Explore the vast range of titles available.

FOR almost fifty years, plaintiffs have initiated litigation challenging the use of race in higher education admissions.1 Historically, these lawsuits were often initiated by white plaintiffs claiming reverse discrimination and arguing that certain universities favored underrepresented minority applicants at their expense.2 In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard and UNC, however, the plaintiff brought a case to the courts under a new legal theory,3 enabling the United States Supreme Court to adopt a different legal approach.· Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (\"SFFA\"), contended that Harvard engaged in intentional discrimination against Asian American applicants despite their classification as people of color.> Specifically, SFFA argued that Harvard penalized these applicants by undervaluing standardized test scores and other objective criteria where Asian American students typically excel.6 On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional7 and a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 19648 for colleges and universities to consider race as a factor in the admissions process. 9 In the majority opinion authored by Justice Roberts, the Court emphasized that race cannot be a deciding factor in admissions decisions, though it allowed for the consideration of an applicant's racial experiences if they relate to unique character traits or abilities.10 This ruling overturned two decades of precedent and has prompted businesses and corporations to reassess the potential impact on their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.11 As a result, the SFFA decision represents a significant shiftin the legal landscape surrounding affirmative action and race-conscious policies. By 1965, the EEOC mandated that employers submit reports detailing their workforce demographics by sex and race.14 Within three years, states could receive block grants to help identify disparities in employment patterns, with employers facing various potential sanctions.15 The Supreme Court also played a significant role in establishing the legal framework for affirmative action through a series of rulings clarifying the scope and purpose of affirmative action.16 These new laws prompted companies to start diversity training programs that would help employees adjust to working in more integrated offices. [...]there was a significant shiftin the DEI landscape in the 1980s and 1990s. [...]corporate\" DEI roles increased by 55%, and many companies set aside billions of dollars to support racial justice organizations, Black-owned businesses, and internal diversity initiatives.26 Although DEI programs have been in place corporations and law firms for decades without much criticism, following the increased attention to social justice during the COVID pandemic, DEI programs are now facing increased scrutiny.

When siblings have different characteristics—such as different achievement or different gender—how should parents invest in their education? Although many studies have examined issues of parental investment using behavioral data, this research is often hindered by methodological constraints, including endogeneity and an inability to isolate the effects of predictor variables. This article takes an alternative approach by using data from an original, nationally representative survey experiment (N = 3,239). I assess how Americans believe parents should divide educational resources between siblings with different achievement and gender. In doing so, this article is the first to examine normative beliefs surrounding relative achievement, gender, and parental investment in siblings’ education. When achievement is the only difference between siblings, respondents believe that lower achievers should receive more hands-on instructional resources and parental school involvement, and higher achievers should receive more resources that enhance cultural capital and support college enrollment. This pattern maps onto the way respondents divide resources between boys and girls. When gender is the only difference between siblings, respondents believe that boys should receive more instructional resources and parental school involvement, while girls should receive more cultural and college resources. When achievement and gender both differ, however, the effect of relative achievement typically crowds out the effect of gender, suggesting that respondents’ evaluations of achievement are more persistent than their evaluations of gender. Implications for research on parental involvement in education are discussed.

Williams held administrative posts at Bloomfield College in New Jersey and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth before joining the staff at Rowan Univerity in 1984. He remained on the staff at the university until 2008.

Affirmative action is often criticized for causing reverse discrimination and lowering the qualifications of those hired under the policy. However, the magnitude of such adverse effects depends on whether the best suited candidate is hired absent the policy. Indeed affirmative action may compensate for the distortion discrimination imposes on the selection of candidates. This paper asks whether affirmative action can have a similar corrective impact when qualified individuals fail to apply for a job. We evaluate the effect of introducing a gender quota in an environment where high-performing women fail to enter competitions they can win. We show that guaranteeing women equal representation among winners increases their entry. The response exceeds that predicted by the change in probability of winning and is in part driven by women being more willing to compete against other women. The consequences are substantial as the boost in supply essentially eliminates the anticipated costs of the policy. This paper was accepted by Uri Gneezy, behavioral economics.

For the past 35 years, American higher education has been engaged in a massive social experiment: To determine whether the use of racial preferences in college and graduate school admissions could speed the process of fully integrating American society. The purpose of this article is to pursue these questions within a single realm of the academy: Legal education in the US.

We study race in the labor market by sending fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perceived race, resumes are randomly assigned African-American- or White-sounding names. White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. Callbacks are also more responsive to resume quality for White names than for African-American ones. The racial gap is uniform across occupation, industry, and employer size. We also find little evidence that employers are inferring social class from the names. Differential treatment by race still appears to still be prominent in the U.S. labor market.

The United States is undergoing a demographic shift in which White Americans are predicted to comprise less than 50% of the US population by mid-century. The present research examines how exposure to information about this racial shift affects perceptions of the extent to which different racial groups face discrimination. In four experiments, making the growing national racial diversity salient led White Americans to predict that Whites will face increasing discrimination in the future, compared with control information. Conversely, regardless of experimental condition, Whites estimated that discrimination against various racial minority groups will decline. Explorations of several psychological mechanisms potentially underlying the effect of the racial shift information on perceived anti-White discrimination suggested a mediating role of concerns about American culture fundamentally changing. Taken together, these findings suggest that reports about the changing national demographics enhance concerns among Whites that they will be the victims of racial discrimination in the future.

Objectives. To examine and compare how 4 indices of population-level social disadvantage—the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), the COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI), and the Minority Health–Social Vulnerability Index (MH-SVI)—are associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Methods. Spatial autoregressive models adjusted for population density, urbanicity, and state fixed effects were used to estimate associations of county-level SVI, MH-SVI, CCVI, and ADI values with COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Results. All 4 disadvantage indices had similar positive associations with COVID-19 incidence. Each index was also significantly associated with COVID-19 mortality, but the ADI had a stronger association than the CCVI, MH-SVI, and SVI. Conclusions. Despite differences in component measures and weighting, all 4 of the indices we assessed demonstrated associations between greater disadvantage and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Public Health Implications. Our findings suggest that each of the 4 disadvantage indices can be used to assist public health leaders in targeting ongoing first-dose and booster or third-dose vaccines as well as new vaccines or other resources to regions most vulnerable to negative COVID-19 outcomes, weighing potential tradeoffs in their political and practical acceptability. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(11):1584–1588. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307018 )

Formal racial equality is a key aspect of the current Liberal International Order (LIO). It is subject to two main challenges: resurgent racial nationalism and substantive racial inequality. Combining work in International Relations with interdisciplinary studies on race, I submit that these challenges are the latest iteration of struggles between two transnational coalitions over the LIO's central racial provisions, which I call racial diversity regimes (RDRs). The traditional coalition has historically favored RDRs based on racial inequality and racial nationalism. The transformative coalition has favored RDRs based on racial equality and nonracial nationalism. I illustrate the argument by tracing the development of the liberal order's RDR as a function of intercoalitional struggles from one based on racial nationalism and inequality in 1919 to the current regime based on nonracial nationalism and limited equality. Today, racial nationalists belong to the traditional coalition and critics of racial inequality are part of the transformative coalition. The stakes of their struggles are high because they will determine whether we will live in a more racist or a more antiracist world. This article articulates a comprehensive framework that places race at the heart of the liberal order, offers the novel concept of “embedded racism” to capture how sovereignty shields domestic racism from foreign interference, and proposes an agenda for mainstream International Relations that takes race seriously.

Ford Foundation President Darren Walker says what we have seen mostly in corporate America is tokenism. “We have 162 of the S&P 500 companies who have no African-American on the board…they are not delivering on diversity, equity and inclusion…we’re going to start to hear about reverse discrimination, this pernicious idea that has been propagated by those who do not want change…we’re going to have to take those people on and those institutions that are seeking to impede the progress that we must make…”