Independent Self-Construal and Opposition to Affirmative Action: The Role of Microjustice and Macrojustice Preferences

Why are people with a stronger independent self-construal more opposed to affirmative action than those with a weaker independent self-construal? Drawing on prior research, we predicted that this is because the former endorse microjustice principles—which are perceived to be violated by affirmative action—and disregard macrojustice principles—which affirmative action seeks to ensure. In contrast, people with a weak independent self-construal endorse both microjustice and macrojustice. The results from three studies support our reasoning. Our research contributes to theorizing on affirmative action by illuminating the important role of both microjustice and macrojustice concerns in predicting opposition to affirmative action. We discuss the implications of our research within the North American context for increasing people’s endorsement of macrojustice in an effort to mitigate opposition to social policies aimed at redressing societal injustice.     

Embracing Diversity: The Institutionalization of Affirmative Action as Diversity Management at UC-Berkeley, UT-Austin, and UW-Madison

While affirmative action in universities is the subject of extensive empirical scholarship, little research has been conducted on the role of university officials in crafting, defending, and transforming race-based affirmative admissions. Through forty-five in-depth interviews with thirty-nine admissions officials and top administrators at three selective public universities between 1999 and 2004, this study uncovers how a near-consensus in favor of race-based affirmative action has emerged among these players. Whereas scholars, citizens, and activists debate the morality and legality of race-based affirmative action as an equal opportunity policy, admissions decision makers have come to view race-based affirmative action in addition as a central, diversity management technique. This article claims that interest group capture theory and judicial implementation theory are insufficient to explain the diversity consensus. I suggest that neoinstitutional organizational theory has great potential to describe and situate the thought processes leading these key actors to forge this policy transformation.     

Sources of Stigma: Analyzing the Psychology of Affirmative Action

Numerous speculations exist about the psychological implications of affirmative action. One of the notions most prevalent among policy analysts is that affirmative action is stigmatizing and consequently is psychologically harmful to beneficiaries. In this article, the policy-analytic vision which leads to this conclusion is shown to have strong parallels with a particular interpretation of the formal social psychological framework known as Equity Theory. Flaws in both the policy analytic and the equity theory visions are highlighted through a reconceptualization of the policy in terms of the theory of Procedural Justice. The general argument is that psychological reactions to affirmative action are linked to the actual structure and perceived fairness of the procedures used to implement the policy. A review of the psychological research on the outcomes of affirmative action based on equity theory and procedural justice shows that psychological responses to the policy depend on the nature of policy-procedures. Since affirmative action procedures do vary and also seem to have legal bearing, it is argued that in order to develop an understanding of the psychology of the policy that is both valid, and relevant to policy design, a procedural justice conceptualization is necessary.     

Justifying Affirmative Action: Perception and Reality

This article surveys developments in United Kingdom law and policy which require, permit or are more accommodating towards, the use of affirmative action. It then considers the various justifications that can be used in support of affirmative action and their philosophical and political strengths and weaknesses. Finally, it advocates a strategic approach to the justification and use of affirmative action, taking account of relevant political, contextual, pragmatic, and practical considerations.     

Affirmative Action: Well‐Being,Justice, and Qualifications

A common concern regarding affirmative action is that it sanctions the selection of candidates whose qualifications are not the best overall and that this is inefficient or unjust or both. I argue that this concern is misguided, since there is no independent concern regarding qualifications with respect to the moral status of affirmative action. The only sense in which qualifications are not morally arbitrary—and the only sense in which there is a reason to select the most qualified candidate—is purely instrumental to the promotion of moral values whose fundamental concern is not qualifications.     

Legal Ambiguity and the Politics of Compliance: Affirmative Action Officers' Dilemma

Equal employment opportunity and affirmative action mandates, like many other laws regulating organizations, do not clearly define what constitutes compliance. Thus compliance depends largely on the initiative and agenda of those persons within organizations who are charged with managing the compliance effort: in the case of civil rights, "affirmative action officers." This paper draws on case studies of affirmative action officers to suggest that the political climate within which affirmative action officers work, together with the officers' interpretations of the law, their role conceptions, and their professional aspirations have important implications for the nature and extent of organizational compliance with law. We conclude that compliance should be understood as a process that evolves over time rather than as a discrete event or non-event.     

Preferential Treatment, Social Justice, and the Part-time Law Student – The Case for the Value-added Part-time Law Degree

There has been growing pressure to increase diversity in legal education and the legal profession in England and Wales. While this has focused upon the absence of certain groups such as women, ethnic minorities, and the disabled, there has been no specific discussion of part-time law students. Drawing on questionnaires and focus groups with part-time law students across England and Wales, this article examines how their background and experiences may hamper their ability to participate and succeed in higher education and legal practice. In response to the consistent omission of part-time students' needs from attempts to enhance social diversity in universities and the legal profession, it also argues that affirmative action is now necessary and justified in respect of these students. Pragmatic suggestions are made for a contextual approach to affirmative action for part-time law students which adds value to their degree. Finally, the potential effects of affirmative action on part-time law students themselves and upon the gatekeepers to the legal profession are explored.     

Toward a psychological ecology of affirmative action

Research-based knowledge of the effects of affirmative action has been little help to policy makers. That is the case because there has been no means through which to organize into a policy-relevant whole the findings that have come from a variety of disciplinary sources. A heuristic schematic of the psychological ecology of affirmative action is proposed as a step toward developing a conceptual framework that can reduce this problem. A psychological ecology of affirmative action consists of the mutual relations between policy interest groups and the procedures used to implement these policies. A critical point that the ecological framework leads to is that the nature of affirmative action procedures has a major influence on the material and subjective links between interest groups. Given that claim, the schematic is used to categorize, review, and critique the multidisciplinary research on affirmative action. From that overview, a set of general guidelines for the design of effective affirmative action programs is proposed. Finally, a call is made for a shift in the unit of policy analysis from a focus on group justice to relational justice.     

The effectiveness of affirmative action: The case of women in policing

Although the legal bases of affirmative action plans have been debated widely, empirical examination of their effectiveness has been limited. This paper examines the impact of affirmative action on the hiring and promotion of women in policing. A survey of municipal departments serving populations of more than 50,000 found that women still constitute less than 10 percent of all police officers. Nevertheless, multivariate analyses show that both court-ordered and voluntary affirmative action policies have had a statistically significant impact on the hiring but not the promotion of female officers. In addition, case study data from five agencies show that affirmative action policies have widened women's opportunities to receive specialized assignments. These findings suggest the importance of continuing affirmative action policies despite recent legal setbacks.     

Quotas for Women! The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002

The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 is unusual in two respects. First, it is a rare example of the permissible (though not mandatory) use of affirmative action in the United Kingdom, in this case to reduce gender inequality in the selection of election candidates. Secondly, the Act contains a sunset clause and will expire in 2015 unless extended. This article examines the background to the legislation, the forms of affirmative action it permits, and the use so far made of it by political parties. It also considers the justifications for affirmative action to increase women's political representation, asking what sets this apart from other contexts in which women are under-represented, and whether the temporary nature of the legislation is appropriate.     

Minority Business Enterprise Programmes in the United States of America: An Empirical Investigation

Affirmative action in the United States has generated no shortage of academic, legal, and popular analysis. Yet few ever ask, let alone test, the most fundamental question about affirmative action - whether it actually works. This article provides an historical overview of affirmative action in the United States, briefly reviews its legal status, and then tests the effectiveness of one type of affirmative action in three American cities between 1981 and 2000. It finds that affirmative action in government contracting does not significantly increase minority employment and is statistically insignificant in eradicating discrimination in contracting.     

Men's attitudes toward affirmative action: Justice and intergroup relations at the crossroads

Two studies were conducted to examine some factors that may motivate support of or opposition to affirmative action programs for women. In the first study, a sample of 96 French-speaking male managers and professionals were presented with one of three versions of an affirmative action program to benefit women in blue-collar jobs. The men were asked about their endorsements and beliefs about the program described to them and (using a neosexism scale) about sex equity. Results indicate that neosexist attitudes influence support of the program presented, and articulating adherence to a merit principle in affirmative action influences perceptions of fairness. The second study evaluated reactions to an affirmative action program targeting jobs similar to those of the participants. Four conditions were designed to determine which element or combinations of elements of information presented in the first merit condition might have a stronger impact on fairness evaluations. A total of 131 francophone male managers and professionals participated in this study. Results reveal that neosexist attitudes influence level of support for the program. Both neosexism and the four conditions had an impact on evaluations of fairness.     

继承的共同正犯研究

继承的共同正犯,是指对某一个犯罪,先行行为者着手实行后,在行为尚未全部实行终了阶段,他人(后行行为者)与先行者之间产生了共同实施犯罪的意思,此后共同实施犯罪的实行行为的情形。是否应当承认继承的共同正犯概念,后行者是否应当对先行者行为所造成的结果承担责任,对此,刑法理论界存在着肯定说、否定说与限定的肯定说等多种观点。应当认为继承的共同正犯概念有其存在的合理性,而限定的肯定说则更有利于准确界定各行为人的刑事责任。     

Affirmative Action in an Institutional Context: The Antecedents of Policy Preferences and Political Support

This study broadens the framework within which the psychology of support for affirmative action policies is examined to include the institutional framework within which such policies are developed and implemented. This broader framework includes concern with electoral support for those who implement affirmative action policies, as well as considering the impact of implementing such policies on the overall legitimacy of government. It also includes evaluations of the fairness of the two key social institutions shaping such policies—government authorities and markets. The results of a survey of Americans suggest that this institutional framework had an important influence on reactions to affirmative action policies that was distinct from direct reactions to policies themselves. In particular, people were more supportive of policies intervening in markets when they believed that markets represented unfair social allocation procedures. Those politicians who supported such policies received greater electoral support when people viewed market procedures as being unfair and when they felt that government decision-making procedures were fair. Evidence suggests that outcomes did not directly shape electoral support or judgments about the legitimacy of government.     

Reactions to Affirmative Action: Group Membership and Social Justice

A program designed for either women, visible minorities, or disabled persons was rated by 264 women and men respondents. An analysis of variance revealed that reactions to affirmative action varied according to the sex of the respondent and the group targeted by the policy. Further analyses were conducted to examine the effects of two social justice concerns on support for affirmative action, that is, scope of justice (extending fair treatment onto others) and perceived threat on behalf of nondesignated groups. According to findings, the link between social justice concerns and reactions to the policy was affected by the group targeted by affirmative action. Furthermore, both social justice concerns were not equally important predictors of attitudes toward affirmative action for women and men respondents.     

Law teaching at colleges of further education

Scholars have long agreed upon the interrelated rationales for a diverse law faculty, which include the recognition of the value of multi-perspective and multicultural education and scholarship, the promotion of non-discrimination and prevention of discrimination in the legal academy and legal community at large, and the benefits of minority mentors and role models for minority students. This article will make use of the United States Supreme Court’s 2003 landmark decision in Grutter v Bollinger to illuminate how its diversity rationale in the admission of law students should extend to the hiring of minority law faculty members. Further, it will argue that “racial minorities” should include not only African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, but also Asian Americans. Finally, law schools should include foreign professors in their affirmative action hiring efforts in this era of globalisation. Although this article focuses more upon faculty hiring than student admission, to the extent that it appropriates the Grutter rationale to discuss affirmative action hiring, affirmative action admission will also be a significant part of the discussion. After all, a diverse law faculty and a diverse student body are inseparable components of a supportive and friendly law school environment.     

A quota jury: affirmative action in jury selection

It is not too naive to believe that the use of affirmative action policies in the jury selection for the Rodney King beating trial of White police officers would have prevented the uprisings that followed their acquittal. The public outrage and riots that followed the verdict demonstrated the need for affirmative inclusion of racial minorities on jury trials to preserve and restore the public’s confidence and legitimacy of verdicts in racially motivated cases. While racially mixed juries offer many benefits, current jury selection procedures fail to provide much protection to members of racial minorities in criminal trials. From the source list to the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges, the current selection procedures provide almost no protection to racial minorities. The issue of preferential treatments of racial minorities in education, employment, and business has divided the nation and even some minority communities themselves. Affirmative action in jury proceedings and trials, however, has yet to receive much deserved attention and critical scrutiny. This article empirically examines public perceptions of possible applications of affirmative action mechanisms in criminal jury proceedings, focusing on the uses of mandatory racial quotas to engineer racially integrated juries in criminal trials. Three different types of racially mixed juries—the jury “de medietate linguae,” the Hennepin jury model, and the social science model—are examined, and the public’s perceptions of affirmative mechanisms ensuring minority participation on juries are analyzed. This article argues that the affirmative mechanism to secure racially mixed juries is essential to both the appearance and substance of fairness in criminal jury proceedings, and both the Hennepin model and the social science model are overwhelmingly supported as the ideal types of affirmative jury structures in creating racially heterogeneous juries.     

The European Court of Justice and the Rhetoric of Affirmative Action

The recent Marschall decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to uphold a principle giving precedence to women for promotions in the workplace seems promising for the future of affirmative action. At first glance, this decision seems to indicate that the ECJ has taken a different path, moving away from its earlier Kalanke decision which had jeopardised further development of affirmative action in the European Union. On a closer examination, both Kalanke’s sweeping ban of preferential treatment based on gender and Marschall’s new interpretation appear as discursive replies to the same dilemma: should the Court deny the normative objective of equality contained in EC law to generate meaning, thus turning equality into a mere formal principle and rendering judicial review trivial? Or should it embrace a substantive reading of the fundamental principle of equality between men and women, thus substituting the Court judgment for that of the legislature, and subverting the limits of the ECJ’s powers? The aim of this article is to analyse the ECJ’s rhetorical response to the complexities contained in affirmative action judicial review.     

Affirmative Action in the Legal Profession

This article examines whether the legal profession should use quotas and decision-making preferences in recruitment and promotion in favour of women, ethnic minorities, and those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. It argues that this is necessary to eradicate current patterns of discrimination and disadvantage. It also argues that quotas and decision-making preferences do not necessarily conflict with appointment or promotion on merit, and hence that consequent unfairness to other applicants is more apparent than real. Moreover, any potential stigmatization of the beneficiaries of affirmative action is outweighed by the advantages in reversing the under-representation of women, ethnic minorities, and those from socially disadvantaged background, thereby challenging perceptions of their inferior qualities as lawyers. Finally, practical problems in the implementation of affirmative action are considered and argued to be insufficiently serious to stand in the way of its introduction.     

Affirmative Action: A German Perspective on the Promotion of Women's Rights with Regard to Employment

This paper discusses affirmative action policies in Germany. After German reunification, women from both east and west had hoped for a new codification of their rights, including positive obligations on the state to promote gender equality. However, the amendments to the Basic Law in November 1994 did not clearly endorse this approach. Opinions still differ as to whether Articles 3(2) and 3(3) of the Constitution allow for affirmative action with regard to women's employment. In 2001 quotas for the public employment sector were finally introduced, but the use of quotas for private sector employment still faces serious opposition. Nevertheless, the concept of affirmative action is not new to the German legal system: since the eighteenth century, quota schemes have been used to ensure the employment of (war-) disabled persons. This article examines the different approaches to employment quotas for women and disabled persons, and critically evaluates the reasons for divergence.