Search

"Our past, our history, and the people we encounter in life matter. They matter because they shape our experiences, our stories, our identities, what we choose to do (or not [...]

INTRODUCTION I. ARBITRATION OF CONSUMER SECURITIES CLAIMS II. PERCEPTION OF FAIRNESS: LACK OF DIVERSITY IN THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY AND MANDATORY ARBITRATION A. Diversity in the Financial Industry B. Arbitrator Diversity [...], Critics increasingly challenge mandatory arbitration because the pools from which decisionmakers are selected are neither diverse nor inclusive. Evaluating diversity and inclusion in arbitrator pools is difficult due to the black box nature of mandatory arbitration. This Article evaluates inclusion in arbitrator pools through a case study on securities arbitration. The Article relies upon the relatively greater transparency of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) forum. It begins by describing the unique role that small claims securities arbitration plays in maintaining investor trust and confidence in the securities markets before describing why ensuring that the FINRA arbitrator pool is both diverse and inclusive is necessary for legitimacy. The Article then evaluates the forum's arbitrator selection protocol and identifies barriers that may prevent newer entrants, who have diversified the arbitrator roster, from presiding over consumer investors' claims. Using publicly available information, it then evaluates whether newly recruited arbitrators presided over smaller customer claims that concluded after a hearing from 2015 to 2019. The results indicate that only 0.98% of decisions in smaller claim investor cases were rendered by arbitrators who first appeared in FINRA's awards database after diversity recruitment efforts began in 2015. Though FINRA has diversified its arbitrator roster, few small investors receive the benefit of new entrants. The results illustrate the limits of transparency and the need for additional information to evaluate whether arbitrator pools are inclusive. The Article concludes with interventions to permit evaluation of diversification efforts and eliminate barriers to inclusion in arbitrator pools. The case study and resultant recommendations provide guidance that may serve as best practices for consumer arbitration forums wishing to ensure transparency and inclusion in their arbitrator pools.

A perception exists that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are uneasy with cultural diversity. Such unease has been attributed to problematic positioning of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within multicultural policy, and the requirement that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people declare an overriding and primary commitment to the Australian nation-state. Furthermore, the lack of a formal treaty, absence of constitutional recognition and continuing experiences of racism mean that the encounter with the multicultural nation-state is colonialist. We present nationwide survey data collected between July and August 2015 and in November 2016 revealing that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are largely supportive of diversity, which is one of the central tenets of multiculturalism. In most respects, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander respondents' attitudes towards cultural diversity and views on 'old racism' are similar to those of non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, despite their higher reported experiences of racism. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are more likely to acknowledge racism and Anglo privilege, and have more negative views on interracial marriage, especially with white Australians. While there is evidence of some support for cultural diversity among the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander respondents, the data reveal that, as a group, they are not as supportive as non-Indigenous Australians, demonstrating some levels of unease with cultural diversity., Introduction Australian multiculturalism is a relatively recent national policy framework introduced by the Whitlam Labor government in the early 1970s in response to the needs of increasing migrant cohorts, particularly [...]

Depending on which literature you read, social diversity is either the goose that laid the golden egg, or a major source of our social ills. Some literature link diversity to [...], While there has been considerable literature that suggests that diverse groups are more capable at a variety of tasks than more homogenous ones, there has also been literature that suggests that diversity creates significant social discomfort. In light of this latter work, there have been proposals to create a broader 'we' to smooth away the challenges posed by diversity. I argue that this approach is mistaken. Instead, I suggest that the benefits of diversity come about in part because of the discomfort that it creates, rather than in spite of it. If this is correct, then we must choose between two different models of society: a more rewarding but more complex diverse social environment, or a simpler, more homogenous, but less rewarding social environment.

Diversity is an essential part of our professional vocabulary. Teacher-librarians make great efforts to choose and maintain diverse resources for a balanced school library collection that supports students and classrooms. [...]

I INTRODUCTION 12 II BACKGROUND OF THE COURT 13 I. The Court of Appeal for Ontario 13 III RELEVANT LITERATURE 15 I. Yahya and Stribopoulos: an Empirical Study of the [...], An independent and impartial judiciary is critical to the rule of law. Citizens must be able to seek redress in the courts, confident that the identity of the judge will not impact the outcome of their case. In this conception, judges are supposedly pillars of impartiality. Yet, in recent years, a significant body of empirical literature has emerged that illustrates that judges may be attitudinal in their decision making. That is, the individual preferences of judges, including political attitudes, may be impacting their judicial decisions. While there has been significant research regarding case outcomes, there has been less of a focus on panel composition. Indeed, many empirical studies assume--some implicitly, others explicitly--that the assignment of judges to panels is random. Further, while there has been significant empirical research about the Supreme Court of Canada, there has been less of a focus on the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the "Court"). This paper provides a brief overview of relevant literature and uses statistical methods to analyze panel composition at the Court. Overall, I conclude that panel composition at the Court is, subject to some exceptions, generally consistent with a random selection process. Un systeme judiciaire independant et impartial est essentiel dans un etat de droit. Les citoyens doivent etre en mesure d&apos;obtenir reparation par le biais de l&apos;appareil judiciaire, en toute confiance de ce que l&apos;identite du juge n&apos;influencera pas l&apos;issue du litige. Dans cette conception, il reviendrait aux juges de controler cette garantie. Or, plusieurs etudes empiriques menees au cours des dernieres annees suggerent que les juges pourraient etre biaises dans leur prise de decisions, en particulier, que leurs preferences individuelles, incluant leurs attitudes politiques, pourraient affecter leurs jugements. Bien qu&apos;une importante recherche ait ete consacree a l&apos;etude de l&apos;issue des litiges, bien moins d&apos;attention a ete portee a la composition des panels judiciaires. En effet, plusieurs etudes empiriques reposent--certaines implicitement, d&apos;autres plus ouvertement--sur la premisse que l&apos;assignation des juges a tel ou tel panel judiciaire procede de fagon aleatoire. Par ailleurs, quoique la Cour supreme du Canada ait fait l&apos;objet de beaucoup d&apos;etudes de ce genre, bien moins d&apos;attention a, a ce jour, ete consacree a la Cour d&apos;appel de l&apos;Ontario (la << Cour >>). Le present article offre un bref apergu des ecrits pertinents portant sur ce sujet et des methodes d&apos;analyse statistique disponibles pour analyser la composition des panels a la Cour. En somme, l&apos;auteur conclut que, mis a part quelques exceptions, la composition des panels a la Cour semble confirmer l&apos;hypothese d&apos;un processus d&apos;assignation aleatoire.