Suchergebnisse

This study utilizes a national study of university faculty, including a sizeable proportion of Afro-American and female respondents, to examine university faculty attitudes toward affir mative action. It has been argued by some that self-interested motivations underlie attitudes about affirmative action policies, while others have argued that "public spirit" (Kelman, 1987) and "other regarding" (Wilson and Banfield, 1964) motivations more properly serve to account for attitudes relating to social equity and societal welfare issues. University faculty were chosen as a particularly appropriate group to study; if any segment of society is likely to be public spirited in this way it is likely to be the best educated among us. The central question to be investigated is: how do individuals embedded in a meritocratic system such as the University perceive affirmative action and the benefits and harms it holds for both white males and protected category persons? How, in turn, does this set of attitudes about affirmative action affect the job satisfaction of white male professors? The results indicate that little "pub lic spirit" is in evidence, suggesting that future implementation of this policy will hold only continued conflict for Academe. Somewhat fortunate, however, is the finding that job satisfac tion for white males is little related to their views on affirmative action.

State preemption of local policymaking has attracted increasing attention from scholars, public officials, and citizens, as states have prevented local governments from boosting the minimum wage, regulating firearms, and barring certain forms of discrimination, among other policies. Although scholars have examined the legal dimensions of state preemption and analyzed preemption in specific areas, we lack a comprehensive account of which states have adopted preemption laws and why some states are more active than others in adopting them. Using a dataset drawing on preemption legislation in seventeen policy areas, we test support for competing explanations for variation in adoption of state preemption measures. Our general conclusion is that political factors are more significant than institutional features in explaining state preemption activity. More specifically, and consistent with expectations, we find preemption measures are more likely to be adopted by Republican-controlled states. We also find that legislative professionalism, political culture, and home-rule status are correlated with the prevalence of preemption measures.