Search

Whenever disasters such as wildfires, heatwaves, and droughts strike, observers often assert that these crises do not discriminate on the basis of the race or social class of their victims. [...]

Previous research has revealed, across a number of contexts, that stigmatized individuals are the recipients of interpersonal discrimination (e.g., M. R. Hebl, J. B. Foster, L. M. Mannix, & J. F. Dovidio, 2002). Such discrimination has been linked to a number of negative outcomes in the workplace, both for stigmatized individuals and for organizations as a whole (see, e.g., E. B. King, J. L. Shapiro, M. R. Hebl, S. L. Singletary, & S. Turner, 2006; C. O. Word, M. P. Zanna, & J. Cooper, 1974). The current research examines 3 individual-level compensatory strategies aimed at reducing interpersonal discrimination. Results reveal that compensatory strategies are successful in reducing interpersonal discrimination in job application contexts and that such strategies uniquely benefit stigmatized individuals. Keywords: interpersonal discrimination, diversity, discrimination redaction

Addressing health disparities has been a national challenge for decades. The National Institutes of Health-sponsored Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities are the first federal initiative to support transdisciplinary multilevel research on the determinants of health disparities. Their novel research approach combines population, clinical, and basic science to elucidate the complex determinants of health disparities. The centers are partnering with community-based, public, and quasi-public organizations to disseminate scientific findings and guide clinical practice in communities. In turn, communities and public health agents are shaping the research. The relationships forged through these complex collaborations increase the likelihood that the centers' scientific findings will be relevant to communities and contribute to reductions in health disparities.

PERVASIVE PREJUDICE? UNCONVENTIONAL EVIDENCE OF RACE AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION. By Ian Ayres. ** Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. 433 pp. + xi. CROSSROADS, DIRECTIONS, AND A NEW CRITICAL RACE [...]

The meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been distorted by the concept of proportionalism. The ideals of the Act are changed by accepting the interpretation of nondiscrimination for all individuals as 'numerical equality' and substituting 'diversity' for justice., In the summer of 1964, despite the intense controversy surrounding the civil rights bill, Congress approved the measure by an overwhelming majority. By passing this legislation, a broad bipartisan and [...]

In the current climate in which the popularity of extreme right parties in Europe is on the rise, 'anti-European discourse could be a factor of success for this political family': [...]

This introduction to a pluridisciplinary comparative analysis of European antidiscrimination policies and practices provides a critical assessment of current European empirical developments and the analytical issues that they raise. The authors' argument builds upon the tension between the improvement of the protection of rights to equal treatment and the intensification of xenophobia in the European Union. Can proequality policies developed in a hostile context make a difference? The first part of the introduction provides an analytical framework to account for the emergence and implementation of an antidiscrimination policy framework in the European Union. The second part assesses the limits of this new paradigm in particular as far as the categorization and measurement of discrimination are concerned. It focuses on the broader impact of the development of antidiscrimination policies and jurisprudence and on the way 'vulnerable populations' have made use of it.