Suchergebnisse

Preferential policies, though they are not required by justice, are not seriously unjust; the system from which they depart is already unjust. Deliberate barriers against admitting blacks or women, however, had to be abolished--without explicit barriers discrimination could be conscious or unconscious (motivationally), thus giving support to a self-conscious effort to act impartially. The realization that a social system may continue to deny different races or sexes equal opportunity & equal access to desirable positions even after such barriers have been lifted became evident, since society automatically provides different rewards for different groups. The question is raised: How great is a social contribution to injustice, to what extent is it due to social causes not involving injustice, or to causes which are not social but biological? Can unjustly caused disadvantages be overcome by special programs of preparatory or remedial training? What grounds are to be used in assigning individuals to desirable positions? People less qualified, for whatever reason could be compensated for this disadvantage by having suitably different standards for these different groups. Obviously, this would not be a stable position. Compensatory procedures would then have to be applied in individual bases. The concept of differences advocated by liberals is too weak to combat inequalities dispensed by nature & ordinary workings of the social system. In most societies rewards are a function of demand, & many of the human characteristics most in demand result from gifts & talents. If racial & sexual injustice were reduced we would still be left with the injustice of the smart & the dumb; "at present we do not have a method of divorcing professional status from social esteem & economic reward. In the absence of this, what remains is the familiar task of balancing liberty against equality." S. Cummings.

Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc. ; CIS Microfiche Accession Numbers: CIS 78 S411-42 ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Microfiche. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The authors contend that the assumption of equal treatment implementation in program evaluations is highly questionable. Through a reanalysis of data from afield evaluation of a nutrition supplementation program they demonstrate that including data on the level of treatment implementation in the analysis of treatment effects increases the power of the analysis. The results argue for the inclusion of data on treatment implementation as standard practice in future program evaluations.

The drive to end racial discrimination now extends beyond blatant racial distinctions to less obvious and less intentional forms of unequal treatment; nonetheless, there still exist laws and governmental programs that are racially neutral on their face but that may have a racially discriminatory impact in practice. Such discrimination can take place when economic and social welfare legislation, lacking a sound economic grounding, attacks symptoms rather than causes and thereby unintentionally compounds the problems facing black people. At the same time, laws that are at the root of unequal treatment seem to go unchallenged. From the point of view of the victim of discrimination, it matters little whether the root of the problem is racists acting with an intent to cause racially discriminatory impact or nonracists acting with no such purpose but causing the same discriminatory result. The black person is denied an education, a job, or a house just the same. This Article will propose a new direction for law reforms that focuses upon the impact of laws on the causes of unequal treatment; it advocates extending the scope of the equal protection clause to cover racial discrimination resulting from economic and social welfare legislation. The basic rule in this analysis is that the impact of a law on black people is the determining factor, not the intentions of those who design and promote the law.

An attempt is made to develop a general theory of the equal protection clause that adequately accounts for the role of social groups in contemporary American life. The theoretical foundations of the prevailing theory--antidiscrimination--are identified, & the prevailing theory is evaluated from the perspective of the claims of equality now being tendered to the courts. Particular attention is paid to the problem of preferential treatment for blacks. To understand the importance of the antidiscrimination principle in Constitutional adjudication, the 2 modes of interpretation are analyzed: literal interpretation of the Constitution & a 'mediating' interpretation poised between the text & the ideal embodied therein. This judicial gloss is open to redefinition in a manner not afforded by a literal interpretation. The antidiscrimination principle is not the Equal Protection Clause; it is a mediating principle that embodies a limited, highly individualistic concept of equality. The group-disadvantaging principle would take wider account of social reality & focus more clearly on issues at the heart of equal protection cases. Modified AA.

S.l(2)(b) of the UK Equal Pay Act provides that where a woman's work has been rated as equivalent with that of a man — in other words given an equal value under a job evaluation scheme — she is entitled to equality of treatment for any term of her contract covered by the scheme. The Act, however, does not oblige employers to carry out job evaluation exercises. Women who are not, therefore, employed on 'like work' with men (S.1(2)(a), and who are not covered by a job evaluation scheme, cannot claim equal pay under UK law.

THE BURGER COURT'S DECISIONS IN THREE REVERSE DISCRIMINATION CASES ARE VIEWED AS HAVING LEGITIMIZED BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROGRAMS OF RACIAL PREFERENCE. THE STUDY ASSERTS THAT THE BURGER COURT ABANDONED EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR A RESULT ORIENTED, RACE-CONSCIOUS APPROACH, AND DENIED STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM IN ACTING AS A CATALYST FOR THE REDEFINITION OF THE NATION'S VIEW OF EQUALITY.

The Maoris, rapidly urbanizing polynesians, indigenous to New Zealand, have generally been absorbed into the lower strata of the predominately European social system. It is generally thought that their cultural & economic situation produces the high crime rate characteristic of these people (5 times that of the Europeans). The hypothesis that high Maori crime rates are partly attributable to differential treatment of Maoris & Europeans in Magistrates Courts--which deal with the bulk of criminal cases--is examined. Analysis of statistical data taken from 1967-68, revealed no significant differences in the patterns of bail granting & requirement of sureties for bail, with respect to the 2 races. However, Maoris were less likely to be able to arrange a surety for bail (84% of Europeans, 61% of Maoris; p less than .001) & were in consequence, more frequently affected by bail requirements. European defendants were more frequently represented by legal counsel (87% of Europeans, 44% of Maoris; p less than .001), despite the operation of a legal-aid scheme conducted by the Maori Affairs Dept. Since 96% of unrepresented defendants plead guilty to charges, as opposed to only 70% of defendants with legal counsel, data suggest that Maori crime rates may be artificially inflated. Examination of influential New Zealand Justice Dept publications revealed a conflict between official beliefs about traditional Maori values, & anthropological evidence on the subject. Particularly important was the anthropologically unfounded view that Maoris do not traditionally distinguish between private & communal property, & that this customary value contributes to high rates of Maori property offending. Such erroneous beliefs, if prevalent among judicial officials, would also tend to artificially inflate rates of Maori crime. 6 Tables. AA.

'.without expansion of international trade, based upon fair dealing and equal treatment for all, there can be no stability and security either within or among nations. (Furthermore) the withdrawal by a nation (or group of nations) from orderly trade with the rest of the world inevitably leads.to preparations for (a military or trade) war and a provocative attitude toward other nations.' ; peer-reviewed