Suchergebnisse

Fifty years after the civil rights movement, ethnic and racial disparities persist and have even widened across a number of socioeconomic indicators. When compared against whites, nonwhites today fare about the same or worse than their counterparts of the past in educational and occupational attainment, income and earnings, wealth, unemployment and underemployment. How can we understand the failure of racial and ethnic minority groups to attain socioeconomic parity with non-Hispanic whites following one of the most progressive eras of American race relations? Contemporary economic and political approaches are often considered separately and offer different explanations. What they share in common, however, is a tendency to downplay the salience of race as a significant factor that conditions the life chances of nonwhites in the post-civil rights era. This article introduces a critical race perspective to redirect this conversation. This approach starts from the premise that the social structure of the United States is highly stratified by race, which conditions racially unequal outcomes. In the post-civil rights era, color-blind racism is the hegemonic ideology, discourse, and practice, which justifies persistent racial inequality. The development of a color-blind ideology reflects this historical moment and the larger political and economic context; thus, its development is consistent with the political shift toward neoconservatism and the economic transition to neoliberalism. Taken together, these social forces foster the reproduction of a racialized social system characterized by persistent racial inequality that is observed in the post-civil rights era.

The November 2004 publication of Richard Sanders Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools in the STANFORD LAW REVIEW set off an intense debate in American legal education. Some aspects of Sanders work may achieve broad agreement, such as data on the disparate performance of blacks and whites on grades, graduation and bar passage. However, other aspects have already sparked significant disagreement. Many of Sanders critics take issue with his contention that racial disparities in law school academic performance and bar passage rates are a result of an academic mismatch, whereby the intended beneficiaries of large racial preferences are admitted to law schools for which they are not otherwise academically qualified. This brief points out some insights and arguments about the affirmative action in American Law Schools. ; U.S Commission on Civil Rights

Shipping list no.: 89-578-P. ; Item 288-A. ; "September 1989." ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Fundamental rights: an introduction to medical discrimination against people with disabilities -- The physician-parent relationship and treatment/nontreatment decision-making -- The role of quality of life assessments in denial of medical treatment -- The role of economic considerations in denials of medical treatment -- State law -- The rehabilitation Act of 1973 -- The child abuse amendments of 1984 -- Constitutional issues -- The incidence of discriminatory denial of medical treatment -- Child protective services agencies and enforcement of the child abuse amendments of 1984 -- The role and performance of infant care review committees -- The performance of the federal government -- The protection and advocacy system: a resource for enforcement -- Findings and recommendations. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Cover title. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Shipping list no.: 88-477-P. ; Caption title. ; Mode of access: Internet.

© 2015 Eastern Sociological Society. Fifty years after the civil rights movement, ethnic and racial disparities persist and have even widened across a number of socioeconomic indicators. When compared against whites, nonwhites today fare about the same or worse than their counterparts of the past in educational and occupational attainment, income and earnings, wealth, unemployment and underemployment. How can we understand the failure of racial and ethnic minority groups to attain socioeconomic parity with non-Hispanic whites following one of the most progressive eras of American race relations? Contemporary economic and political approaches are often considered separately and offer different explanations. What they share in common, however, is a tendency to downplay the salience of race as a significant factor that conditions the life chances of nonwhites in the post-civil rights era. This article introduces a critical race perspective to redirect this conversation. This approach starts from the premise that the social structure of the United States is highly stratified by race, which conditions racially unequal outcomes. In the post-civil rights era, color-blind racism is the hegemonic ideology, discourse, and practice, which justifies persistent racial inequality. The development of a color-blind ideology reflects this historical moment and the larger political and economic context; thus, its development is consistent with the political shift toward neoconservatism and the economic transition to neoliberalism. Taken together, these social forces foster the reproduction of a racialized social system characterized by persistent racial inequality that is observed in the post-civil rights era.

"The times," wrote Bob Dylan in 1963, "they are a-changin'." One hundred years after formal emancipation, blacks in 1963 were beginning to see the end of laws that prevented their full participation in American society. The United States Supreme Court had struck down the separate but equal doctrine, Congress had passed the first civil rights legislation in seventy-five years, and the executive branch was enforcing the law. Anthony Lewis wrote in the mid-1960s that "[n]o one could doubt that the conscience of America has been seized by the injustice of unequal treatment because of a man's skin." A women's liberation movement also grew with publication in 1963 of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique. A year' later, blacks and women gained new legal rights with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The times were changing, and marginalized groups began to feel the winds of social progress at their backs. This Symposium addresses the state of civil rights progress in America as a new Presidential Administration takes office. During the twenty-five years since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including eight years of the conservative Reagan Administration, the civil rights agenda has undergone a profound re-evaluation. In the articles that follow, this Symposium examines the premises of the conservative philosophy on civil rights and considers four specific areas of civil rights concern: Housing, voting, employment, and women's status in the work-place.' Like a state of the union address, the articles are partisan, some-times passionate, and they do not address all areas of concern from all points of view. They add to the debate without ending it.Although the authors in this Symposium fall on both sides of the political spectrum, each believes that the civil rights agenda can still achieve social progress.

In 1957 President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed to the newly created Commission on Civil Rights John Stewart Battle, a former longtime Virginia General Assembly member and governor who was also a staunch segregationist. Eisenhower appointed him to represent white Southern opinion and because of his national reputation for deft political conciliation. The article reviews Battle's personal background, political career, racial philosophy, and interactions with other figures prominent in the era's civil rights politics, including Father Theodore Martin Hesburgh, Harry F. Byrd, Sr., and J. Lindsay Almond, Jr. During his service on the commission during 1957-59, Battle's segregationist views kept him from addressing constructively the civil rights crisis. In 1959, he publicly dissented from the final report containing the commission's recommendations on voting, education, and housing, and resigned.

Title from cover. ; Public Affairs Information Service bulletin ; Current index to journals in education ; Index to U.S. government periodicals ; Social sciences index ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Continued in 1984 by: New perspectives (Washington, D.C.).

Explanatory note that accompanies cartoon, written at a later date ; This was drawn in 1949. In present per- spective doesn't mean much. What I was trying to do was to show that "white" extremists adamantly sticking to the "whole" program some of which was impractical and even unfair were hurting civil rights as much as "states rights" extremists. Over

The Papers, 1933-1981, of Stetson Kennedy comprise correspondence; subject files on various organizations, individuals, and ideas; typescripts of articles written by Kennedy; newsclippings; press releases; bulletins and fliers; pamphlets; periodicals; and photographs. The subject files pertain to economic conditions, labor and anti-black violence, peace groups, peonage, Southern politicians, Mexico, the Spanish Civil War, and Kennedy's own campaign for a U.S. Senate seat from Florida in 1950. Articles, clippings, and pamphlets concern civil rights, international affairs, the Ku Klux Klan, labor (particularly CIO) organizing, and southern politics. The photographs depict WPA work in progress, attacks against Negroes (including lynching), and various organizations. The many periodicals include two issues (1947) of Eugene Talmadge's The Statesman, twenty-one issues (1943-1950) of The Southern Patriot, and eight issues (1939-1943) of Lillian Smith's North Georgia Review. The correspondence covers the period 1935-1979, and includes as correspondents students and peace groups, several committees to aid Spanish loyalists, social reform and civil liberties groups, government agencies, writer's organizations, publishers, literary agents, newspapers and magazines, and the New York Public Library, which obtained some Kennedy manuscripts for its Schomburg Collection in 1952. [L1979-37]

On cover: Employment of women and minorities in Alaska State government. ; "July 1980." ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Abstract: Today's European society is incrementally superdiverse, which raises all sorts of challenges as well as concerns about the degrees to which people from varying backgrounds can be integrated in society. Key to such integration is access to public services, since precisely these facilities cater for people's basic needs and guarantee that they can exercise their civil rights. All too often language barriers pose an insurmountable obstacle to adequate service provision in many vital areas such as healthcare, social welfare, and education. Legislative frameworks should be developed, both at a supranational and a national level in order to establish the right to high-performing public service interpreting and translation, and more generally, policy frameworks for effective communication with anyone appealing to public services.Resumen: La sociedad europea actual es cada vez más diversa, lo que desencadena toda clase de retos e inquietudes acerca del nivel en el que personas con distintos orígenes pueden integrarse en la sociedad. El acceso a los servicios públicos es un elemento clave en este proceso, ya que precisamente en estas instalaciones se responden ante las necesidades básicas de los ciudadanos y se garantiza que puedan ejercer sus derechos civiles. Las barreras lingüísticas con frecuencia plantean muros insuperables a la hora de proporcionar servicios en áreas básicas, como la sanidad, la asistencia social y la educación. Deben desarrollarse marcos legislativos tanto a nivel supranacional como nacional para establecer el derecho a una traducción e interpretación eficiente en los servicios públicos y, de forma más general, marcos políticos destinados a garantizar una comunicación efectiva para todo aquel que recurra a un servicio público

Labor and civil rights movements in the United States share the aspiration of empowering workers to attain economic and social justice in the workplace. From their inception, both movements have articulated goals that link individual dignity and group empowerment, economic access and fair treatment, legal entitlements and political mobilization. They proceed on the premise that the workplace is a site where vital economic interests and possibilities for self-development come together. Put otherwise, both forms of advocacy strive for a regime that links these concerns to do justice to the workplace as a site for the expression of democratic citizenship.

"September 1998." ; Shipping list no.: 99-0007-P. ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 286-312). ; Mode of access: Internet.