Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The status of indirect discrimination is ambiguous in the current literature. This paper addresses two contemporary and related debates. First, for some, indirect discrimination is not truly a distinct kind of discrimination, but it is simply a legal construct designed to address distributive inequalities between groups. Second, even if one accepts that indirect discrimination is a distinct type of discrimination, the connection between the two kinds of discrimination, direct and indirect, is debated. For some, they are distinct act-types, while for others, indirect discrimination should be conceived as a side effect of prior cases of direct discrimination. In this paper, I argue that indirect discrimination is a distinct act-type that can take place without being connected to prior instances of direct discrimination.

This article provides a different methodological proposal to disability research grounded in the intersectional perspective since other forms of research, such as the dogmatic perspective of law, have shown limited results in terms of full recognition of people and groups exposed to multiple situations of inequality, specifically in the case of people with disability. We propose a methodological route that links disability to the intersectional perspective, and finally we assess an example of a process that accounts for the importance of a robust analysis to advance in critical understanding of this challenging and interesting field of study.

Recently, several researchers have attempted to evaluate the extent to which housing discrimination explains the continuing levels of racial separation in U.S. metropolitan areas. They often use audit data that show that black households are likely to experience substantial discrimination in the housing market. A reevaluation of the statistical studies of segregation suggests that the effects of discrimination are smaller than has been previously postulated, and direct estimates of housing discrimination from surveys provide a rationale for such smaller effects.

How much can a constituency influence the power of its representative in the legislature? This article develops a theoretical model of the constituency basis of legislator influence. The key players in the model are interest groups that may receive targeted transfers from the legislature. The model predicts that the amount of transfers that such groups receive is increasing in their ability to help a party win a legislative seat in the next election. This claim is tested using the changes in Japanese central-to-municipality transfers after a representative passes away while in office. The study finds that electorally 'strong' constituency groups do not lose transfers when they lose their representatives. However when 'weak' constituency groups lose their representatives, the transfers decrease.

Many believe that indirect discrimination is unjust as such, because, by definition, it involves the imposition of disproportionate disadvantages on the group of discriminatees. In this article I ask two questions: 1) What does it take to disadvantage a group, and 2) which groups are relevant for the purpose of determining whether a given practice is indirectly discriminatory? I argue that it is difficult to answer these two questions in a way that aligns both with the way in which we normally think about indirect discrimination and the view that indirect discrimination necessarily clashes with the moral concerns that we normally think render indirect discrimination morally objectionable. In the last part of the article, I explain why the article's negative main claim – that indirect discrimination is not unjust in itself – does not entail that we should refrain from reducing or prohibiting indirect discrimination.

Abstract
When considering the impact of stigmatization on society, we tend to think of one aspect of stigmatization while ignoring another. Drawing from historical and fictional cases, I argue that acts of stigmatization can be direct or indirect. Acts of direct stigmatization are acts taken by individuals or groups against an entity, while acts of indirect stigmatization are the specific acts taken by potential targets of stigmatization to prevent themselves from becoming victims of direct stigmatization. If we want a full understanding of the impact that stigmatization has on society, then we need to consider the impact of both direct and indirect acts of stigmatization.