in Ferguson, Staten Island, Cleveland, St. Paul, Baton Rouge, Dallas, and other cities. All of these events were unfortunate and its victims must be mourned. All of these events also stem from the complex history of the United States and its treatment of the descendants of slaves. While this nation has survived slavery, Jim Crow and the civil rights era, the toxic and racist police practices and prejudices, reflected in the treatment of African-Americans drivers, pedestrians and bystanders, have bled into the 21 st Century. Dr. Martin Luther King’s mantra “We Shall Overcome” has morphed into “Black Lives Matter.”
The seething and palpable anger that followed Dr. King’s assassination in 1968 and that led to the burning of major cities is manifesting itself today in gun violence (inside and outside the African-American community). While cities may be burned today, those who are in possession of assault weapons capable of killing scores of people, promoted vigorously by national organizations in the name of the Second Amendment, are perpetrating more violence and more death – and the police are becoming the victims of this anger.
What is evolving is a perfect storm of tragedy: the proliferation and availability of arms that inflict mass destruction, the doggedly persistent cases of unjustified deaths of men and women of color at the hands of police, the exponential use of cell phones with video recording components, the growth of social media that can communicate questionable police actions in a matter of seconds, an ineffective and dysfunctional Congress, divisive rhetoric by political contenders, and the changing demographics that will result in the USA becoming majority minority by mid-Century.
Today, assertions made by members of the communities of color for decades about police abuses are documented by third parties and videotaped for all to see. As in the civil rights era, when television brought injustices and racist Southern treatment to the living rooms of Middle Americans, Facebook and Twitter are exposing in painful detail the killing of unarmed pedestrians and drivers at the hands of those who swore to serve and protect.
We support efforts to call on all Americans to de-escalate the backlash against this ill-treatment and learn to communicate and even to love each other. As an organization whose members are equal employment opportunity, affirmative action and diversity practitioners, we also call on police agencies to accelerate their efforts to diversify police officer ranks and to teach about unconscious bias. We also support efforts to increase police accountability and the prosecution of miscreant officers. Further, we support the use of body cameras and ways to document police interactions with the community. As important, we support the establishment of national standards on the use of force and the minimizing of police contacts with drivers for offenses like broken tail lights or illegal lane changes. Confrontations with citizens should also not be an excuse to supplement local budgets by imposing traffic fines.
Most importantly, we call on members of the police community to remember that it is the United States Constitution they are executing and enforcing. This document famously calls for equal justice under law. Moreover, it demands a trial by a jury of one’s peers and prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. It is not the province of the police to be the judge, jury and executioner if the person happens to be of color. Nothing in the Constitution confers that right.
The preamble to the Constitution states:
The Sixth Amendment states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Emphasis added)
These constitutional rights are to be enjoyed regardless of the skin color of the motorist or pedestrian. It is not within the domain of the police to determine whose lives have value. Black lives, like all lives, truly matter. This is a truism that should not be vilified; it must be respected as part of the responsibility and rights inherent in the US Constitution.
Lastly, it is essential for police and policymakers to remember the importance of legitimacy. While a government may have authority it needs legitimacy to survive. Legitimacy makes citizens obey and feel loyal toward their government. It is the loss of legitimacy that led to the signing of the Magna Carta by King John when English barons tired of excess taxation and repressive treatment. It was the loss of legitimacy in the American colonies that led to the rebellion against King George III. It was the denial of basic human rights that led to the Civil Rights movement of the mid-20 th century and to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In all instances, when a people feel that they are poorly and unjustly treated a government loses its legitimacy.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor referred to legitimacy in the Grutter v. Bollinger 2003 affirmative action case:
It is the Constitution of which we speak. Government, and police forces in particular, must restore their legitimacy in the mind of an increasing population of color by remembering that it is the Constitution and its rights that they have sworn to respect and enforce. Dr. King spoke of the “Fierce Urgency of Now.” That time is upon us.
Shirley J. Wilcher, J.D., CAAP
The seething and palpable anger that followed Dr. King’s assassination in 1968 and that led to the burning of major cities is manifesting itself today in gun violence (inside and outside the African-American community). While cities may be burned today, those who are in possession of assault weapons capable of killing scores of people, promoted vigorously by national organizations in the name of the Second Amendment, are perpetrating more violence and more death – and the police are becoming the victims of this anger.
What is evolving is a perfect storm of tragedy: the proliferation and availability of arms that inflict mass destruction, the doggedly persistent cases of unjustified deaths of men and women of color at the hands of police, the exponential use of cell phones with video recording components, the growth of social media that can communicate questionable police actions in a matter of seconds, an ineffective and dysfunctional Congress, divisive rhetoric by political contenders, and the changing demographics that will result in the USA becoming majority minority by mid-Century.
Today, assertions made by members of the communities of color for decades about police abuses are documented by third parties and videotaped for all to see. As in the civil rights era, when television brought injustices and racist Southern treatment to the living rooms of Middle Americans, Facebook and Twitter are exposing in painful detail the killing of unarmed pedestrians and drivers at the hands of those who swore to serve and protect.
We support efforts to call on all Americans to de-escalate the backlash against this ill-treatment and learn to communicate and even to love each other. As an organization whose members are equal employment opportunity, affirmative action and diversity practitioners, we also call on police agencies to accelerate their efforts to diversify police officer ranks and to teach about unconscious bias. We also support efforts to increase police accountability and the prosecution of miscreant officers. Further, we support the use of body cameras and ways to document police interactions with the community. As important, we support the establishment of national standards on the use of force and the minimizing of police contacts with drivers for offenses like broken tail lights or illegal lane changes. Confrontations with citizens should also not be an excuse to supplement local budgets by imposing traffic fines.
Most importantly, we call on members of the police community to remember that it is the United States Constitution they are executing and enforcing. This document famously calls for equal justice under law. Moreover, it demands a trial by a jury of one’s peers and prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. It is not the province of the police to be the judge, jury and executioner if the person happens to be of color. Nothing in the Constitution confers that right.
The preamble to the Constitution states:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states in part: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury….nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (Emphasis added)
The Sixth Amendment states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Emphasis added)
These constitutional rights are to be enjoyed regardless of the skin color of the motorist or pedestrian. It is not within the domain of the police to determine whose lives have value. Black lives, like all lives, truly matter. This is a truism that should not be vilified; it must be respected as part of the responsibility and rights inherent in the US Constitution.
Lastly, it is essential for police and policymakers to remember the importance of legitimacy. While a government may have authority it needs legitimacy to survive. Legitimacy makes citizens obey and feel loyal toward their government. It is the loss of legitimacy that led to the signing of the Magna Carta by King John when English barons tired of excess taxation and repressive treatment. It was the loss of legitimacy in the American colonies that led to the rebellion against King George III. It was the denial of basic human rights that led to the Civil Rights movement of the mid-20 th century and to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In all instances, when a people feel that they are poorly and unjustly treated a government loses its legitimacy.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor referred to legitimacy in the Grutter v. Bollinger 2003 affirmative action case:
In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. All members of our heterogeneous society must have confidence in the openness and integrity of the educational institutions that provide this training. (Emphasis added)The consistent reports of unjustifiable killings of people of color at the hands of police, who are executors of the nation’s laws including the Constitution, will quickly lead to a state of illegitimacy, where those who are governed lose confidence in the integrity and fairness of their government. Since these incidents are visible by all Americans and the world itself, the loss of the legitimacy of government will be felt by citizens of all colors, races and ethnicities both at home and abroad. This trend is exemplified by the racial heterogeneity of the demonstrators in the nation’s cities.
It is the Constitution of which we speak. Government, and police forces in particular, must restore their legitimacy in the mind of an increasing population of color by remembering that it is the Constitution and its rights that they have sworn to respect and enforce. Dr. King spoke of the “Fierce Urgency of Now.” That time is upon us.
Shirley J. Wilcher, J.D., CAAP
Monday, July 11, 2016
AAAED Webinar: "The Fisher Decision: What it Means to Educators, Employers and Diversity/AA Professionals"
On June 23, 2016 the United States Supreme Court upheld the consideration of race as one of many factors in the admissions program of the University of Texas at Austin. The American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity (AAAED), which filed two amicus curiae briefs in support of the University of Texas' admissions program, hailed the decision. AAAED News Release on Fisher.
On July 12, 2016, the AAAED attorneys who drafted the briefs will hold a webinar to discuss the Court's decision and its implications for educators, employers and AA/Diversity professionals.
The July 12, 2016 Webinar will be presented by:
Matthew Camardella, Esq., Jackson Lewis PC
Marilynn Schuyler, Esq., Schuyler Affirmative Action Practice
Dean Sparlin, Esq., Sparlin Law
Joe Weiner, Esq., Littler Mendelson P.C
Attorneys Camardella, Schuyler and Sparlin serve on the board of AAAED.
The July 12, 2016 Webinar will be presented by:
Matthew Camardella, Esq., Jackson Lewis PC
Marilynn Schuyler, Esq., Schuyler Affirmative Action Practice
Dean Sparlin, Esq., Sparlin Law
Joe Weiner, Esq., Littler Mendelson P.C
Attorneys Camardella, Schuyler and Sparlin serve on the board of AAAED.
Register for the AAAED Webinar here.
43rd National Conference and Annual Meeting June 7 - 9, 2017 in Scottsdale, Arizona
The bylaws of the American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity (AAAED) require that there be “A meeting of members for the transaction of business of the Association to be brought before it, [which] shall be held each year….” Thus, AAAED holds an annual meeting of its membership in selected cities around the nation. The meeting is held in conjunction with a national conference, including plenary sessions, workshops, and other opportunities for professional development and networking. Every four years when the national presidential election is held, the association has, by tradition, hosted its annual meeting in Washington, DC.
To date, AAAED has held 42 national conferences. AAAED welcomes members, sponsors, exhibitors and members of the general public to join us at our annual conference to refresh your knowledge about issues regarding access, equity and diversity and matters of compliance with federal equal opportunity laws. National decision makers and policy advocates are always in attendance and the AAAED conference is an excellent opportunity to share information and to network with members in the EEO, affirmative action, diversity and related professions.
The 43rd AAAED National Conference and Annual Meeting will take place June 7 - 9, 2017 in Scottsdale, Arizona. Save the date!
The 43rd AAAED National Conference and Annual Meeting will take place June 7 - 9, 2017 in Scottsdale, Arizona. Save the date!
EEOC Sues Bojangles For Sex Harassment and Retaliation
Restaurant Chain Subjected Transgender Employee to Sex Harassment, Then Fired Her for Complaining, Federal Agency Charges
FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. - Bojangles Restaurants, Inc., a North Carolina corporation operating a chain of fast food restaurants in the Southeast, violated federal law by subjecting a transgender employee to a hostile work environment because of her gender identity, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today. The lawsuit also alleges that Bojangles illegally fired the employee in retaliation for reporting the sexual harassment.
Read more here.
Big companies back DOJ suit against NC bathroom law
Leading airlines, hotel chains, retailers and tech companies are backing the Department of Justice in its lawsuit against North Carolina over the state’s controversial bathroom law.
American and United airlines, the Hilton and Marriott hotel chains, as well as Apple, Dropbox, eBay, IBM, Microsoft, PayPal, and Ikea, are among 68 companies signing on to a "friend of the court" brief asking a federal judge to issue an order that stops the law, known as HB2, from being enforced until a court has ruled on the discrimination case.
HB2 requires people to use the public bathroom matching their gender at birth.
Read the complete story by The Hill here.
American and United airlines, the Hilton and Marriott hotel chains, as well as Apple, Dropbox, eBay, IBM, Microsoft, PayPal, and Ikea, are among 68 companies signing on to a "friend of the court" brief asking a federal judge to issue an order that stops the law, known as HB2, from being enforced until a court has ruled on the discrimination case.
HB2 requires people to use the public bathroom matching their gender at birth.
Read the complete story by The Hill here.
View the brief filed by the 68 companies here.
Thursday, July 7, 2016
The Fisher Decision and What It Means for Future Discussions of Race
By Karolina Ware (Intern at AAAED)
Almost 40 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County that all school boards had to establish a plan to desegregate the school systems in their district, in order to comply with the Supreme Court ruling of Brown v. Board of Education. Because of the integration of public schools, white middle class families moved out of cities to the suburbs and enrolled their children in private schools, allowing a new form of segregation to develop. Because racial diversity must be achieved in compliance with Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, students were often bussed across city and county lines. White families whose children were being bussed felt inconvenienced by the extensive busing and became more resistant to the idea of affirmative action.[1]
This backlash eventually made its way to the Supreme Court in 1978, when a white student named Allan Bakke sued the University of California, Davis’ medical school after being denied admission. He claimed that, because the school reserved 16 out of 100 spots for students of color, their admissions process violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.[2] The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the University’s use of quotas violated the Equal Protection Clause, but that race could be considered as one factor, along with many others, in the admissions process to promote diversity in the institution.[3] This case was upheld by Bollinger in 2003, and has emerged again in the case of Abigail Fisher and the University of Texas, Austin.[4]
Almost 40 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County that all school boards had to establish a plan to desegregate the school systems in their district, in order to comply with the Supreme Court ruling of Brown v. Board of Education. Because of the integration of public schools, white middle class families moved out of cities to the suburbs and enrolled their children in private schools, allowing a new form of segregation to develop. Because racial diversity must be achieved in compliance with Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, students were often bussed across city and county lines. White families whose children were being bussed felt inconvenienced by the extensive busing and became more resistant to the idea of affirmative action.[1]
This backlash eventually made its way to the Supreme Court in 1978, when a white student named Allan Bakke sued the University of California, Davis’ medical school after being denied admission. He claimed that, because the school reserved 16 out of 100 spots for students of color, their admissions process violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.[2] The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the University’s use of quotas violated the Equal Protection Clause, but that race could be considered as one factor, along with many others, in the admissions process to promote diversity in the institution.[3] This case was upheld by Bollinger in 2003, and has emerged again in the case of Abigail Fisher and the University of Texas, Austin.[4]
Fisher applied to the University of Texas, Austin in 2008 and was denied admission. The University employs an admissions process that admits all in-state high school seniors who are ranked in the top 10% of their class.[5] To fill the remaining spots, the admissions office examines many factors - including the applicant’s race. In her lawsuit, Fisher claimed that the consideration of race in admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Supreme Court’s first review of this case, they decided that the appellate court did not apply the strict scrutiny standard to the University’s admissions policies and remanded the case. This means that the court did not examine the University’s policies carefully enough “in order to determine if it is narrowly drawn to serve a compelling state interest.”[6] The District Court of Appeals reaffirmed their decision that the consideration of race in the interest of promoting diversity is constitutional and Fisher appealed the case to the Supreme Court again.[7]
Last week, the Supreme Court announced its 4-3 ruling that the consideration of race in the admissions process for the purpose of promoting educational diversity is constitutional. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy affirmed the University’s admissions policies; however he stated that “it remains an enduring challenge to our Nation's education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity.”[8] The Supreme Court made it very clear that the University of Texas, Austin, as well as other higher education institutions, must constantly be critical of their policies, and re-evaluate their processes often.
This decision comes at a time when race continues to be a leading and heated issue especially on college campuses. Fisher allows for particular insight into the ways that racism manifests today in institutions of higher education. When looking deeper into the facts of the case, it is easy to see that this was not just a case against affirmative action, but more so one where Abigail Fisher felt entitled to a spot at the University of Texas Austin because of her whiteness. As indicated above, the University fills most of its spots with students who graduated in the top 10% of their class which, in this case, filled 92% of the spots in the accepted class. To fill the remaining 8% of spots, students are given an Academic Index (AI), comprised of grades, essays, and activities, and a Personal Achievement Index (PAI), which includes race, family background, and socioeconomic status. Fisher claimed that, because students of color with lower combined AI and PAI scores than hers were admitted while she was rejected, the school was discriminating against her for being white.[9] What Fisher’s case failed to mention, however, was that of the 841 admitted students who constituted that 8%, 47 of them had lower AI/PAI scores than hers, and of those 47, only 5 of them were students of color. Those 42 white students were not mentioned in her case because, when you think about the students who were accepted instead of Fisher, as well as the 168 students of color with AI/PAI scores that were as good or better than hers who were rejected, her case seems quite unsubstantiated.[10] This was not a case of “reverse discrimination,” as many of her supports would like to believe, but simply a situation where her white privilege was counteracted, and therefore did not allow her to coast by on the benefits of it. Fisher’s case was based on the idea that her whiteness could make up for her mediocrity, but it was framed in a way that makes colorblindness appear to be the only “truly fair” approach.[11]
Colorblindness, or the idea that choosing not to see race is a neutral approach, has been posited as a progressive way to counteract racism but it only allows the existing systems that value and privilege whiteness to go unchecked. By ruling in favor of affirmative action, the Supreme Court reinforced the idea that we cannot yet count ourselves as a “post-racial” society, and that we must continue to see race and actively work to dismantle systems of privilege and oppression that have been institutionalized.[12] Colorblindness actively removes race from discussions, which perpetuates racial inequities and further harms students of color. By choosing not to see race in the admissions process, schools are showing students of color that they are not acknowledging the prejudices that have been ingrained into their institution, and that most likely translates to the treatment of students of color on campus. This especially manifests in, for instance, financial aid packages and scholarships, and funding of students centers that are specifically for students of color and international students. Conversations about racism, in which the voices of students of color are prioritized, need to happen consistently and throughout every aspect of the school to ensure that it is constantly working to deconstruct systematic inequalities on every level. This dialogue also needs to translate into the way students of color are supported on campus. These conversations are important, but they also need to create change so students of color have resources, and ensure that needs are being met.
Higher education institutions must continue to show up for and support students of color, and be willing to be critical of themselves. They must be held accountable and actively address discrimination not only in the admissions process, but also throughout the institution for the admitted students. Conversations about systematic oppression and discrimination are happening in various spaces, like college admissions, hiring practices, the relationship between race and incarceration/law enforcement, and many others all over the country and they must continue to be critiqued and challenged. Words need to be followed by actions in order for racism and oppression to truly be dismantled. Fisher’s case furthered the race and racism conversation in mainstream media. While many believe that race and racism are dead, both are still very much alive and must continue to be intertwined in dialogue, as well as activism, because injustice does not end with tomorrow’s headlines.
Last week, the Supreme Court announced its 4-3 ruling that the consideration of race in the admissions process for the purpose of promoting educational diversity is constitutional. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy affirmed the University’s admissions policies; however he stated that “it remains an enduring challenge to our Nation's education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity.”[8] The Supreme Court made it very clear that the University of Texas, Austin, as well as other higher education institutions, must constantly be critical of their policies, and re-evaluate their processes often.
This decision comes at a time when race continues to be a leading and heated issue especially on college campuses. Fisher allows for particular insight into the ways that racism manifests today in institutions of higher education. When looking deeper into the facts of the case, it is easy to see that this was not just a case against affirmative action, but more so one where Abigail Fisher felt entitled to a spot at the University of Texas Austin because of her whiteness. As indicated above, the University fills most of its spots with students who graduated in the top 10% of their class which, in this case, filled 92% of the spots in the accepted class. To fill the remaining 8% of spots, students are given an Academic Index (AI), comprised of grades, essays, and activities, and a Personal Achievement Index (PAI), which includes race, family background, and socioeconomic status. Fisher claimed that, because students of color with lower combined AI and PAI scores than hers were admitted while she was rejected, the school was discriminating against her for being white.[9] What Fisher’s case failed to mention, however, was that of the 841 admitted students who constituted that 8%, 47 of them had lower AI/PAI scores than hers, and of those 47, only 5 of them were students of color. Those 42 white students were not mentioned in her case because, when you think about the students who were accepted instead of Fisher, as well as the 168 students of color with AI/PAI scores that were as good or better than hers who were rejected, her case seems quite unsubstantiated.[10] This was not a case of “reverse discrimination,” as many of her supports would like to believe, but simply a situation where her white privilege was counteracted, and therefore did not allow her to coast by on the benefits of it. Fisher’s case was based on the idea that her whiteness could make up for her mediocrity, but it was framed in a way that makes colorblindness appear to be the only “truly fair” approach.[11]
Colorblindness, or the idea that choosing not to see race is a neutral approach, has been posited as a progressive way to counteract racism but it only allows the existing systems that value and privilege whiteness to go unchecked. By ruling in favor of affirmative action, the Supreme Court reinforced the idea that we cannot yet count ourselves as a “post-racial” society, and that we must continue to see race and actively work to dismantle systems of privilege and oppression that have been institutionalized.[12] Colorblindness actively removes race from discussions, which perpetuates racial inequities and further harms students of color. By choosing not to see race in the admissions process, schools are showing students of color that they are not acknowledging the prejudices that have been ingrained into their institution, and that most likely translates to the treatment of students of color on campus. This especially manifests in, for instance, financial aid packages and scholarships, and funding of students centers that are specifically for students of color and international students. Conversations about racism, in which the voices of students of color are prioritized, need to happen consistently and throughout every aspect of the school to ensure that it is constantly working to deconstruct systematic inequalities on every level. This dialogue also needs to translate into the way students of color are supported on campus. These conversations are important, but they also need to create change so students of color have resources, and ensure that needs are being met.
Higher education institutions must continue to show up for and support students of color, and be willing to be critical of themselves. They must be held accountable and actively address discrimination not only in the admissions process, but also throughout the institution for the admitted students. Conversations about systematic oppression and discrimination are happening in various spaces, like college admissions, hiring practices, the relationship between race and incarceration/law enforcement, and many others all over the country and they must continue to be critiqued and challenged. Words need to be followed by actions in order for racism and oppression to truly be dismantled. Fisher’s case furthered the race and racism conversation in mainstream media. While many believe that race and racism are dead, both are still very much alive and must continue to be intertwined in dialogue, as well as activism, because injustice does not end with tomorrow’s headlines.
Works Referenced:
The Fisher Decision and What It Means for Future Discussions of Race
By Karolina Ware (Intern at AAAED)
Almost 40 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County that all school boards had to establish a plan to desegregate the school systems in their district, in order to comply with the Supreme Court ruling of Brown v. Board of Education. Because of the integration of public schools, white middle class families moved out of cities to the suburbs and enrolled their children in private schools, allowing a new form of segregation to develop. Because racial diversity must be achieved in compliance with Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, students were often bussed across city and county lines. White families whose children were being bussed felt inconvenienced by the extensive busing and became more resistant to the idea of affirmative action.[1]
This backlash eventually made its way to the Supreme Court in 1978, when a white student named Allan Bakke sued the University of California, Davis’ medical school after being denied admission. He claimed that, because the school reserved 16 out of 100 spots for students of color, their admissions process violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.[2] The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the University’s use of quotas violated the Equal Protection Clause, but that race could be considered as one factor, along with many others, in the admissions process to promote diversity in the institution.[3] This case was upheld by Bollinger in 2003, and has emerged again in the case of Abigail Fisher and the University of Texas, Austin.[4]
Almost 40 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County that all school boards had to establish a plan to desegregate the school systems in their district, in order to comply with the Supreme Court ruling of Brown v. Board of Education. Because of the integration of public schools, white middle class families moved out of cities to the suburbs and enrolled their children in private schools, allowing a new form of segregation to develop. Because racial diversity must be achieved in compliance with Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, students were often bussed across city and county lines. White families whose children were being bussed felt inconvenienced by the extensive busing and became more resistant to the idea of affirmative action.[1]
This backlash eventually made its way to the Supreme Court in 1978, when a white student named Allan Bakke sued the University of California, Davis’ medical school after being denied admission. He claimed that, because the school reserved 16 out of 100 spots for students of color, their admissions process violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.[2] The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the University’s use of quotas violated the Equal Protection Clause, but that race could be considered as one factor, along with many others, in the admissions process to promote diversity in the institution.[3] This case was upheld by Bollinger in 2003, and has emerged again in the case of Abigail Fisher and the University of Texas, Austin.[4]
Fisher applied to the University of Texas, Austin in 2008 and was denied admission. The University employs an admissions process that admits all in-state high school seniors who are ranked in the top 10% of their class.[5] To fill the remaining spots, the admissions office examines many factors - including the applicant’s race. In her lawsuit, Fisher claimed that the consideration of race in admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Supreme Court’s first review of this case, they decided that the appellate court did not apply the strict scrutiny standard to the University’s admissions policies and remanded the case. This means that the court did not examine the University’s policies carefully enough “in order to determine if it is narrowly drawn to serve a compelling state interest.”[6] The District Court of Appeals reaffirmed their decision that the consideration of race in the interest of promoting diversity is constitutional and Fisher appealed the case to the Supreme Court again.[7]
Last week, the Supreme Court announced its 4-3 ruling that the consideration of race in the admissions process for the purpose of promoting educational diversity is constitutional. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy affirmed the University’s admissions policies; however he stated that “it remains an enduring challenge to our Nation's education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity.”[8] The Supreme Court made it very clear that the University of Texas, Austin, as well as other higher education institutions, must constantly be critical of their policies, and re-evaluate their processes often.
This decision comes at a time when race continues to be a leading and heated issue especially on college campuses. Fisher allows for particular insight into the ways that racism manifests today in institutions of higher education. When looking deeper into the facts of the case, it is easy to see that this was not just a case against affirmative action, but more so one where Abigail Fisher felt entitled to a spot at the University of Texas Austin because of her whiteness. As indicated above, the University fills most of its spots with students who graduated in the top 10% of their class which, in this case, filled 92% of the spots in the accepted class. To fill the remaining 8% of spots, students are given an Academic Index (AI), comprised of grades, essays, and activities, and a Personal Achievement Index (PAI), which includes race, family background, and socioeconomic status. Fisher claimed that, because students of color with lower combined AI and PAI scores than hers were admitted while she was rejected, the school was discriminating against her for being white.[9] What Fisher’s case failed to mention, however, was that of the 841 admitted students who constituted that 8%, 47 of them had lower AI/PAI scores than hers, and of those 47, only 5 of them were students of color. Those 42 white students were not mentioned in her case because, when you think about the students who were accepted instead of Fisher, as well as the 168 students of color with AI/PAI scores that were as good or better than hers who were rejected, her case seems quite unsubstantiated.[10] This was not a case of “reverse discrimination,” as many of her supports would like to believe, but simply a situation where her white privilege was counteracted, and therefore did not allow her to coast by on the benefits of it. Fisher’s case was based on the idea that her whiteness could make up for her mediocrity, but it was framed in a way that makes colorblindness appear to be the only “truly fair” approach.[11]
Colorblindness, or the idea that choosing not to see race is a neutral approach, has been posited as a progressive way to counteract racism but it only allows the existing systems that value and privilege whiteness to go unchecked. By ruling in favor of affirmative action, the Supreme Court reinforced the idea that we cannot yet count ourselves as a “post-racial” society, and that we must continue to see race and actively work to dismantle systems of privilege and oppression that have been institutionalized.[12] Colorblindness actively removes race from discussions, which perpetuates racial inequities and further harms students of color. By choosing not to see race in the admissions process, schools are showing students of color that they are not acknowledging the prejudices that have been ingrained into their institution, and that most likely translates to the treatment of students of color on campus. This especially manifests in, for instance, financial aid packages and scholarships, and funding of students centers that are specifically for students of color and international students. Conversations about racism, in which the voices of students of color are prioritized, need to happen consistently and throughout every aspect of the school to ensure that it is constantly working to deconstruct systematic inequalities on every level. This dialogue also needs to translate into the way students of color are supported on campus. These conversations are important, but they also need to create change so students of color have resources, and ensure that needs are being met.
Higher education institutions must continue to show up for and support students of color, and be willing to be critical of themselves. They must be held accountable and actively address discrimination not only in the admissions process, but also throughout the institution for the admitted students. Conversations about systematic oppression and discrimination are happening in various spaces, like college admissions, hiring practices, the relationship between race and incarceration/law enforcement, and many others all over the country and they must continue to be critiqued and challenged. Words need to be followed by actions in order for racism and oppression to truly be dismantled. Fisher’s case furthered the race and racism conversation in mainstream media. While many believe that race and racism are dead, both are still very much alive and must continue to be intertwined in dialogue, as well as activism, because injustice does not end with tomorrow’s headlines.
Last week, the Supreme Court announced its 4-3 ruling that the consideration of race in the admissions process for the purpose of promoting educational diversity is constitutional. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy affirmed the University’s admissions policies; however he stated that “it remains an enduring challenge to our Nation's education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity.”[8] The Supreme Court made it very clear that the University of Texas, Austin, as well as other higher education institutions, must constantly be critical of their policies, and re-evaluate their processes often.
This decision comes at a time when race continues to be a leading and heated issue especially on college campuses. Fisher allows for particular insight into the ways that racism manifests today in institutions of higher education. When looking deeper into the facts of the case, it is easy to see that this was not just a case against affirmative action, but more so one where Abigail Fisher felt entitled to a spot at the University of Texas Austin because of her whiteness. As indicated above, the University fills most of its spots with students who graduated in the top 10% of their class which, in this case, filled 92% of the spots in the accepted class. To fill the remaining 8% of spots, students are given an Academic Index (AI), comprised of grades, essays, and activities, and a Personal Achievement Index (PAI), which includes race, family background, and socioeconomic status. Fisher claimed that, because students of color with lower combined AI and PAI scores than hers were admitted while she was rejected, the school was discriminating against her for being white.[9] What Fisher’s case failed to mention, however, was that of the 841 admitted students who constituted that 8%, 47 of them had lower AI/PAI scores than hers, and of those 47, only 5 of them were students of color. Those 42 white students were not mentioned in her case because, when you think about the students who were accepted instead of Fisher, as well as the 168 students of color with AI/PAI scores that were as good or better than hers who were rejected, her case seems quite unsubstantiated.[10] This was not a case of “reverse discrimination,” as many of her supports would like to believe, but simply a situation where her white privilege was counteracted, and therefore did not allow her to coast by on the benefits of it. Fisher’s case was based on the idea that her whiteness could make up for her mediocrity, but it was framed in a way that makes colorblindness appear to be the only “truly fair” approach.[11]
Colorblindness, or the idea that choosing not to see race is a neutral approach, has been posited as a progressive way to counteract racism but it only allows the existing systems that value and privilege whiteness to go unchecked. By ruling in favor of affirmative action, the Supreme Court reinforced the idea that we cannot yet count ourselves as a “post-racial” society, and that we must continue to see race and actively work to dismantle systems of privilege and oppression that have been institutionalized.[12] Colorblindness actively removes race from discussions, which perpetuates racial inequities and further harms students of color. By choosing not to see race in the admissions process, schools are showing students of color that they are not acknowledging the prejudices that have been ingrained into their institution, and that most likely translates to the treatment of students of color on campus. This especially manifests in, for instance, financial aid packages and scholarships, and funding of students centers that are specifically for students of color and international students. Conversations about racism, in which the voices of students of color are prioritized, need to happen consistently and throughout every aspect of the school to ensure that it is constantly working to deconstruct systematic inequalities on every level. This dialogue also needs to translate into the way students of color are supported on campus. These conversations are important, but they also need to create change so students of color have resources, and ensure that needs are being met.
Higher education institutions must continue to show up for and support students of color, and be willing to be critical of themselves. They must be held accountable and actively address discrimination not only in the admissions process, but also throughout the institution for the admitted students. Conversations about systematic oppression and discrimination are happening in various spaces, like college admissions, hiring practices, the relationship between race and incarceration/law enforcement, and many others all over the country and they must continue to be critiqued and challenged. Words need to be followed by actions in order for racism and oppression to truly be dismantled. Fisher’s case furthered the race and racism conversation in mainstream media. While many believe that race and racism are dead, both are still very much alive and must continue to be intertwined in dialogue, as well as activism, because injustice does not end with tomorrow’s headlines.
Works Referenced:
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Memo to the boss: Follow the BBC’s lead and measure class diversity, too
The BBC is doing something I think is awesome but many of my American friends think is awful: gathering information of the social class background of their recruits. The move is part of an aggressive strategy to promote more diversity both on the airwaves and behind the scenes at the public service broadcaster. The civil service has been moving in the same direction.
Some questions arise:
1. Can you measure social class?
Race and gender are relatively straightforward characteristics, notwithstanding the recent nonsense over restrooms for transgender people. Defining social class is a much more complex business. Many variables could be included, including occupational status, income or wealth, as well as education or cultural capital.
But the goal here is simply to find a measure that is good enough for the purposes at hand. The BBC asks whether either of your parents has a college degree. This is not a bad approach. Education is an important dimension of social class in itself, and strongly related to others. The BBC is also going to ask whether at any point in childhood the person in question was eligible for free school meals. (The questions are voluntary.)
Such proxy measures are narrow measures of class. But they are better than the current ones, since there are none.
Read the full Brookings article here.
Some questions arise:
1. Can you measure social class?
Race and gender are relatively straightforward characteristics, notwithstanding the recent nonsense over restrooms for transgender people. Defining social class is a much more complex business. Many variables could be included, including occupational status, income or wealth, as well as education or cultural capital.
But the goal here is simply to find a measure that is good enough for the purposes at hand. The BBC asks whether either of your parents has a college degree. This is not a bad approach. Education is an important dimension of social class in itself, and strongly related to others. The BBC is also going to ask whether at any point in childhood the person in question was eligible for free school meals. (The questions are voluntary.)
Such proxy measures are narrow measures of class. But they are better than the current ones, since there are none.
Read the full Brookings article here.
EEOC Sues McDonald’s Franchise for Disability Discrimination
Bentonville Restaurant Management Companies Fired Employee Because of His HIV Status, Agency Charges
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - A McDonald's restaurant owned and operated by Mathews Management Company and Peach Orchard, Inc. in Bentonville, Ark., violated federal law when it fired an employee because of his HIV-positive status, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
EEOC's suit alleges the companies violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when they terminated the employee within days of learning of his HIV status. The suit also alleges the companies maintain a policy of requiring all employees to report the use of prescription medication, also in violation of the ADA.
Read more here.
U.S. Urges Kansas State to Heed Reports of Off-Campus Rape
Kansas State University’s policy not to investigate accusations of rape in off-campus fraternity houses is “incorrect,” according to federal government statements filed in court in support of two female students at the university.
The two women, Sara Weckhorst and Tessa Farmer, both told the university that they had been raped in two separate episodes at fraternity houses in 2014 and 2015. In both cases, they say, the university would not investigate because the fraternity houses were off campus, even though they were sanctioned fraternities.
Their federal lawsuits, filed in Kansas in April, say the university violated Title IX, a civil rights statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, by failing to respond to their complaints of rape. Title IX generally governs gender equity in education.
Read the full New York Times article here.
The two women, Sara Weckhorst and Tessa Farmer, both told the university that they had been raped in two separate episodes at fraternity houses in 2014 and 2015. In both cases, they say, the university would not investigate because the fraternity houses were off campus, even though they were sanctioned fraternities.
Their federal lawsuits, filed in Kansas in April, say the university violated Title IX, a civil rights statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, by failing to respond to their complaints of rape. Title IX generally governs gender equity in education.
Read the full New York Times article here.
Tennessee settles sexual assault suit for $2.48 million
The University of Tennessee-Knoxville has reached a settlement in a lawsuit about sexual assaults involving student-athletes, ending a dispute that pitted eight young women against the $126 million football program.
UT will pay the plaintiffs $2.48 million, a sum that also includes fees for their attorneys.
School officials also agreed to the appointment of a special independent commission to review the response to sexual assaults at all universities within the UT system. Under the terms of the settlement, the university did not admit to "guilt, negligence or unlawful acts."
Read the full Tennessean story here.
UT will pay the plaintiffs $2.48 million, a sum that also includes fees for their attorneys.
School officials also agreed to the appointment of a special independent commission to review the response to sexual assaults at all universities within the UT system. Under the terms of the settlement, the university did not admit to "guilt, negligence or unlawful acts."
Read the full Tennessean story here.
Why Diversity Programs Fail
It shouldn’t be surprising that most diversity programs aren’t increasing diversity. Despite a few new bells and whistles, courtesy of big data, companies are basically doubling down on the same approaches they’ve used since the 1960s—which often make things worse, not better. Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers. Those tools are designed to preempt lawsuits by policing managers’ thoughts and actions. Yet laboratory studies show that this kind of force-feeding can activate bias rather than stamp it out. As social scientists have found, people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy. Try to coerce me to do X, Y, or Z, and I’ll do the opposite just to prove that I’m my own person.
In analyzing three decades’ worth of data from more than 800 U.S. firms and interviewing hundreds of line managers and executives at length, we’ve seen that companies get better results when they ease up on the control tactics. It’s more effective to engage managers in solving the problem, increase their on-the-job contact with female and minority workers, and promote social accountability—the desire to look fair-minded. That’s why interventions such as targeted college recruitment, mentoring programs, self-managed teams, and task forces have boosted diversity in businesses. Some of the most effective solutions aren’t even designed with diversity in mind.
Read the complete Harvard Business Review article here.
In analyzing three decades’ worth of data from more than 800 U.S. firms and interviewing hundreds of line managers and executives at length, we’ve seen that companies get better results when they ease up on the control tactics. It’s more effective to engage managers in solving the problem, increase their on-the-job contact with female and minority workers, and promote social accountability—the desire to look fair-minded. That’s why interventions such as targeted college recruitment, mentoring programs, self-managed teams, and task forces have boosted diversity in businesses. Some of the most effective solutions aren’t even designed with diversity in mind.
Read the complete Harvard Business Review article here.
Pride and Progress on Workplace Inclusion
We at the Labor Department are proud to share what we’re doing to advance LGBT equality in the workplace and around the world. Equality in the workplace is becoming the law of the land in many countries, and in particular, those in Latin America.
“Outside of the North Atlantic, no region in the world has undergone more progress in expanding LGBT legal rights than Latin America,” said a 2015 USAID and University of North Carolina report.
In 1999, just five Latin American countries − Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela had anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT workers on the books. Today, at least 16 countries − those five plus Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and Uruguay − have some type of law banning discrimination against their LGBT citizens. Even so, not all members of the LGBT community benefit from the same protections.
Read the full U.S. Department of Labor story here.
“Outside of the North Atlantic, no region in the world has undergone more progress in expanding LGBT legal rights than Latin America,” said a 2015 USAID and University of North Carolina report.
In 1999, just five Latin American countries − Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela had anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT workers on the books. Today, at least 16 countries − those five plus Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and Uruguay − have some type of law banning discrimination against their LGBT citizens. Even so, not all members of the LGBT community benefit from the same protections.
Read the full U.S. Department of Labor story here.
Racial, gender wage gaps persist in U.S. despite some progress
Large racial and gender wage gaps in the U.S. remain, even as they have narrowed in some cases over the years. Among full- and part-time workers in the U.S., blacks in 2015 earned just 75% as much as whites in median hourly earnings and women earned 83% as much as men.
Looking at gender, race and ethnicity combined, all groups, with the exception of Asian men, lag behind white men in terms of median hourly earnings, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. White men are often used in comparisons such as this because they are the largest demographic group in the workforce – 33% in 2015.
In 2015, average hourly wages for black and Hispanic men were $15 and $14, respectively, compared with $21 for white men. Only the hourly earnings of Asian men ($24) outpaced those of white men.
Read the full Pew Research Center story here.
In 2015, average hourly wages for black and Hispanic men were $15 and $14, respectively, compared with $21 for white men. Only the hourly earnings of Asian men ($24) outpaced those of white men.
Read the full Pew Research Center story here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)