Hubbry Logo
DiscriminationDiscriminationMain
Open search
Discrimination
Community hub
Discrimination
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Discrimination
Discrimination
Discrimination
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

See caption
An African-American man drinking from a racially segregated water cooler marked "Colored", in Oklahoma City c. 1939

Discrimination is the process of making prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong,[1] such as race, gender, age, class, religion, disability or sexual orientation.[2] Discrimination typically leads to groups being unfairly treated on the basis of perceived statuses of characteristics, for example ethnic, racial, gender or religious categories.[2][3] It involves depriving members of one group of opportunities or privileges that are available to members of another group.[4]

Discriminatory traditions, policies, ideas, practices and laws exist in many countries and institutions in all parts of the world, including some, where such discrimination is generally decried. In some places, countervailing measures such as quotas have been used to redress the balance in favor of those who are believed to be current or past victims of discrimination. These attempts have often been met with controversy, and sometimes been called reverse discrimination.[5]

Etymology

[edit]

The term discriminate appeared in the early 17th century in the English language. It is from the Latin discriminat- 'distinguished between', from the verb discriminare, from discrimen 'distinction', from the verb discernere (corresponding to "to discern").[6] Since the American Civil War the term "discrimination" generally evolved in American English usage as an understanding of prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their race, later generalized as membership in a certain socially undesirable group or social category.[7] Before this sense of the word became almost universal, it was a synonym for discernment, tact and culture as in "taste and discrimination", generally a laudable attribute; to "discriminate against" being commonly disparaged.[8][9][page needed]

Definitions

[edit]

Moral philosophers[who?] have defined[when?] discrimination using a moralized definition. Under this approach, discrimination is defined as acts, practices, or policies that wrongfully impose a relative disadvantage or deprivation on persons based on their membership in a salient social group.[10] This is a comparative definition. An individual need not be actually harmed in order to be discriminated against. They just need to be treated worse than others for some arbitrary reason. If someone decides to donate to help orphan children, but decides to donate less, say, to children of a particular race out of a racist attitude, they will be acting in a discriminatory way even if they actually benefit the people they discriminate against by donating some money to them.[11] Discrimination also develops into a source of oppression, the action of recognizing someone as 'different' so much that they are treated inhumanly and degraded.[12]

This moralized definition of discrimination is distinct from a non-moralized definition—in the former, discrimination is wrong by definition, whereas in the latter, this is not the case.[13]

The United Nations stance on discrimination includes the statement: "Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection."[14] The United Nations Human Rights Council and other international bodies work towards helping ending discrimination around the world.

Types

[edit]

Age

[edit]
Main articles: Ageism and Adultism

Ageism or age discrimination is discrimination and stereotyping based on the grounds of someone's age.[15] It is a set of beliefs, norms, and values which used to justify discrimination or subordination based on a person's age.[16] Ageism is most often directed toward elderly people, or adolescents and children.[17][18]

Age discrimination in hiring has been shown to exist in the United States. Joanna Lahey, professor at The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M, found that firms are more than 40% more likely to interview a young adult job applicant than an older job applicant.[19] In Europe, Stijn Baert, Jennifer Norga, Yannick Thuy and Marieke Van Hecke, researchers at Ghent University, measured comparable ratios in Belgium. They found that age discrimination is heterogeneous by the activity older candidates undertook during their additional post-educational years. In Belgium, they are only discriminated if they have more years of inactivity or irrelevant employment.[20]

In a survey for the University of Kent, England, 29% of respondents stated that they had suffered from age discrimination. This is a higher proportion than for gender or racial discrimination. Dominic Abrams, social psychology professor at the university, concluded that ageism is the most pervasive form of prejudice experienced in the UK population.[21]

Caste

[edit]
See also: Caste

According to UNICEF and Human Rights Watch, caste discrimination affects an estimated 250 million people worldwide and is mainly prevalent in parts of Asia (India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Japan) and Africa.[22][23] As of 2011, there were 200 million Dalits or Scheduled Castes (formerly known as "untouchables") in India.[24]

Citizenship or nationality

[edit]
Main article: Discrimination based on nationality

Discrimination on the basis of nationality, citizenship or naturalization is usually included in employment laws.[25] It may vary from laws that regulate hiring and firing based on citizenship, to forced retirement, compensation and pay, etc., based on immigration status. In the GCC states, in the workplace, preferential treatment is given to full citizens, even though many of them lack experience or motivation to do the job. State benefits are also generally available for citizens only.[26] Citizenship discrimination may show as a "level of acceptance" in a team regarding new team members and employees who differ from the citizenship of the majority of team members.[27] Citizenship discrimination can be sometimes connected with racial discrimination[28] although it can be separate.

Class

[edit]
These paragraphs are an excerpt from Class discrimination.[edit]

Class discrimination, also known as classism, is prejudice or discrimination on the basis of social class. It includes individual attitudes, behaviors, systems of policies and practices that are set up to benefit the upper class at the expense of the lower class.[29]

Social class refers to the grouping of individuals in a hierarchy based on wealth, income, education, occupation, and social network.

Disability

[edit]
Main article: Disability discrimination

Discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not is called ableism or disablism. Disability discrimination, which treats non-disabled individuals as the standard of 'normal living', results in public and private places and services, workplaces and educational settings, that are built to serve 'standard' people, which can exclude or hinder those with various disabilities.

Some studies have shown that employment can be beneficial to people with disabilities, helping to sustain their mental health and well-being. Work can fulfil a number of basic needs for an individual such as collective purpose, social contact, status, and activity, therefore reducing social isolation.[30]

Other research shows that employment is not always beneficial, particularly if a disabled persons needs are not considered. A decline in the working age population, particularly in Europe, is resulting in disabled people being seen as more of a valuable resource, within the labour market, for economic reasons.[31]

In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act mandates the provision of equality of access to both buildings and services and is paralleled by similar acts in other countries, such as the Equality Act 2010 in the UK.

Excellence

[edit]
These paragraphs are an excerpt from Anti-intellectualism § Discrimination.[edit]
Discrimination of excellence[32] is the violation of formal equality of opportunity[33] and meritocracy,[34] which reward merits of individuals and overachievement.[32] Discrimination of excellence can be caused by different reasons, including legacy preferences,[35] nepotism, substantive equality,[33] affirmative action[36], ageism[37] or random luck.[38]

Language

[edit]
Nationalists in Corsica sometimes spray-paint or shoot traffic signs in French.
This section is an excerpt from Linguistic discrimination.[edit]

Linguistic discrimination (also called glottophobia, linguicism and languagism) is the unfair treatment of people based upon their use of language and the characteristics of their speech, such as their first language, their accent, the perceived size of their vocabulary (whether or not the speaker uses complex and varied words), their modality, and their syntax.[39] For example, an Occitan speaker in France will probably be treated differently from a French speaker.[40]

Based on a difference in use of language, a person may automatically form judgments about another person's wealth, education, social status, character or other traits, which may lead to discrimination. This has led to public debate surrounding localisation theories, likewise with overall diversity prevalence in numerous nations across the West.

Linguistic discrimination was at first considered an act of racism. In the mid-1980s, linguist Tove Skutnabb-Kangas captured the idea of language-based discrimination as linguicism, which was defined as "ideologies and structures used to legitimize, effectuate, and reproduce unequal divisions of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups which are defined on the basis of language".[41] Although different names have been given to this form of discrimination, they all hold the same definition. Linguistic discrimination is culturally and socially determined due to preference for one use of language over others.

Scholars have analyzed the role of linguistic imperialism in linguicism, with some asserting that speakers of dominant languages gravitate toward discrimination against speakers of other, less dominant languages, while disadvantaging themselves linguistically by remaining monolingual.[42]

According to Carolyn McKinley, this phenomenon is most present in Africa, where much of the population speaks European languages introduced during the colonial era; African states are also noted as instituting European languages as the main medium of instruction, instead of indigenous languages.[42] UNESCO reports have noted that this has historically benefitted only the African upper class, conversely disadvantaging the majority of Africa's population who hold varying level of fluency in the European languages spoken across the continent.[42]

Scholars have also noted the influence of the linguistic dominance of English on academic disciplines; Anna Wierzbicka, professor of linguistics at the Australian National University, has described disciplines such as the social sciences and humanities as being "locked in a conceptual framework grounded in English", preventing academia as a whole from reaching a "more universal, culture-independent perspective."[43]

Name

[edit]

Discrimination based on a person's name may also occur, with researchers suggesting that this form of discrimination is present based on a name's meaning, its pronunciation, its uniqueness, its gender affiliation, and its racial affiliation.[44][45][46][47][48] Research has further shown that real world recruiters spend an average of just six seconds reviewing each résumé before making their initial "fit/no fit" screen-out decision and that a person's name is one of the six things they focus on most.[49] France has made it illegal to view a person's name on a résumé when screening for the initial list of most qualified candidates. Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands have also experimented with name-blind summary processes.[50] Some apparent discrimination may be explained by other factors such as name frequency.[51] The effects of name discrimination based on a name's fluency is subtle, small and subject to significantly changing norms.[52]

Race or ethnicity

[edit]
Main articles: Racism, Racial discrimination, Discrimination based on skin color, Ethnic penalty, and Racial segregation
Anti-Arab sign in Pattaya Beach, Thailand
German warning in German-occupied Poland 1939 – "No entrance for Poles!"
Antisemitic graffiti in Lithuania. The words read Juden raus (German for Jews out) and Hasse (presumably a misspelling of Hass, German for hate).
An African-American child at a segregated drinking fountain on a courthouse lawn, North Carolina, US 1938

Racial and ethnic discrimination differentiates individuals on the basis of real and perceived racial and ethnic differences and leads to various forms of the ethnic penalty.[53][54] It can also refer to the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.[55][56][57][58] It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity.[56][57]

Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities.[56][57][59] It has been official government policy in several countries, such as South Africa during the apartheid era. Discriminatory policies towards ethnic minorities include the race-based discrimination against ethnic Indians and Chinese in Malaysia[60] The concept of multiracism has been used to explain the varieties of race discrimination.[61] After the Vietnam War, many Vietnamese refugees moved to Australia and the United States, where they faced discrimination.[62] Westerners might get paid more than other immigrants in GCC states.[63]

Region

[edit]
See also: Regional discrimination in China

Regional or geographic discrimination is a form of discrimination that is based on the region in which a person lives or the region in which a person was born. It differs from national discrimination because it may not be based on national borders or the country in which the victim lives, instead, it is based on prejudices against a specific region of one or more countries. Examples include discrimination against Chinese people who were born in regions of the countryside that are far away from cities that are located within China, and discrimination against Americans who are from the southern or northern regions of the United States. It is often accompanied by discrimination that is based on accent, dialect, or cultural differences.[64]

Religious beliefs

[edit]
Main articles: Religious discrimination and Religious exclusivism
Freedom of religion
Concepts
Status by country
Africa
North and South America
Asia
Europe
Middle East
Oceania
Topical
Religious persecution
Religion portal
In the 1990s, Bhutan expelled its Hindu population or forced it to leave the country in order to preserve Bhutan's Buddhist culture and identity.

Religious discrimination is valuing or treating people or groups differently because of what they do or do not believe in or because of their feelings towards a given religion. For instance, the Jewish population of Germany, and indeed a large portion of Europe, was subjected to discrimination under Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party between 1933 and 1945. They were forced to live in ghettos, wear an identifying star of David on their clothes, and sent to concentration and death camps in rural Germany and Poland, where they were to be tortured and killed, all because of their Jewish religion. Many laws (most prominently the Nuremberg Laws of 1935) separated those of Jewish faith as supposedly inferior to the Christian population.

Restrictions on the types of occupations that Jewish people could hold were imposed by Christian authorities. Local rulers and church officials closed many professions to religious Jews, pushing them into marginal roles that were considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and moneylending, occupations that were only tolerated as a "necessary evil".[65] The number of Jews who were permitted to reside in different places was limited; they were concentrated in ghettos and banned from owning land.

In Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims are not allowed to publicly practice their religions and they cannot enter Mecca and Medina.[66][67] Furthermore, private non-Muslim religious gatherings might be raided by the religious police.[67] In Maldives, non-Muslims living and visiting the country are prohibited from openly expressing their religious beliefs, holding public congregations to conduct religious activities, or involving Maldivians in such activities. Those expressing religious beliefs other than Islam may face imprisonment of up to five years or house arrest, fines ranging from 5,000 to 20,000 rufiyaa ($320 to $1,300), and deportation.[68]

In Myanmar, 600,000 Rohingya muslims have been forced to become refugees in Bangladesh due to institutionalised religious discrimination, in law, policy and practice.[69] An example is the government refusing to grant them citizenship, making them stateless without legal documentation. In 2015 Buddhist nationalists protested their right to vote in a constitutional referendum.[70]

In a 1979 consultation on the issue, the United States commission on civil rights defined religious discrimination in relation to the civil rights which are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Whereas religious civil liberties, such as the right to hold or not to hold a religious belief, are essential for Freedom of Religion (in the United States as secured by the First Amendment), religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied "equal protection under the law, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom".[71]

Sex, sex characteristics, gender, and gender identity

[edit]
Main article: Sexism
See also: Homophobia, Misogyny, Misandry, Discrimination against intersex people, Transphobia, Discrimination against non-binary gender persons, and Violence against LGBT people

Sexism is a form of discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. It has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles,[72][73] and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another.[74] Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape, and other forms of sexual violence.[75] Gender discrimination may encompass sexism and is discrimination toward people based on their gender identity[76] or their gender or sex differences.[77] Gender discrimination is especially defined in terms of workplace inequality.[77] It may arise from social or cultural customs and norms.[78]

Intersex persons experience discrimination due to innate, atypical sex characteristics. Multiple jurisdictions now protect individuals on grounds of intersex status or sex characteristics. South Africa was the first country to explicitly add intersex to legislation, as part of the attribute of 'sex'.[79] Australia was the first country to add an independent attribute, of 'intersex status'.[80][81] Malta was the first to adopt a broader framework of 'sex characteristics', through legislation that also ended modifications to the sex characteristics of minors undertaken for social and cultural reasons.[82][83] Global efforts such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 5 is also aimed at ending all forms of discrimination on the basis of gender and sex.[84]

Sexual orientation

[edit]
LGBT activists at Cologne Pride carrying a banner with the flags of over 70 countries where homosexuality is illegal
Protests in New York City against Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill
See also: Heterosexism, Heteronormativity, Biphobia, and Homophobia

One's sexual orientation is a "predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality".[85] Like most minority groups, homosexuals and bisexuals are vulnerable to prejudice and discrimination from the majority group. They may experience hatred from others because of their sexuality; a term for such hatred based upon one's sexual orientation is often called homophobia. Many continue to hold negative feelings towards those with non-heterosexual orientations and will discriminate against people who have them or are thought to have them. People of other uncommon sexual orientations also experience discrimination. One study found its sample of heterosexuals to be more prejudiced against asexual people than against homosexual or bisexual people.[86]

Employment discrimination based on sexual orientation varies by country. Revealing a lesbian sexual orientation (by means of mentioning an engagement in a rainbow organisation or by mentioning one's partner name) lowers employment opportunities in Cyprus and Greece but overall, it has no negative effect in Sweden and Belgium.[87][88][89][90] In the latter country, even a positive effect of revealing a lesbian sexual orientation is found for women at their fertile ages.

Besides these academic studies, in 2009, ILGA published a report based on research carried out by Daniel Ottosson at Södertörn University College in Stockholm, Sweden. This research found that of the 80 countries around the world that continue to consider homosexuality illegal, five carry the death penalty for homosexual activity, and two do in some regions of the country.[91] In the report, this is described as "State sponsored homophobia".[92] This happens in Islamic states, or in two cases regions under Islamic authority.[93][94] On February 5, 2005, the IRIN issued a reported titled "Iraq: Male homosexuality still a taboo". The article stated, among other things that honor killings by Iraqis against a gay family member are common and given some legal protection.[95] In August 2009, Human Rights Watch published an extensive report detailing torture of men accused of being gay in Iraq, including the blocking of men's anuses with glue and then giving the men laxatives.[96] Although gay marriage has been legal in South Africa since 2006, same-sex unions are often condemned as "un-African".[97] Research conducted in 2009 shows 86% of black lesbians from the Western Cape live in fear of sexual assault.[98]

Further information: LGBT rights by country or territory
The NYC Pride March is the world's largest LGBT event. Regional variation exists with respect to tolerance, the antithesis of discrimination, in different parts of the world.

A number of countries, especially those in the Western world, have passed measures to alleviate discrimination against sexual minorities, including laws against anti-gay hate crimes and workplace discrimination. Some have also legalized same-sex marriage or civil unions in order to grant same-sex couples the same protections and benefits as opposite-sex couples. In 2011, the United Nations passed its first resolution recognizing LGBT rights.

Reverse discrimination

[edit]
Main article: Reverse discrimination
See also: Bumiputera (Malaysia)
Students protesting against racial quotas in Brazil: "Quer uma vaga? Passe no vestibular!" ("Do you want a spot? Pass the entrance exam!")

Reverse discrimination is discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.[99]

This discrimination may seek to redress social inequalities under which minority groups have had less access to privileges enjoyed by the majority group. In such cases it is intended to remove discrimination that minority groups may already face. Reverse discrimination can be defined as the unequal treatment of members of the majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities.[100]

Conceptualizing affirmative action as reverse discrimination became popular in the early- to mid-1970s, a time period that focused on under-representation and action policies intended to remedy the effects of past discrimination in both government and the business world.[101]

Anti-discrimination laws

[edit]
Main articles: Anti-discrimination law and List of anti-discrimination acts

Australia

[edit]

Canada

[edit]

Hong Kong

[edit]

India

[edit]

Article 15 of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds of caste, religion, sex, race or place of birth etc.[103] Similarly, the Constitution of India guarantees several rights to all citizens irrespective of gender, such as right to equality under Article 14, right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.[104]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 153 A) – Criminalises the use of language that promotes discrimination or violence against people on the basis of race, caste, sex, place of birth, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other category.[105]

Israel

[edit]

Netherlands

[edit]
  • Article 137c, part 1 of Wetboek van Strafrecht prohibits insults towards a group because of its race, religion, sexual orientation (straight or gay), handicap (somatically, mental or psychiatric) in public or by speech, by writing or by a picture. Maximum imprisonment one year of imprisonment or a fine of the third category.[106][107]
  • Part 2 increases the maximum imprisonment to two years and the maximum fine category to 4,[108] when the crime is committed as a habit or is committed by two or more persons.
  • Article 137d prohibits provoking to discrimination or hate against the group described above. Same penalties apply as in article 137c.[109]
  • Article 137e part 1 prohibits publishing a discriminatory statement, other than in formal message, or hands over an object (that contains discriminatory information) otherwise than on his request. Maximum imprisonment is 6 months or a fine of the third category.[106][110]
  • Part 2 increases the maximum imprisonment to one year and the maximum fine category to 4,[108] when the crime is committed as a habit or committed by two or more persons.
  • Article 137f prohibits supporting discriminatory activities by giving money or goods. Maximum imprisonment is 3 months or a fine of the second category.[111][112]

United Kingdom

[edit]

United States

[edit]

United Nations documents

[edit]

Important UN documents addressing discrimination include:

Exemptions

[edit]
See also: Conscription and sexism and Religious exemption

The Anti-discrimination laws of most countries allow and make exceptions for discrimination based on nationality and immigration status.[121] The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) does not prohibit discrimination by nationality, citizenship or naturalization but forbids discrimination "against any particular nationality".[122]

International cooperation

[edit]
  • Global Forum against Racism and Discrimination[123]
  • The International Coalition of Inclusive and Sustainable Cities (ICCAR) launched by UNESCO in 2004[124]
  • Routes of Enslaved Peoples project

Theories and philosophy

[edit]

Social theories such as egalitarianism assert that social equality should prevail. In some societies, including most developed countries, each individual's civil rights include the right to be free from government sponsored social discrimination.[125] Due to a belief in the capacity to perceive pain or suffering shared by all animals, abolitionist or vegan egalitarianism maintains that the interests of every individual (regardless of their species), warrant equal consideration with the interests of humans, and that not doing so is speciesist.[126]

Philosophers have debated as to how inclusive the definition of discrimination should be. Some philosophers have argued that discrimination should only refer to wrongful or disadvantageous treatment in the context of a socially salient group (such as race, gender, sexuality etc.) within a given context. Under this view, failure to limit the concept of discrimination would lead to it being overinclusive; for example, since most murders occur because of some perceived difference between the perpetrator and the victim, many murders would constitute discrimination if the social salience requirement is not included. Thus this view argues that making the definition of discrimination overinclusive renders it meaningless. Conversely, other philosophers argue that discrimination should simply refer to wrongful disadvantageous treatment regardless of the social salience of the group, arguing that limiting the concept only to socially salient groups is arbitrary, as well as raising issues of determining which groups would count as socially salient. The issue of which groups should count has caused many political and social debates.[13]

Based on realistic-conflict theory[127] and social-identity theory,[128] Rubin and Hewstone[129] have highlighted a distinction among three types of discrimination:

  1. Realistic competition is driven by self-interest and is aimed at obtaining material resources (e.g., food, territory, customers) for the in-group (e.g., favoring an in-group in order to obtain more resources for its members, including the self).
  2. Social competition is driven by the need for self-esteem and is aimed at achieving a positive social status for the in-group relative to comparable out-groups (e.g., favoring an in-group in order to make it better than an out-group).
  3. Consensual discrimination is driven by the need for accuracy[130] and reflects stable and legitimate intergroup status hierarchies (e.g., favoring a high-status in-group because it is high status).

Labeling theory

[edit]
An anti-discrimination education workshop at the Auschwitz Jewish Center, Poland, 2019

Discrimination, in labeling theory, takes form as mental categorization of minorities and the use of stereotype. This theory describes difference as deviance from the norm, which results in internal devaluation and social stigma[131] that may be seen as discrimination. It is started by describing a "natural" social order. It is distinguished between the fundamental principle of fascism and social democracy.[132][clarification needed] The Nazis in 1930s-era Germany and the pre-1990 Apartheid government of South Africa used racially discriminatory agendas for their political ends. This practice continues with some present day governments.[133]

Game theory

[edit]

Economist Yanis Varoufakis (2013) argues that "discrimination based on utterly arbitrary characteristics evolves quickly and systematically in the experimental laboratory", and that neither classical game theory nor neoclassical economics can explain this.[134]

In 2002, Varoufakis and Shaun Hargreaves-Heap ran an experiment where volunteers played a computer-mediated, multiround hawk-dove game. At the start of each session, each participant was assigned a color at random, either red or blue. At each round, each player learned the color assigned to his or her opponent, but nothing else about the opponent. Hargreaves-Heap and Varoufakis found that the players' behavior within a session frequently developed a discriminatory convention, giving a Nash equilibrium where players of one color (the "advantaged" color) consistently played the aggressive "hawk" strategy against players of the other, "disadvantaged" color, who played the acquiescent "dove" strategy against the advantaged color. Players of both colors used a mixed strategy when playing against players assigned the same color as their own. The experimenters then added a cooperation option to the game, and found that disadvantaged players usually cooperated with each other, while advantaged players usually did not. They state that while the equilibria reached in the original hawk-dove game are predicted by evolutionary game theory, game theory does not explain the emergence of cooperation in the disadvantaged group. Citing earlier psychological work of Matthew Rabin, they hypothesize that a norm of differing entitlements emerges across the two groups, and that this norm could define a "fairness" equilibrium within the disadvantaged group.[135]

Effects on health

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Psychological impact of discrimination on health.[edit]

The psychological impact of discrimination on health refers to the cognitive pathways through which discrimination impacts mental and physical health in marginalized, and lower-status groups (e.g. racial and sexual minorities).[136] Research on the relationship between discrimination and health grew in the 1990s, when researchers proposed that persisting racial/ethnic disparities in health outcomes could be explained by racial or ethnic differences in experiences with discrimination.[137] While much research focuses on the interactions between interpersonal discrimination and health, researchers studying discrimination and health in the United States have proposed that institutional discrimination and cultural racism also create conditions that contribute to persisting racial and economic health disparities.[138][139]

A stress and coping framework[140] is applied to investigate how discrimination influences health outcomes in racial, gender, and sexual minorities, as well as on immigrant and indigenous populations.[141][142] The research indicates that experiences of discrimination are associated with worse physical and mental health conditions and lead to increased participation in unhealthy behaviors.[143] Evidence of the inverse link between discrimination and health has been observed consistently across multiple population groups and various cultural and national contexts.[144]

Analysis of data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study has shown a link between disability discrimination and wellbeing. 13.4% of disabled people have felt discriminated against. Larger European studies have found disability discrimination to be very common. Disability discrimination was associated with lower wellbeing, for example depression, self rated health, psychological distress and life satisfaction.[145]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Discrimination

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Discrimination is the act or process of distinguishing or differentiating between individuals, groups, or phenomena based on perceived characteristics, a capacity rooted in the Latin discrimen ("division" or "distinction") and originally connoting a positive of discernment and in perceiving subtle differences. In social and legal contexts, it commonly refers to differential treatment—often negative and based on immutable or group-based traits such as race, , , age, or —ranging from explicit exclusion to implicit biases affecting opportunities in , , and public services. While essential for rational and in evolutionary and economic terms, unjustified discrimination has been empirically linked to inefficiencies and harms, including wage gaps and health disparities, though challenges persist due to factors like individual qualifications and cultural norms. Historically neutral in connotation until the , the term's pejorative shift coincided with addressing systemic exclusions, such as in the United States, prompting antidiscrimination laws that prohibit while raising debates over enforcement efficacy and unintended consequences like mismatched hiring. Empirical field experiments, including audit studies, reveal persistent disparities in hiring and lending across demographics, yet causal attribution remains contested, with evidence suggesting both taste-based prejudices and statistical preferences for observable signals. Controversies intensify around "positive discrimination" measures, such as , which aim to counteract historical inequities but often yield mixed outcomes, including beneficiary stigma and resentment among non-preferred groups, as documented in labor market analyses. Psychologically, discrimination stems from cognitive heuristics and , adaptive traits that can manifest as out-group under or , though not all differential treatment qualifies as irrational or harmful—distinguishing merit from irrelevant traits enhances outcomes in competitive settings. Institutional biases in academia and media, which skew toward interpreting disparities as presumptive discrimination without robust controls for alternatives like behavioral differences, have inflated perceptions of its , complicating objective policy responses. Overall, addressing discrimination requires balancing empirical validation against overreach, prioritizing causal mechanisms over correlational narratives to foster genuine equity.

Conceptual Foundations

Etymology and Linguistic Origins

The English word discrimination entered usage in the 1640s, borrowed from discriminationem (nominative discriminatio), the action of dividing or separating. Its root lies in the Latin verb discriminare, meaning "to distinguish between" or "to divide," derived from discrimen ("division, distinction, or judgment"), which stems from discernere ("to separate" or "to perceive differences"). The prefix dis- ("apart" or "asunder") combines with cernere ("to sift, separate, or decide"), linking etymologically to concepts of sifting or rendering verdicts, as in ancient Roman legal or perceptual contexts. Initially, discrimination connoted a neutral or positive faculty of discernment, referring to the act of making perceptive distinctions or exercising refined judgment, as evidenced in early 17th-century English texts emphasizing cognitive acuity. This sense aligned with classical Latin usage, where related terms implied analytical separation without moral valence. By the 19th century, particularly in American English, the term shifted toward a negative implication of unfair or prejudicial differentiation, first documented in 1866 amid debates over the Civil Rights Bill targeting treatment based on race or prior servitude. Cognates appear in Romance languages, such as French discrimination and Italian discriminazione, retaining the Latin core while mirroring English's semantic evolution from neutral distinction to bias-laden exclusion in modern legal and social discourse. This linguistic trajectory reflects broader cultural changes, where the capacity for rational differentiation—once prized—became associated with systemic inequities rather than inherent perceptual skill.

Core Definitions and Distinctions

Discrimination is fundamentally the practice of making distinctions in treatment, opportunities, or outcomes between individuals or groups based on characteristics such as race, sex, religion, or , rather than solely on individual qualifications or actions. In economic terms, as articulated by in his 1957 analysis, it arises when economic agents—such as employers or consumers—bear a cost by avoiding transactions with certain groups due to preferences unrelated to productivity, leading to wage gaps or market inefficiencies for equally capable individuals. This definition emphasizes observable behaviors and outcomes over mere attitudes, distinguishing it from purely internal states. A key distinction exists between discrimination and prejudice: prejudice involves preconceived, often emotional attitudes or hostility toward a group, independent of evidence, while discrimination manifests as tangible actions or policies that disadvantage the group. Similarly, bias refers to cognitive or implicit inclinations that skew judgments, which may inform but do not equate to discriminatory conduct unless enacted. Stereotypes, as cognitive shortcuts generalizing group traits, can underpin but become discriminatory only when they drive differential treatment, such as exclusion from opportunities. Discrimination further divides into rational and irrational forms. Rational discrimination employs accurate statistical generalizations about group differences in relevant traits—such as higher group-level variance in reliability or performance—when individual assessments are costly or infeasible, thereby minimizing errors in decisions like hiring or lending. Irrational discrimination, conversely, stems from unfounded animus or errors, imposing unnecessary costs without predictive value, as critiqued in competitive market models where such preferences self-correct via losses to discriminators. Legally, in the United States, discrimination is codified under Title VII of the as adverse employment actions based on protected categories including race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, prohibiting both intentional and practices with unjustified disparate impacts. This framework prioritizes proxies but overlooks rational bases rooted in empirical group variances, potentially conflating statistical realities with prohibited bias.

Rational Discrimination in Theory and Practice

Statistical discrimination, a foundational concept in economic theory, posits that decision-makers rationally infer individual traits from group averages when individual information is imperfect or costly, leading to differential treatment based on probabilistic assessments rather than animus. This model, distinct from taste-based discrimination where agents bear a cost for associating with certain groups, was formalized by in his 1972 paper, which demonstrated how employers facing noisy signals may offer lower wages to members of groups with lower average qualifications, perpetuating disparities even among equally productive individuals. extended this in 1973 by incorporating signaling and coordination, showing that in competitive markets, firms may underinvest in training for discriminated groups due to anticipated higher quit rates inferred from group statistics, resulting in equilibrium inefficiencies. In labor markets, statistical discrimination manifests when hiring or promotion decisions rely on group-level data amid asymmetric information; for instance, empirical analyses indicate that resumes from groups with historically higher variance in performance receive lower callback rates unless augmented by strong individual signals like elite education, as firms weigh expected productivity against screening costs. A classic real-world example involves taxicab drivers selectively refusing fares from young black males in high-crime urban areas, justified by disproportionate robbery statistics—data from 1990s studies show black males comprised 50-70% of assailants against cabbies despite being 12% of the population—yielding rational risk aversion that maximizes driver safety and earnings, though it imposes externalities on innocent individuals. Insurance pricing exemplifies rational discrimination through actuarial practices, where premiums reflect empirical group risks to ensure and fairness; for example, young male drivers face 20-50% higher auto rates than females of similar age due to crash showing males under 25 account for 27% of fatal accidents despite being 12% of licensed drivers, a upheld as non-discriminatory when predictive of claims experience. Similarly, life insurers historically charged higher rates to groups with elevated mortality, such as smokers or certain occupations, based on longitudinal ; while race-based differentials were curtailed by post-1970s, proxies like persist where they correlate with verifiable risks like outcomes or . These applications underscore that suppressing statistical inferences can distort markets, increasing costs for low-risk members of high-risk groups via , as evidenced by community-rated plans experiencing 10-15% premium hikes from unpriced risks.

Biological and Evolutionary Bases

Evolutionary Psychology of Ingroup Preferences

Ingroup favoritism refers to the preferential treatment, cooperation, and resource allocation toward members of one's own social group compared to outgroup members, a pattern observed across human societies and linked to evolutionary adaptations for survival in group-based ancestral environments. This preference likely arose because early humans lived in small, kin-related bands where intra-group cooperation enhanced protection against predators, resource acquisition, and reproduction, while inter-group competition over scarce resources posed recurrent threats; mathematical models demonstrate that such favoritism can evolve stably when groups engage in costly conflicts, as individuals who prioritize ingroup members gain fitness advantages through mutual aid and collective defense. Theoretical frameworks in posit that ingroup preferences stem from extended and , extended beyond genetic relatives to coalition members sharing phenotypic cues like , appearance, or norms, which signal reliability in repeated interactions; parochial altruism further explains this as a pairing ingroup with outgroup , promoting group-level in zero-sum intergroup contests, as simulated in agent-based models where moderate favoritism outperforms pure or universal . Empirical support comes from minimal group paradigms, where arbitrary assignments (e.g., based on abstract preferences) elicit favoritism in tasks, with bias intensifying over repeated dilemmas as participants learn group norms, indicating an innate readiness rather than learned . Neuroscience evidence reinforces an evolved basis, with functional MRI studies showing heightened activation and reduced empathy-related activity (e.g., in the anterior insula) when processing outgroup faces or pain, contrasted with stronger responses for ingroup suffering, suggesting automatic categorization mechanisms honed by ancestral threats from unfamiliar outsiders. Cross-cultural experiments across 20 countries reveal in economic games as a near-universal default, though modulated by cultural factors like , with stronger in high-discrimination societies; this variation aligns with evolutionary predictions that environmental pressures, such as prevalence or resource scarcity, amplify the adaptive value of tribal loyalties. analogs, including coalitionary killing of outgroup rivals, provide comparative data supporting homology, as hyper-coalitional psychology likely amplified these traits for large-scale warfare and alliance-building during the Pleistocene.

Cognitive and Instinctual Mechanisms

Cognitive categorization, a fundamental process in human perception, groups individuals into social categories based on observable traits such as race, , or , enabling efficient information processing but often resulting in stereotyping and biased judgments. Experimental studies demonstrate that such categorization triggers associations, where outgroup members are more readily linked to negative stereotypes due to salience of dissimilar features in recall tasks. For instance, in benchmark experiments, participants exhibited poorer for positive traits of racial outgroup members compared to ingroup counterparts, suggesting a that favors ingroup-positive information and contributes to discriminatory evaluations independent of explicit . Implicit biases, operationalized through tools like the (IAT), reflect unconscious evaluative preferences that influence discriminatory behavior, such as hiring decisions or interpersonal interactions, though meta-analyses indicate modest correlations with actual actions, raising questions about their causal potency beyond situational factors. These biases arise from associative learning reinforced by cultural exposure and personal experiences, but they persist even when explicit attitudes are egalitarian, as shown in where automatic racial evaluations activate brain regions linked to emotional processing before conscious deliberation. Peer-reviewed evidence attributes this to heuristic shortcuts in , where statistical patterns from past encounters (e.g., crime rates by group) unconsciously inform judgments, aligning with rational discrimination models rather than irrational animus. Instinctual mechanisms root in evolutionary adaptations for survival, where and outgroup vigilance minimized risks from coalitional threats or transmission in ancestral environments. data and analogs reveal universal tendencies toward and , with emerging as an extension of principles, favoring resource allocation to genetic relatives and familiar allies over strangers. Empirical support comes from studies showing heightened physiological responses (e.g., spikes) to outgroup symbols, interpreted as adaptive caution rather than maladaptive , though modern low-threat contexts amplify these instincts into exaggerated biases. At the neural level, the exhibits selective activation to outgroup faces, signaling potential danger and modulating activity to threat detection, as evidenced by fMRI meta-analyses of intergroup encounters. This subcortical response precedes cortical evaluation, underscoring an instinctual primacy that overrides deliberative reasoning in ambiguous situations, with genetic underpinnings suggested by heritability estimates of traits around 30-50% in twin studies. Such mechanisms, while fostering discrimination, likely conferred fitness advantages by promoting cohesive groups and avoiding exploitative outsiders, per evolutionary models.

Historical Evolution of the Concept

Pre-Modern and Traditional Societies

In pre-modern societies, discrimination was typically embedded in social structures as a mechanism for maintaining order, allocating resources, and ensuring group survival, often favoring kin, , or status hierarchies over universal equality. Anthropological evidence from traditional small-scale societies indicates that and outgroup derogation were prevalent, with individuals showing bias toward their own group in resource distribution and , as observed in multiplayer economic games among naturally occurring groups where participants discriminated against outgroup members by allocating fewer resources to them. This pattern aligns with evolutionary pressures in tribal contexts, where exclusion of outsiders reduced risks of exploitation or conflict, though it did not always manifest as outright but as preferential treatment for familiars. Early codified laws exemplify class-based discrimination. The , promulgated around 1750 BCE in , differentiated penalties by social status: for instance, injuring a free man's eye warranted reciprocal injury to the perpetrator, while injuring a commoner's eye incurred only a monetary fine of half a mina of silver, and a slave's injury merited even lesser compensation equivalent to the slave's market value. Similarly, in ancient Rome from the Republic through the Empire (c. 509 BCE–476 CE), slavery institutionalized discrimination against foreigners, who comprised the majority of the estimated 10–20% of Italy's population that were slaves, often captured in wars and denied citizenship rights, with treatment varying by owner but legally permitting corporal punishment and sale as property. Roman law further distinguished citizens from peregrini (foreigners) and slaves, limiting the latter's legal recourse and barring them from intermarriage or property ownership without manumission. In , the varna system outlined in Vedic texts like the (c. 1500–1200 BCE) stratified society into priests, warriors, commoners, and servants, evolving into rigid jati castes by the early centuries CE, where lower groups faced hereditary occupational restrictions and ritual pollution taboos, as seen in the exclusion of Dalits from temples and wells, enforcing economic and social segregation. Medieval (c. 500–1500 CE) perpetuated status discrimination through , binding peasants to manors and lords from the 9th century onward, restricting mobility, , and inheritance without seigneurial consent, while religious discrimination targeted Jews and via laws like the Fourth Lateran Council's () mandates for distinctive clothing and ghettoization, justified by theological views of non-Christians as perpetual outsiders. These practices were generally viewed not as moral failings but as pragmatic enforcements of hierarchy, with deviations risking social instability, though or conversion occasionally allowed limited upward mobility.

19th-20th Century Developments

In the 19th century, the term "discrimination," derived from the Latin discrimen meaning division or distinction, increasingly connoted unjust treatment based on perceived group differences, particularly in the post-slavery United States. Following the Civil War and Reconstruction era (1865–1877), Southern states enacted Black Codes and later Jim Crow laws to enforce racial segregation and restrict African American rights, formalizing discrimination in voting, education, and public accommodations. These measures, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) under the "separate but equal" doctrine, institutionalized differential treatment justified as preserving social order amid racial tensions. Scientific racism emerged concurrently, with European and American intellectuals applying pseudoscientific methods like and to argue for innate racial hierarchies that rationalized discriminatory policies. Works such as Joseph Arthur de Gobineau's Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races (1853–1855) posited superiority, influencing immigration restrictions and colonial practices. In the United States, northern Black communities faced ongoing housing and employment barriers, prompting organized resistance through mutual aid societies and legal challenges. The early 20th century saw the concept of discrimination expand to include institutional and psychological dimensions, with sociologists and psychologists beginning to study as a precursor to discriminatory acts. policies, peaking in the 1920s, led to forced sterilizations of over 60,000 individuals deemed "unfit" in the U.S., often targeting racial minorities and the poor, under the guise of genetic improvement. The 1924 Immigration Act quota system explicitly favored Northern ans, reflecting statistical discrimination based on perceived cultural and racial compatibility. World War I-era restrictions on and rising anti-Semitism, exemplified by the Dreyfus Affair's lingering impact in , highlighted ethnic discrimination amid . By mid-century, (1941–1945) exposed the catastrophic potential of state-enforced , discrediting overt scientific racism and prompting international repudiations like UNESCO's 1950 statement on race, which rejected of . In the U.S., persistent Jim Crow segregation persisted until challenged by wartime labor demands and the 1948 desegregation of the armed forces via , marking a shift toward viewing discrimination as a barrier to merit-based opportunity. These developments reframed discrimination from an accepted social mechanism to a target for reform, though empirical group differences continued to underpin rational distinctions in policy debates.

Post-1960s Legal and Cultural Shifts

The marked a foundational legal shift in the United States, prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations, employment, and federally funded programs based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, with Title VII establishing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce workplace protections. This was followed by the , which targeted barriers to Black voter registration and participation in Southern states through federal oversight of election practices. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 extended prohibitions to transactions, addressing residential segregation that had persisted despite earlier reforms. Subsequent U.S. legislation broadened these protections, including the mandating equal remuneration for equal work regardless of sex, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 barring discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in employment, public services, and accommodations. policies, initially under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, aimed to remedy past discrimination through preferential hiring and admissions, though their implementation via standards—established in (1971)—shifted focus from intent to outcomes, prompting debates over quotas and reverse discrimination. Enforcement data from the EEOC show a rise in discrimination claims from the 1970s onward, with racial and sex-based filings increasing amid heightened awareness and legal access. In , U.S. models influenced post-1960s laws, such as the United Kingdom's , which outlawed discrimination in employment, housing, and services on grounds of race or ethnicity, and the addressing gender-based inequities. The formalized these through directives like the 2000 Racial Equality Directive, requiring member states to combat discrimination in employment and training based on racial or ethnic origin. These frameworks emphasized indirect discrimination, where neutral policies with disproportionate effects on protected groups could be challenged, paralleling U.S. developments but often with stronger emphasis on positive duties for equality. Culturally, the saw normalization of anti-discrimination norms through social movements, including feminist advocacy for workplace equity and early gay rights efforts challenging sodomy laws and employment biases, fostering broader societal intolerance for overt prejudice. Surveys indicate a marked decline in explicit racist and sexist attitudes from the to the , with opposition to dropping from 72% in 1968 to 4% by 2016, reflecting internalized equality principles amid media and educational campaigns. Empirically, overt discrimination diminished post-1960s, with employment rates and wages converging toward levels in certain sectors due to , though meta-analyses of studies reveal persistent racial gaps in hiring callbacks unchanged since the . Unintended effects include heightened litigation burdens on employers under rules, potentially discouraging hiring in high-risk demographics, and critiques that exacerbated mismatches in education without proportional gains in outcomes. Recent data show a uptick in —a proxy for tolerance of inequality—post-2012, suggesting cultural amid polarization.

Categories of Discrimination

Discrimination by Immutable Traits

Discrimination by immutable traits encompasses adverse treatment in , housing, or services based on inherent characteristics such as race, , , age, or , which individuals cannot alter without extraordinary effort. These traits form the core of protections under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, , national origin), the Age Discrimination in Act of 1967 (age), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (). Empirical assessments, including audit and correspondence studies, reveal varying degrees of such discrimination, though methodological critiques highlight limitations like assuming identical qualifications across applicants and overlooking statistical or rational bases for decisions. Racial and ethnic discrimination persists in hiring, as evidenced by meta-analyses of field experiments showing receive 36% fewer callbacks than equally qualified white applicants, with no decline over decades from the to . Similar patterns hold for Latinos, though effects are smaller at 24% fewer callbacks, concentrated in contexts like customer-facing roles where statistical differences in group behaviors may contribute. In the U.S., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received over 88,000 discrimination charges in fiscal year 2024, with race comprising a leading basis alongside retaliation, though charges do not confirm proven discrimination. Critiques note that name-based signals in resumes may proxy for cultural or skill differences, not pure , and real-world hiring involves multifaceted evaluations beyond controlled experiments. Sex-based discrimination in hiring shows weaker evidence in audit studies; a cross-national analysis found no systematic disadvantage for women across occupations in and the U.S. U.S.-specific meta-analyses of correspondence tests over three decades indicate modest gaps favoring men in male-dominated fields but reversals in female-dominated ones, with overall effects smaller than for race. Disparities like the gender wage gap—13.7% unadjusted in 2023—largely dissipate after controlling for occupation, hours, and experience, suggesting choices driven by biological preferences for work-life balance over pure . EEOC data reflect fewer sex charges relative to race, underscoring that overt discrimination has declined post-1964, though subtle biases in promotions persist in some sectors. Age discrimination targets older workers (typically over 40), with field experiments demonstrating 20-40% fewer callbacks for applicants aged 64 versus 32 with identical resumes. A 2023 confirmed in hiring across Western labor markets, often rationalized by of lower adaptability, though productivity data show older workers' experience offsets such concerns in many roles. U.S. rates for those 55+ lag younger cohorts, partly due to , but also preferences for phased ; ADEA filings rose in recent years amid tech sector shifts favoring youth. Disability discrimination affects hiring and accommodations, with post-ADA surveys indicating 10% of working disabled adults faced bias within five years of the 1990 law. rates for disabled persons stood at 22.7% in 2024 versus 65.5% for non-disabled, though causation includes health limitations beyond prejudice; EEOC suits on disability comprised 34% of 2023 filings. Audit studies reveal hesitation in callbacks for disclosed disabilities, but reasonable accommodations often mitigate costs, challenging claims of undue burden.

Discrimination by Behavioral or Achieved Traits

Discrimination by behavioral or achieved traits involves differential treatment based on characteristics influenced by personal choices, efforts, or habits, such as criminal convictions, , , educational qualifications, or . These traits are distinguishable from immutable ones because individuals can, in principle, modify them through behavior change or achievement, often making associated discrimination rational when the traits correlate with verifiable risks, costs, or differences. Empirical evidence supports that such discrimination frequently serves rather than animus, as decision-makers like employers weigh observable signals of . In contexts, screening for criminal history exemplifies rational discrimination against behavioral traits. Ex-offenders face widespread reluctance in hiring due to high rates, which signal potential for repeated misconduct. A study tracking over 400,000 state prisoners released in 2005 found that 68% were rearrested within three years, 83% within nine years, encompassing new crimes ranging from property offenses to violence. This pattern justifies employer caution, as hiring individuals with such histories elevates risks of theft, absenteeism, or legal liabilities, with economic models framing it as statistical discrimination to avoid imperfect information costs. Policies like "" laws, which delay criminal history inquiries, have yielded mixed results; while intended to reduce barriers, they can obscure risks, potentially increasing employer hesitancy or unintended hires of higher-risk candidates. Health-related behaviors, such as and , prompt similar discrimination, often tied to quantifiable employer burdens. Smokers incur excess costs averaging $5,816 annually per employee, including $3,000 in elevated claims and $2,000 in losses from illness and breaks. Overweight workers face analogous treatment, with obesity-linked conditions driving higher insurance premiums and absenteeism; for instance, severe obesity correlates with 1.7 times greater healthcare expenditures than normal weight peers. While some states, like , prohibit weight-based discrimination by classifying severe obesity as a , federal permits lifestyle-based exclusions in unless tied to protected categories, reflecting recognition that modifiable habits impose external costs. Critics argue this constitutes "healthism," but causal analysis prioritizes evidence of avoidable expenses over equity claims, as incentives for behavior change—such as surcharges—have reduced rates without broad harm. Educational attainment and skills, as achieved traits, underpin routine discrimination in labor markets, where lower qualifications predict reduced output. Employers rationally favor candidates with higher education or demonstrated competencies, as meta-analyses show college degrees correlate with 20-30% wage premiums due to enhanced productivity and trainability. Termed "educationism" in some analyses, this preference disadvantages those with minimal ing, who comprise about 10% of U.S. adults without high school diplomas and face rates double the national average. Such practices align with first-principles : firms minimize hiring errors by proxying skills via credentials, avoiding the costs of underperformance. Legal systems uphold this via at-will doctrines, absent quotas, though in some sectors discriminates against high-achievers to favor less-qualified candidates based on group traits. In housing and lending, behavioral traits like poor credit history—often resulting from financial mismanagement—lead to higher rates or denials, reflecting actuarial rather than . Subprime borrowers default at rates 3-5 times higher than prime, justifying premiums that average 2-4 percentage points. This extends to social domains, where associations avoid unreliable individuals, as game-theoretic models demonstrate that punishing (e.g., via exclusion) sustains . Overall, while labeled discriminatory, treatment based on achieved traits incentivizes improvement and , with empirical critiques of overprotection showing unintended rises in societal costs, such as spikes post-decriminalization efforts.

Claims of Systemic or Institutional Discrimination

Claims of systemic or assert that discriminatory outcomes arise not merely from individual prejudices but from entrenched structures, policies, and norms within organizations and societies that perpetuate unequal treatment of groups defined by race, , , or other traits. These claims gained prominence in the late , particularly following the U.S. , with advocates pointing to disparate outcomes—such as racial gaps in employment, incarceration, and education—as evidence of bias embedded in neutral-seeming rules. For instance, the doctrine, established in (1971), holds employers liable for policies yielding statistically unequal results across groups unless proven job-related, even absent intent; proponents argue this uncovers covert , as seen in challenges to standardized testing or criminal background checks disproportionately affecting minorities. Empirical support for such claims draws heavily from and correspondence studies simulating hiring processes, where meta-analyses of U.S. field experiments from the to reveal persistent racial gaps: Black applicants receive approximately 36% fewer callbacks than equally qualified White applicants, with no decline over time despite anti-discrimination laws. Similar patterns appear in and lending, where minority applicants face higher rates in controlled tests. However, these studies measure potential interpersonal biases in initial screening rather than systemic policy failures, and their effect sizes—often equivalent to the impact of a single educational credential—pale against confounders like signaling or applicant variations. Critics note that academic and advocacy sources promoting these as evidence of institutional frequently underemphasize alternative explanations, such as statistical discrimination where employers rationally weigh group-level risk signals derived from aggregate behaviors. In , systemic claims highlight disproportionate incarceration rates (e.g., comprising 13% of the but 33% of prisoners as of 2023), attributing them to biased policing and sentencing. Yet rigorous analyses controlling for offense types and local data find arrest disparities align closely with victim-reported perpetrator demographics, indicating higher offending rates rather than institutional animus; for example, FBI and National Victimization Surveys from 2019-2022 show overrepresented in homicides by factors of 7-8 relative to share. The approach in sentencing guidelines has faced rebuke for conflating outcomes with causation, ignoring that neutral policies like "three-strikes" laws address real patterns without embedding . Broader critiques argue these claims systematically downplay cultural and behavioral factors—such as single-parent household rates correlating 0.7-0.8 with and persistence—favoring narratives of that overlook post-1960s policy shifts reducing overt barriers. In , achievement gaps (e.g., 2022 NAEP scores showing students 30-40 points below in math) are often framed as institutional failure, but longitudinal data link them more robustly to family socioeconomic controls than school discrimination. Institutional discrimination claims extend to , positing "glass ceilings" in despite women's 57% share of degrees as of 2023; however, controlled studies attribute executive underrepresentation to choices like career interruptions for childbearing, with adjusted pay gaps shrinking to 3-7% versus the raw 18-20%. policies, defended as remedies for systemic legacies, have conversely been litigated as against Asians and Whites in admissions, as in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), where race-neutral alternatives yielded similar diversity without quotas. Overall, while isolated institutional biases persist, exaggerated systemic narratives risk policy distortions, such as DEI mandates prioritizing group outcomes over individual merit, as evidenced by corporate backlash and legal reversals since 2023.

Theoretical Explanations

Economic Models of Statistical Discrimination

Statistical discrimination in economic theory refers to situations where agents, such as employers, make decisions based on probabilistic inferences about individuals' unobservable traits using observable group averages, rather than or taste. This approach contrasts with Gary Becker's 1957 taste-based model, where discrimination stems from a disutility from associating with certain groups, leading to inefficient outcomes in competitive markets. In statistical models, discrimination emerges rationally from information constraints, where firms cannot costlessly observe individual and thus condition wages or hiring on group statistics. Edmund Phelps introduced a foundational model in 1972, positing that employers set wages equal to the expected marginal productivity of workers from a given group, inferred from group mean productivity due to noisy individual signals. If two groups differ in average productivity—say, Group A higher than Group B—workers from Group B receive lower wages on average, even if their individual productivity matches Group A's mean, because the wage formula applies the group expectation uniformly. This creates a feedback loop: lower wages for Group B reduce incentives for its members to invest in human capital, widening the productivity gap and perpetuating the disparity in equilibrium. Kenneth Arrow's 1973 model extends this by focusing on hiring decisions under uncertainty, where firms set productivity thresholds for employment based on group-specific expected values from imperfect tests. If a group's ability is lower or its signal variance higher, fewer members meet the threshold relative to a higher- group, resulting in underrepresentation despite equal individual distributions. Arrow emphasized coordination failures: all firms using the same group priors leads to self-reinforcing underinvestment in the disadvantaged group, as individuals anticipate discrimination and reduce effort in skill acquisition. Dennis Aigner and Glen Cain's 1977 survey formalized screening variants, where firms may invest differently in observing workers from groups with varying signal reliability—e.g., exerting more effort to screen a high-variance group but still basing decisions on Bayesian updates from group priors. In competitive equilibrium, such models predict wage gaps mirroring productivity differences without animus, but they can amplify initial disparities if groups face asymmetric information costs. Empirical tests, such as studies, have sought to distinguish statistical from taste-based discrimination by examining responses to variance in applicant signals, though identification remains challenging due to unobserved heterogeneity. Extensions, like dynamic models, show belief flipping where temporary shocks can reverse group equilibria, highlighting the fragility of statistical discrimination under changing priors.

Sociological and Cultural Critiques

Sociological theories of discrimination, such as conflict theory, often portray it as a mechanism by which dominant groups maintain power through systemic and , leading to persistent group disparities. Critics contend that this framework overlooks empirical evidence of cultural and behavioral differences that independently drive outcomes, conflating correlation with causation and assuming discrimination where rational statistical assessments or self-selection prevail. Economist , in his analysis of group outcomes across history and nations, argues that disparities require testing multiple causal prerequisites beyond discrimination, including geography, culture, and individual behaviors; for instance, immigrant groups like the Irish and Italians in the 19th-century faced severe yet achieved socioeconomic mobility through cultural adaptations emphasizing and , without legal interventions. Cultural factors, such as family structure and values toward work and learning, provide stronger explanatory power for disparities than alone, according to empirical cross-group comparisons. Sowell documents how , despite historical discrimination like the of 1882, exhibit higher and income levels attributable to cultural norms prioritizing academic effort and intact families, with two-parent households correlating with reduced rates across racial groups—72% of black children born in 1965 to married parents saw 80% remain low-income as adults if families stayed intact, versus stark declines otherwise. These patterns hold internationally; Nigerian immigrants in the U.S. outperform native blacks economically due to selective migration and retained cultural emphases on achievement, not diminished bias. Sociological models attributing gaps primarily to external discrimination are critiqued for neglecting such data, often emerging from academic environments with ideological homogeneity that resists cultural explanations to preserve narratives of victimhood. From a cultural realist perspective, in-group preferences and aversion to out-group risks reflect evolved adaptations rather than pathological , challenging purely social constructionist views. posits that intergroup bias, including discrimination against perceived threats, arises from ancestral environments favoring kin and coalitional loyalty for survival, as evidenced by cross-cultural studies showing universal male warrior tendencies toward out-group males in competitive scenarios. Culturally transmitted norms amplify this; groups with higher rates of behaviors like —linked to cultural tolerances rather than innate traits—face legitimate employer wariness, constituting rational discrimination rather than irrational bias, with labor market audits confirming statistical rather than taste-based motives in hiring disparities. Critics of mainstream argue this underemphasis on causal cultural realism perpetuates ineffective policies, as interventions ignoring behavioral incentives fail to close gaps, per longitudinal on welfare reforms boosting via work requirements.

Behavioral and Cultural Factor Analyses

Behavioral and cultural factor analyses posit that disparities in socioeconomic outcomes between groups often originate from differences in behaviors, values, and norms transmitted across generations, rather than primarily from discriminatory exclusion. These frameworks draw on empirical patterns showing that groups exhibiting behaviors such as stable family formation, high educational investment, and future-oriented decision-making tend to achieve better results, even amid historical adversities. argues in Discrimination and Disparities that cultural factors like attitudes toward work, savings, and punctuality explain variations in group performance more robustly than discrimination alone, as evidenced by divergent trajectories among immigrant cohorts facing similar barriers. For instance, Jewish and Asian immigrants in the United States overcame exclusionary laws through cultural emphases on and , yielding intergenerational gains independent of legal equality. Family structure exemplifies a behavioral factor with strong empirical links to outcomes. Children in single-parent households experience higher rates and reduced upward mobility, with studies isolating this effect from race or confounders. U.S. data from 2023 indicate that 49.7% of children lived with one parent, versus 20.2% of children, correlating with elevated risks of economic dependency and criminal involvement. further demonstrates that intact two-parent families buffer against these risks by providing dual-role models and resource stability, suggesting that cultural norms discouraging early nonmarital childbearing could mitigate disparities more effectively than anti-discrimination measures. Cultural orientations toward and effort similarly drive group differences. Asian Americans' superior academic performance stems from parental expectations of , extended study hours outside , and utilization of ethnic networks for , rather than innate advantages or discrimination deficits. Peer-reviewed analyses confirm that these behaviors—such as higher homework completion rates and —account for achievement gaps, with family exerting weaker influence on Asian outcomes compared to other groups. In contrast, subgroups with norms prioritizing immediate consumption over skill-building exhibit persistent lags, underscoring how modifiable cultural practices shape accumulation. These analyses extend to labor market behaviors, where traits like reliability and skill acquisition influence hiring and advancement. Sowell's cross-national comparisons reveal that groups adopting bourgeois values—thrift, family cohesion, and occupational specialization—rapidly ascend socioeconomic ladders, as seen in Blacks outperforming native-born counterparts in early 20th-century Britain. Empirical reviews of persistence affirm that behavioral adaptations, not fixed discrimination, dominate long-term trajectories, with time horizons and habits mediating socioeconomic disparities. While past discrimination may have eroded certain , evidence indicates that internal reforms in values and incentives yield faster convergence than external attributions.

Empirical Assessments

Methodologies for Detecting Discrimination

Field experiments, particularly correspondence studies, represent a primary for detecting discrimination by submitting nearly identical applications or inquiries that vary only in a signal of group membership, such as names implying race or , and comparing response rates like callbacks or offers. These tests isolate causal effects of perceived traits by minimizing confounds from productivity differences, with over 80 such experiments conducted since 2000 across 23 countries in labor and housing markets. For instance, a 2004 study sent resumes to job ads, finding white-sounding names received 50% more callbacks than black-sounding names with identical qualifications, suggesting taste-based or statistical against the latter. Limitations include potential correlations between name signals and unobserved traits like cultural fit, and lower statistical power from low response rates, which can estimates toward underdetecting discrimination if low-quality resumes are used. Observational methods, such as and Oaxaca-Blinder decompositions, assess discrimination by controlling for observable factors like and to attribute residual outcome disparities—e.g., gaps—to unexplained group effects potentially indicating . In wage studies, these decompose differences into endowment (productivity-related) and (price or discrimination) components, with the latter interpreted as of unequal treatment if productivity is fully controlled. A critique arises from : unmeasured factors, such as behavioral traits or network effects correlated with group identity, may explain residuals rather than animus, leading to overattribution of discrimination, especially in datasets from institutions prone to emphasizing structural explanations over individual agency. Economists distinguish taste-based discrimination (prejudice-driven) from statistical discrimination (rational inference from group averages), where the latter persists even without if groups differ in unobservables, complicating causal identification without . Emerging frameworks for systemic discrimination extend these by modeling indirect effects, where prior discriminatory decisions propagate disparities through sequential choices, measured via dynamic models tracking total versus direct effects. For example, a model classifies discrimination into direct (identity-based), systemic (cascading from past acts), and total, applied to data to quantify how early biases amplify later gaps, though empirical validation requires longitudinal data often unavailable. Critiques highlight that such methods risk confounding legitimate with , as group averages reflect real variances from cultural or behavioral factors, not just historical exclusion; meta-analyses of field experiments show persistent but stable racial hiring gaps since the , unchanged by anti-discrimination laws, suggesting entrenched non-prejudicial mechanisms. Overall, combining experimental and observational approaches strengthens inference but demands caution against assuming residuals equate to animus without ruling out efficiency-based alternatives.

Evidence from Disparity Studies

Disparity studies examine differences in socioeconomic outcomes, such as rates, wages, and contract awards, between demographic groups to assess potential discrimination. These analyses often compare raw gaps and then apply statistical controls for factors like , experience, and location, with persistent differences sometimes attributed to . However, such inferences require caution, as unobservable variables like , cultural preferences, or behavioral differences can explain residuals, and many studies assume group equivalence that empirical data challenges. In hiring, correspondence or audit studies provide direct evidence by submitting identical resumes varying only in signals of race, gender, or other traits. A seminal study found that resumes with white-sounding names received 50% more callbacks than those with black-sounding names in U.S. labor markets, suggesting taste-based discrimination in initial screening. A 2024 field experiment replicating this across multiple U.S. cities confirmed persistent bias, with black applicants receiving about 9% fewer callbacks than equally qualified white applicants, unchanged from prior decades. Meta-analyses of such studies indicate moderate against black and Hispanic candidates, with callback gaps of 20-36%, though effects vary by occupation and region; gender discrimination appears weaker and declining, particularly outside male-dominated fields. These findings hold in controlled settings but capture only entry barriers, not retention or promotion, and may overstate impacts if applicants self-select into easier-to-penetrate firms. Wage disparity analyses reveal raw gaps—e.g., in 2019, median hourly earnings were 73.5% of earnings, and women's 82% of men's—but controls for measurable factors like hours worked, occupation choice, and reduce these substantially. A analysis showed that adjusting for cognitive ability (via Armed Forces Qualification Test scores) and premarket skills eliminates nearly all - wage gaps for young adults, implying disparities stem more from skill differences than post-hire discrimination. Similarly, pay gaps shrink to 3-7% after accounting for work history interruptions, behaviors, and industry segregation, with little evidence of widespread employer bias in compensation once employed. Peer-reviewed critiques note that disparity studies often fail to fully control for group differences in effort, risk tolerance, or family priorities, leading to overattribution to discrimination; for instance, Asian American earnings exceed whites' despite historical biases, highlighting cultural or selection effects. In public contracting, disparity studies compare minority-owned firm utilization to availability, inferring discrimination from shortfalls. A 2024 meta-analysis of 58 U.S. state and local studies found average utilization rates 20-40% below availability for black- and Hispanic-owned firms, prompting claims. Yet, federal reviews criticize these as unreliable proxies, since disparities may reflect firm capacity, bidding competitiveness, or subcontracting networks rather than ; qualitative often shows no intent, and remedies like set-asides can exacerbate inefficiencies without addressing root causes. Overall, while supports isolated discriminatory acts, aggregate disparities align more closely with differential and choices than systemic barriers, per longitudinal data tracking outcomes over decades.

Critiques of Overstated Discrimination Claims

Critics contend that claims of widespread discrimination often attribute group disparities in outcomes—such as , , or rates—primarily to , overlooking alternative explanations rooted in behavioral, cultural, and socioeconomic factors. Economist argues in Discrimination and Disparities (2018, revised 2019) that statistical differences between groups are ubiquitous across history and societies, yet they frequently arise from prerequisites for success specific to endeavors, including geography, culture, and individual choices, rather than pervasive discrimination. For instance, Sowell cites intra-group variations, such as higher achievement among blacks in the U.S. compared to native-born blacks despite shared discrimination histories, suggesting internal cultural dynamics play a larger role. Audit studies, which send fictitious resumes varying by race or to gauge callback rates, have been central to discrimination claims but face methodological critiques for overstating effects. A 2017 meta-analysis of 28 U.S. field experiments found callback discrimination against persisted at similar levels from the to , implying stability rather than escalation, yet critics note that resumes rarely match perfectly on unobservables like or networks, potentially inflating perceived . A study sending 80,000 fake resumes confirmed modest racial gaps (e.g., 9% fewer callbacks for applicants), but emphasized these represent hiring stages, not overall labor market outcomes, and controls for qualifications reduce unexplained variance. Similarly, a meta-analysis of in hiring found no statistically significant discrimination at the aggregate level across U.S. studies, with effects varying by and often attributable to applicant differences beyond signals. In wage disparities, regression analyses controlling for occupation, hours worked, experience, and education explain most of the raw gender pay gap, leaving a residual of 4-7% potentially due to unmeasured factors like negotiation or preferences, not necessarily discrimination. For racial gaps, Sowell highlights how cultural emphases on education and family structure—evident in Asian American overperformance despite historical exclusion—correlate more strongly with outcomes than discrimination indices. Peer-reviewed reviews affirm that while discrimination contributes, assuming it as the default cause ignores evidence from immigrant group trajectories, where low-discrimination environments yield similar disparities explained by pre-migration behaviors. These critiques underscore a causal realism: discrimination exists but is often overstated when disparities are presumed discriminatory absent rigorous controls for confounders, leading to policies that may misdirect resources from addressable factors like skills development. Sowell's , drawing on international data (e.g., higher female labor participation in some developing nations without U.S.-style ), illustrates how outcomes improve through internal group adaptations rather than external bias reduction alone. Empirical tests, such as those isolating cultural variables in econometric models, consistently show they outperform discrimination proxies in for persistent gaps.

International Treaties and Standards

The foundational international standard prohibiting discrimination is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the on December 10, 1948. Article 2 stipulates that everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, , , , political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. Although non-binding, the Declaration has influenced subsequent treaties and , serving as a benchmark for state obligations despite lacking enforcement mechanisms. Binding treaties emerged in the post-World War II era to codify anti-discrimination norms. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of (ICERD), adopted on December 21, 1965, and entering into force on January 4, 1969, defines as any distinction, exclusion, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that impairs . States parties commit to prohibiting and eliminating such discrimination in all fields through legislation, policy, and education, with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination monitoring compliance via state reports. As of 2023, 182 states have ratified ICERD, though reservations by some limit its scope, such as exclusions for certain indigenous or citizenship-based policies. Gender-based discrimination is addressed by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), adopted on December 18, 1979, and entering into force on September 3, 1981. It defines discrimination as any distinction, exclusion, or restriction made that impairs women's enjoyment of in political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or other fields. CEDAW requires states to modify social and cultural patterns perpetuating sex-based and ensure equality in , , and , monitored by a committee reviewing periodic reports. By 2025, 189 states have ratified it, with the signing but not ratifying due to concerns over and potential conflicts with domestic law. Employment discrimination falls under International Labour Organization Convention No. 111, adopted on June 25, 1958, and entering into force on June 15, 1960. It prohibits distinctions, exclusions, or preferences based on race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction, or social origin that nullify equal opportunities in access to vocational training, employment, and occupation. Exceptions are permitted for inherent job requirements or affirmative measures to advance disadvantaged groups, with over 175 ratifications reflecting broad acceptance among ILO members.
Treaty/ConventionAdoption YearEntry into ForceRatifications (as of latest data)Core Focus
ICERD19651969182 in all spheres
CEDAW19791981189Sex-based discrimination,
ILO No. 11119581960175+Employment and occupation discrimination
Supplementary instruments include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), which in Article 26 guarantees equal protection without discrimination on enumerated grounds, and ILO Convention No. 100 (1951) on equal remuneration for work of equal value. These establish standards but rely on state implementation, with treaty bodies issuing non-binding recommendations. Empirical analyses indicate limited effectiveness without robust domestic enforcement; correlates with improvements only in democratic states with strong , as authoritarian regimes often ignore obligations despite reporting. Critiques highlight enforcement gaps, such as the absence of sanctions, leading to persistent violations in areas like migrant labor and ethnic conflicts, underscoring that international norms alone do not compel behavioral change absent causal domestic incentives.

Major National Anti-Discrimination Regimes

The ' primary anti-discrimination regime stems from the , which prohibits discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and federally funded programs based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII of the Act specifically bans employment practices that discriminate against individuals in hiring, firing, compensation, or terms of employment, enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which investigates complaints and can pursue litigation. Subsequent amendments and laws, such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, expanded protections to age and disability, respectively, with the EEOC handling over 67,000 charges in fiscal year 2023 alone. Enforcement relies on individual complaints and federal lawsuits, with remedies including back pay and injunctive relief, though critics note enforcement challenges due to resource constraints and the burden of proof on plaintiffs to demonstrate or treatment. In the , the consolidates prior legislation into a single framework prohibiting discrimination, , and victimization based on nine protected characteristics: age, , gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, , and . It applies to , , , and provision of goods and services, with the (EHRC) serving as the primary enforcement body, empowered to conduct investigations, issue compliance notices, and support legal actions. The Act also imposes a public sector equality duty requiring public authorities to eliminate discrimination and advance equality, affecting policy decisions across government levels. As of 2023, the EHRC reported handling thousands of inquiries annually, though effectiveness varies, with claims rising 15% year-over-year amid debates over indirect discrimination provisions that may inadvertently favor certain groups. Canada's federal regime is anchored in the Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977, which forbids discrimination in federally regulated sectors like employment, banking, and transportation based on grounds including race, national or ethnic origin, color, , age, , , marital status, family status, , and pardoned convictions. Provincial and territorial human rights codes mirror and extend these protections to local jurisdictions, covering broader areas such as and services, enforced by commissions like the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which mediated over 1,000 complaints in 2022-2023 and refers unresolved cases to tribunals for remedies like compensation or policy changes. The regime emphasizes conciliation over litigation, with tribunals awarding over CAD 10 million in damages in recent years, though overlap between federal and provincial laws can complicate enforcement consistency. Australia maintains a suite of federal anti-discrimination laws, including the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which implements the UN Convention on Racial Discrimination by prohibiting acts causing racial hatred or less favorable treatment in employment, housing, and services; the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 covering gender, pregnancy, and family responsibilities; the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 addressing physical and mental impairments; and the Age Discrimination Act 2004. The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) administers these, investigating complaints and conciliating disputes, with unresolvable cases escalating to federal courts; in 2022-2023, the AHRC finalized over 2,000 complaints, achieving outcomes in 70% via settlement. Exemptions exist for religious organizations in employment, reflecting balances against freedom of association. In , the General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, AGG) of 2006 prohibits discrimination in civil law contexts like , goods, and services based on race, ethnic origin, sex, religion or belief, , age, or , with claims subject to a three-month filing deadline and potential compensation up to three years' salary. Enforced through civil courts and supported by the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes), which provided counseling in over 20,000 cases in 2023, the regime stems from EU directives but has been critiqued for limited criminal sanctions and low litigation rates due to evidentiary hurdles. France's framework integrates constitutional principles with the Labor Code and Penal Code provisions banning discrimination on grounds like origin, sex, family situation, and religion, punishable by fines up to €45,000 and imprisonment; the Defender of Rights (Défenseur des droits), established in 2011, investigates complaints and promotes compliance, handling around 100,000 contacts yearly, though enforcement emphasizes mediation over punitive measures.

Affirmative Action Policies and Reverse Effects

Affirmative action policies, designed to address historical underrepresentation by favoring applicants from designated groups in admissions and hiring, have produced reverse effects including academic underperformance among beneficiaries and penalties imposed on non-favored groups such as whites and Asians. Empirical analyses indicate that these preferences often result in "mismatch," where students admitted under lower standards struggle in rigorous environments, leading to higher dropout rates and diminished long-term success compared to attendance at more suitable institutions. For example, studies of admissions show that minority students placed at institutions via exhibit bar passage rates up to 30% lower than comparable peers at mid-tier schools, with overall graduation rates declining by 10-15% due to academic overload. In higher education, reverse discrimination against Asian American and white applicants manifests through inflated admissions thresholds for these groups to balance racial quotas. from Harvard University's admissions process, revealed in litigation, demonstrated that Asian applicants received systematically lower "personality" scores despite superior academic metrics, requiring SAT scores approximately 140 points higher than black applicants and 270 points higher than applicants for equivalent admission chances. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard invalidated race-based admissions, citing this evidence of that disadvantaged Asians by 10-20% in acceptance rates relative to equally qualified white peers, underscoring how such policies prioritize group outcomes over individual merit. These dynamics foster societal backlash, including resentment among non-beneficiaries who perceive policies as unjustly redistributive, eroding trust in meritocratic institutions. Surveys and litigation trends post-2023 reveal a surge in "reverse discrimination" claims, with filings under civil rights laws rising by over 50% in employment contexts, as affected parties argue that diversity mandates exclude qualified candidates based on race. Historical bans, such as California's Proposition 209 in 1996, correlated with initial enrollment dips but subsequent improvements in minority graduation rates by 5-10%, suggesting mismatch alleviation without sustained reverse effects on overall access. Critics of affirmative action, drawing from cross-national data, contend that such preferences exacerbate group tensions rather than resolving underlying skill gaps, as evidenced by persistent underperformance in beneficiary cohorts despite decades of implementation.

Recent Developments and Reforms

DEI Initiatives and Backlash (2020s)

Following the killing of on May 25, 2020, corporations and institutions in the United States rapidly expanded (DEI) programs, with a significant surge in dedicated DEI roles peaking in 2020 before declining by 5% by late 2023. This expansion included commitments from companies, such as Walmart's $100 million pledge over five years for racial equity initiatives and similar investments by others totaling billions in pledges for hiring, training, and supplier diversity. DEI efforts emphasized equity—defined as addressing perceived historical disparities through targeted interventions like hiring preferences and mandatory unconscious bias training—over strict equality of opportunity, often prioritizing demographic representation in leadership and workforce composition. DEI initiatives manifested in corporate policies such as aspirational hiring goals tied to race and , expanded supplier contracts with minority-owned businesses, and widespread employee programs, with 67% of DEI professionals reporting increased focus on such activities by mid-2021. entities and universities also adopted similar measures, including equity audits and mandates, amid broader cultural shifts post-2020 protests. However, empirical assessments of these programs' effectiveness remain mixed; while some studies link demographic diversity to gains, meta-analyses indicate that standard DEI trainings yield limited long-term behavioral changes in hiring or reduction, with resistance often undermining outcomes. A pivotal turning point occurred on June 29, 2023, when the U.S. ruled 6-3 in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard that race-based in college admissions violated the , effectively ending such practices in higher education and heightening scrutiny of analogous DEI elements in . The decision prompted a wave of lawsuits targeting private-sector DEI policies perceived as discriminatory, with conservative groups arguing they constituted reverse discrimination against non-preferred groups, leading to increased legal risks for employers. Although the ruling directly applied to public institutions, it influenced corporate strategies by amplifying fears of litigation under Title VII of the , which prohibits based on protected characteristics. Corporate backlash intensified from late 2023 into 2025, with over a dozen major firms scaling back or rebranding DEI efforts amid activist pressure and economic pressures. Examples include citing "inherent tensions" in diversity goals conflicting with merit-based systems in April 2025, Meta and Amazon ending numerical hiring targets, discontinuing racial equity audits, and , Ford, and retreating from supplier diversity quotas. More than half of executives surveyed in early reported heightened backlash against DEI since the ruling, attributing pullbacks to both legal vulnerabilities and performance critiques, as some studies found no substantial improvement in overall diversity metrics despite heavy investments. Public opinion on DEI shifted negatively in the mid-2020s, with support for DEI focus dropping to 52% of U.S. workers deeming it "mainly a good thing" in 2024, down from 56% in 2023, per Pew Research. Gallup polls similarly showed declining prioritization of diversity as a imperative, particularly among Republicans (from 49% in 2024 to 33% in 2025), reflecting broader skepticism about equity measures' fairness and efficacy. Critics, including figures like , argued that DEI prioritizes identity over competence, potentially harming organizational outcomes, a view echoed in empirical findings where ideological DEI statements influenced faculty hiring evaluations more than qualifications. Despite persistent support in some demographics, the trend underscored causal concerns that forced demographic engineering could erode without addressing underlying behavioral or cultural factors in disparities. In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed 110 lawsuits alleging employment discrimination, emphasizing emerging issues such as harassment and retaliation alongside protections for vulnerable workers, including those with disabilities and older employees. The agency received 88,531 new charges, a 9% increase from fiscal year 2023, and secured nearly $700 million in recoveries for approximately 21,000 victims through enforcement and litigation. However, fiscal year 2025 saw a marked slowdown in EEOC lawsuit filings, with a narrowing of priorities following the presidential administration change, including fewer cases overall but slight upticks in age discrimination (9 cases versus 6 in 2024) and Pregnancy Discrimination Act claims (5 versus 4). This shift aligned with executive actions under President Trump, including orders in January 2025 targeting what the administration described as illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in federal operations, aiming to restore merit-based opportunity without altering core prohibitions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Legal challenges intensified around reverse discrimination and the scope of Title VII protections. In Muldrow v. City of (April 2024), the unanimously lowered the threshold for discrimination claims, ruling that employees need only show some harm from adverse actions like job transfers, rejecting prior requirements for "significant" disadvantage and broadening potential liability for minor employment changes. Subsequently, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (June 2025), the Court eliminated heightened evidentiary burdens in reverse discrimination cases, holding that plaintiffs from majority groups face the same standard as others under Title VII—namely, showing their protected characteristic motivated the adverse action—overturning circuit-specific "background circumstances" rules that had dismissed such claims at the pleading stage. These rulings facilitated easier pursuit of claims alleging discrimination against non-minority groups, particularly in DEI contexts. DEI initiatives faced mounting scrutiny through private litigation and policy reversals. Post the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision banning race-conscious admissions, Section 1981 claims surged against corporate programs perceived as favoring certain racial groups, with suits targeting hiring quotas and grants like those challenged in the Fearless Fund case. By 2025, revoked federal DEI mandates, prompting companies to scale back voluntary programs amid fears of liability, though core anti-discrimination laws remained intact. Critics from civil rights organizations argued these changes risked undermining enforcement against traditional discrimination, while proponents highlighted reduced incentives for race-based preferences as aligning with equal protection principles. Internationally, similar tensions emerged, with enforcement under the Racial Equality Directive yielding fewer high-profile cases but ongoing debates over integration policies amid migration pressures.

Societal and Individual Impacts

Economic Consequences and Market Dynamics

In competitive labor markets, taste-based discrimination—where employers, coworkers, or customers prefer workers based on immutable characteristics unrelated to —imposes on discriminators by requiring higher wages or lower output to satisfy prejudices, leading to reduced profits relative to non-discriminating competitors. Gary Becker's 1957 model posits that such firms face a "discrimination coefficient," effectively raising their marginal costs, which erodes their market share as arbitrageurs hire undervalued talent from discriminated groups at lower wages, expanding output and narrowing disparities over time. Empirical analyses confirm this dynamic: heightened competition correlates with diminished employer discrimination, as seen in reduced racial wage gaps in Brazilian sectors post-liberalization and smaller hiring biases in high-competition industries. However, discrimination persists more in monopsonistic or low-wage labor markets with limited competition, where employers hold buyer power and can sustain biases without immediate profit penalties, as evidenced by field experiments showing callback disparities for minority applicants in urban service sectors. These settings amplify economic consequences, including misallocation of that lowers aggregate productivity; for instance, excluding qualified workers from optimal roles generates deadweight losses, with one analysis estimating interference in talent allocation reduces firm-level efficiency in simulated hiring scenarios. In contrast, competitive pressures in sectors like or tech have historically minimized racial hiring barriers, as profit motives override tastes, pushing discriminated groups into niches with lower discrimination premiums. Statistical discrimination, where decisions rely on group-level productivity signals due to imperfect on individuals, differs by often aligning with market efficiency rather than failure. Firms rationally use traits as proxies for unobservable ability when screening costs are high, minimizing errors in expectation; models show this yields Pareto-efficient outcomes under , as banning it could raise overall hiring expenses without improving matches. from and labor markets supports this: lenders or employers applying group averages achieve closer-to-optimal assessments than random selection, though inaccuracies arise if signals are outdated or groups heterogeneous. Thus, while generating disparate outcomes, such practices reflect informational constraints rather than costly animus, with markets refining signals through and experience. Broader market dynamics reveal discrimination's macroeconomic toll as transient in open economies, with long-term persistence signaling barriers like or search frictions rather than inherent market flaws; for example, post-1960s U.S. civil expansions coincided with competition-driven convergence in black-white ratios, outpacing policy effects alone. Yet, in segmented markets, it sustains inefficiencies, such as elevated turnover costs from biased retention or forgone from untapped talent pools, underscoring competition's role in self-correction over mandated interventions.

Social Cohesion and Group Relations

Empirical research indicates that greater ethnic diversity within communities correlates with diminished social trust and cohesion, as individuals exhibit lower levels of interpersonal trust, reduced participation in civic activities, and increased across group lines. In a comprehensive study of 30,000 U.S. respondents across 41 communities, political scientist Robert Putnam found that ethnic diversity reduces both bonding (within-group) and bridging (between-group) , with residents in diverse areas "hunkering down" by trusting neighbors less, volunteering less, and engaging fewer friendships. This "constrict claim" has been corroborated by meta-analyses reviewing dozens of studies, which confirm a consistent negative effect of diversity on generalized trust, particularly in the short term, though long-term assimilation may mitigate it in some contexts. Anti-discrimination policies aimed at promoting diversity, such as , have been linked to heightened intergroup resentment and perceptions of unfairness, further straining relations. Beneficiaries of preferential treatment often face stigma and doubts about their qualifications, while non-beneficiaries, particularly from majority groups, report feelings of reverse discrimination that erode mutual trust. Experimental studies show that awareness of affirmative action policies increases intolerance toward out-group members and fosters zero-sum perceptions of opportunities, exacerbating group tensions rather than fostering unity. In organizational settings, such policies can lead to decreased cohesion as employees question merit-based decisions, with surveys revealing widespread opposition when preferences are explicitly racial or ethnic. Recent (DEI) initiatives in workplaces and institutions, often mandated as anti-discrimination measures, have similarly contributed to polarization and declining group harmony, as evidenced by rising backlash and internal divisions. While proponents cite potential benefits, empirical reviews of literature from the highlight mixed outcomes, with mandatory DEI training frequently provoking defensiveness and among participants, particularly when perceived as ideologically driven rather than evidence-based. In high-profile cases, such as corporate DEI programs post-2020, employee surveys indicate eroded trust between demographic groups due to accusations of favoritism and suppressed dissent, mirroring broader societal trends where enforced equity narratives amplify grievances over shared interests. These dynamics underscore a causal tension: while overt discrimination harms cohesion, policies prioritizing group identities over individual merit can perpetuate division by incentivizing competitive victimhood and reducing incentives for cross-group .

Psychological and Health Outcomes

Perceived discrimination has been consistently associated with adverse mental health outcomes, including elevated symptoms of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress, across multiple meta-analyses of observational data. A 2009 meta-analytic review of 115 studies involving over 50,000 participants found that greater perceived discrimination correlated with poorer (r = -0.19), with stronger associations for chronic or major discrimination experiences compared to everyday incidents. These links persist after adjusting for and other stressors in many studies, though self-reported measures of discrimination may confound results with preexisting mental health conditions or personality traits like , which can amplify threat perception. Experimental manipulations of discrimination provide causal evidence for immediate psychological effects, with a 2024 meta-analysis of 41 studies showing that induced discrimination experiences led to short-term declines in (Hedges' g = -0.30), particularly affecting externalizing emotions such as and rather than internalized states like . Effects were more pronounced in paradigms simulating pervasive discrimination, such as exclusion based on group identity, but these laboratory settings may overestimate real-world impacts due to heightened salience and lack of . Longitudinal cohort studies further indicate prospective risks, with adolescents reporting racial-ethnic discrimination facing 1.5-2 times higher odds of subsequent depressive episodes and , independent of baseline in adjusted models. On physical health, perceived discrimination correlates with physiological stress responses, including elevated levels and markers, which contribute to conditions like and over time. A 2021 analysis of U.S. survey data linked reports of to a 5% increase in cardiovascular risk scores and poorer self-rated , with effects mediated partly by sleep disturbances and unhealthy coping behaviors such as . However, causal pathways remain debated, as reverse causation—wherein poorer prompts heightened discrimination sensitivity—cannot be fully ruled out in non-experimental designs, and some studies show attenuated effects after controlling for behavioral confounders like diet and exercise. Discrimination's health toll appears amplified in marginalized groups, with cumulative exposure over years predicting higher , though individual resilience factors, such as , can buffer outcomes in up to 30% of cases per stressor-exposure models.

Philosophical and Ethical Debates

Meritocracy, Freedom of Association, and Rights

entails the allocation of opportunities, such as and promotions, based on individual ability, effort, and performance rather than demographic group membership. This principle inherently permits differential treatment—often labeled discrimination—when qualifications differ, as excluding less qualified candidates preserves efficiency and incentivizes competence. Empirical analyses across countries, including , demonstrate that higher degrees of correlate with enhanced , , and long-term , with policy simulations showing that increasing meritocratic practices by 10% could boost GDP growth by up to 0.5% annually through improved . Proponents argue that anti-discrimination laws mandating demographic proportionality undermine this by compelling hires or admissions irrespective of merit, leading to suboptimal outcomes like reduced , as evidenced by mismatches in skills during implementations. Freedom of association, rooted in the First Amendment, encompasses the right to form and exclude from private relationships, including commercial ones, to pursue expressive or intimate purposes. The U.S. has recognized this as presuming a "freedom not to associate," yet balanced it against state interests in cases like Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984), upholding a law requiring the admission of women to combat sex discrimination in a public-facing organization, deeming the intrusion minimal relative to eradicating barriers to economic and social participation. However, libertarian perspectives emphasize that such mandates infringe on property rights and , asserting that owners should retain discretion over associates to avoid coerced partnerships that foster inefficiency or conflict, with historical market evidence showing voluntary exclusion of irrational biases diminishes over time due to competitive pressures. Recent rulings, such as (2023), reinforce protections against compelled endorsement of views through association, extending to refusals based on content rather than protected traits alone. Philosophically, these tensions pit individual —, , and association—against collective anti-discrimination imperatives, with suggesting that prohibiting private choices erodes personal agency and invites resentment, whereas permitting them aligns with equal legal standing under without guaranteeing equal outcomes. Libertarian analyses contend that equality of , not outcomes, precludes state-enforced integration, as private discrimination, while potentially irrational, harms only the discriminator's prospects in free markets, fostering self-correction without violations. Critics from equity-focused viewpoints invoke historical injustices to justify overrides, but evidence from systems indicates that under , coupled with free association, yields superior societal coordination than quota-driven interventions, which distort incentives and perpetuate group-based thinking.

Equity vs. Equality Critiques

Equity policies, which seek to achieve equal outcomes across demographic groups by providing differential treatment based on group identity, have faced criticism for institutionalizing discrimination under the guise of fairness, contrasting with equality's emphasis on uniform treatment of individuals irrespective of group characteristics. Critics argue that equity presupposes that outcome disparities stem primarily from systemic discrimination, overlooking of cultural, behavioral, and historical factors influencing group performance differences. For instance, economist has documented in comparative studies across countries like , , and the that —often framed as equity—fails to close socioeconomic gaps and instead perpetuates dependency while fostering intergroup resentment. Sowell's analysis attributes persistent disparities more to internal , such as family structure and educational values, than to external barriers alone, challenging the causal assumptions underlying equity interventions. A core empirical critique centers on the "mismatch" effect, where equity-driven admissions lower standards for favored groups, placing beneficiaries in environments exceeding their preparation levels, resulting in higher failure rates and diminished long-term success. Legal scholar Richard Sander's research on U.S. law schools, drawing from large datasets including LSAT scores and bar exam outcomes, shows that affirmative action beneficiaries experience graduation rates 20-30% lower and bar passage rates up to 50% below expectations compared to peers at matched institutions. This mismatch not only harms intended recipients by eroding confidence and increasing dropout but also disadvantages non-preferred groups through reverse discrimination, as seen in Asian American applicants facing elevated admissions hurdles at elite universities to enforce demographic proportionality. Proponents of equality counter that such policies violate meritocratic principles, substituting group quotas for individual achievement and yielding suboptimal societal outcomes, as incompetent placements in critical fields like medicine or engineering pose public risks. Philosophically, equity critiques highlight its incompatibility with liberal equality, which demands color-blind treatment to uphold individual rights and , whereas equity mandates ongoing group-based preferences that entrench division rather than transcend it. Advocates like Sowell contend that true progress arises from —removing legal barriers—rather than engineered outcomes, which disincentivize personal responsibility and ignore variance within groups. Equality-focused reforms, such as California's Proposition 209 banning racial preferences in , have demonstrated increased minority enrollment at competitive institutions without mismatch, suggesting that merit-based systems better promote integration and achievement over time. These arguments posit that equity's pursuit of proportionality conflates fairness with uniformity of results, disregarding first-principles causation where incentives and selection drive excellence, ultimately undermining social cohesion by prioritizing group equity over universal standards.

Unintended Consequences of Anti-Discrimination Efforts

Anti-discrimination policies, including programs, have been associated with educational mismatch, where beneficiaries are placed in academically demanding environments beyond their preparation levels, resulting in higher dropout rates and lower achievement. Empirical analysis of admissions shows that black students admitted to elite institutions under affirmative action exhibit bar passage rates approximately 20-30% lower than comparable students attending less selective schools, as documented in longitudinal studies tracking graduation and licensure outcomes. Similar patterns emerge in undergraduate settings, with mismatched students less likely to major in STEM fields; for instance, data from universities post-Proposition 209 indicate increased science persistence among underrepresented minorities after race-neutral admissions replaced preferences. In employment contexts, initiatives like "" policies, intended to reduce hiring bias against those with criminal records, have inadvertently heightened statistical discrimination against young and men, who face callback rates dropping by up to 27% in states implementing such measures, according to field experiments controlling for applicant demographics. Corporate (DEI) programs often yield counterproductive results, with mandatory training linked to decreased representation of white women in management by 4% over five years and no gains for minorities, as evidenced by meta-analyses of firm-level data. These efforts can signal lowered standards to beneficiaries, fostering stigma and reduced motivation, while prompting backlash that exacerbates intergroup tensions rather than alleviating them. Reverse discrimination claims have surged in the 2020s, reflecting unintended favoritism toward protected groups that disadvantages non-minorities, with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission noting a rise in such filings amid DEI quotas. High-profile settlements, such as 's 2025 resolution of a consultant's race-based exclusion claim, legal vulnerabilities, amplified by a unanimous ruling on June 5, 2025, equalizing evidentiary standards for majority-group plaintiffs under Title VII. This trend has prompted over 20 major corporations, including and , to scale back DEI commitments by April 2025, citing inherent tensions and litigation risks over purported equity goals. Such reversals highlight how aggressive anti-discrimination measures can erode merit-based systems, fostering resentment and operational inefficiencies without proportionally advancing intended beneficiaries.

References

  1. https://www.etymonline.com/word/discrimination
  2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2915460/
  4. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w17450/w17450.pdf
  5. https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/38/5/679/6524578
  6. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199756384/obo-9780199756384-0013.xml
  7. https://sociologicalscience.com/download/vol-6/june/SocSci_v6_467to496.pdf
  8. https://nobaproject.com/modules/prejudice-discrimination-and-stereotyping
  9. https://bobo.scholars.harvard.edu/file_url/162
  10. https://www.etymonline.com/word/discriminate
  11. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/discrimination_n
  12. https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/issues/discrimination/
  13. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1992/press-release/
  14. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/how-gary-becker-saw-the-scourge-of-discrimination
  15. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13661/w13661.pdf
  16. https://www.apa.org/topics/racism-bias-discrimination
  17. https://www.hoover.org/research/when-discrimination-makes-sense
  18. https://civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs47-8.pdf
  19. https://www.econlib.org/how-well-does-the-becker-discrimination-model-hold-up/
  20. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964
  21. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/title_vii
  22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1806107
  23. http://cpi.stanford.edu/_media/pdf/Classic_Media/Arrow_1973_Discrimination%2520and%2520Prejudice.pdf
  24. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=law_facpub
  25. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=954798
  26. https://www.casact.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/Research-Paper_Defining_Discrimination_In_Insurance.pdf
  27. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00460
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4371377/
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4411968/
  30. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00476/full
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763413001498
  32. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2417456122
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3260849/
  34. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-42882-003
  35. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/npe0000042
  36. https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/153/1/106/119929/Implicit-Bias-as-a-Cognitive-Manifestation-of
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17133388/
  38. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-of-prejudice/
  39. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050525105357.htm
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3973920/
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421004693
  42. https://academic.oup.com/book/8882/chapter/155128471
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6726232/
  44. https://bcsh.bard.edu/files/2019/06/Brewer-ingroup-love-or-outgroup-hate.pdf
  45. https://armstronghistoryjournal.wordpress.com/2018/04/19/codifying-discrimination-the-status-of-women-slaves-and-freedmen-in-the-ancient-near-east/
  46. https://www.britishmuseum.org/exhibitions/nero-man-behind-myth/slavery-ancient-rome
  47. https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/lucius-romans/2016/04/13/life-of-a-foreigner-in-ancient-rome/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10764522/
  49. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/medieval-times/european-middle-ages-and-serfdom/a/serfdom-in-europe
  50. https://publicmedievalist.com/issues-religions/
  51. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ancient-legal-thought/class-legal-status-and-equality/F53BD2C8E0F3B002345322BE2720DD6D
  52. https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/blackrights/jimcrow
  53. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-segregation.html
  54. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism
  55. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/ideology-racism-misusing-science-justify-racial-discrimination
  56. https://www.aaihs.org/northern-black-peoples-freedom-struggle-in-the-nineteenth-century/
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305637836_Prejudice_and_Discrimination_Historical_overview
  58. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK593028/
  59. https://www.theideasletter.org/essay/a-history-of-prejudice/
  60. https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/timeline/jimcrow.htm
  61. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/ethnic-and-cultural-studies/racial-and-ethnic-discrimination-us-history
  62. https://www.history.com/articles/civil-rights-legislation
  63. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/civilrights/secondrevolution.htm
  64. https://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20090103/case-study-in-unintended-consequences/
  65. https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/eu-anti-discrimination-policy-racism-far-right-parties-europe-01061/
  66. https://www.migpolgroup.com/_old/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/54.TheImplementationofEuropeanAnti-discriminationLegislation-workinprogress_12.04.pdf
  67. https://aei.pitt.edu/33101/1/mabbett._deborah_%282%29.pdf
  68. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/postwarera/1970s-america/a/liberation-movements-1970s
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4845102/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7334402/
  71. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/9719/chapter/7
  72. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1706255114
  73. https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/christopher-caldwell-on-the-unintended
  74. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/against-immutability
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292122001957
  76. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-publishes-annual-performance-and-general-counsel-reports-fiscal-year-2024
  77. https://alexandercoppock.com/galos_coppock_2023.pdf
  78. https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/38/3/337/6412759
  79. https://sociologicalscience.com/articles-v12-2-26/
  80. https://www.eeoc.gov/data/enforcement-and-litigation-statistics-0
  81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537119300259
  82. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/9/1/82194/197046/Ageism-in-Hiring-A-Systematic-Review-and-Meta
  83. https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/pubs/wp/WP_1202SAWP.htm
  84. https://adata.org/research_brief/experience-discrimination-and-ada
  85. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf
  86. https://rossmanlaw.com/workplace-disability-discrimination-statistics-in-the-usa/
  87. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15860/w15860.pdf
  88. https://bjs.ojp.gov/topics/recidivism-and-reentry
  89. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/rethinking-rational-discrimination-against-ex-offenders
  90. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=5237&context=mulr
  91. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23733918/
  92. https://no-smoke.org/business-costs-smoke-filled-environment/
  93. https://www.lawcrossing.com/employers/article/416/Butting-In-Employers-Penalize-Smokers-and-Overweight-Workers/
  94. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2023-02/ILR-99-2-Roberts.pdf
  95. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unequal-opportunity-race-and-education/
  96. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20171219-the-hidden-judgements-holding-people-back
  97. https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/why-access-to-education-is-key-to-systemic-equality
  98. https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/economicsforthegreatergood/chapter/the-economics-of-discrimination/
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235210000796
  100. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/context/faculty_publications/article/2030/viewcontent/Was_the_Disparate_Impact_Theory_a_Mistake.pdf
  101. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13057
  102. https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2023/01/racial-discrimination-in-hiring-remains-a-persistent-problem-northwestern-study?fj=1
  103. http://www.russellsage.org/research/outputs/meta-analysis-field-experiments-shows-no-change-racial-discrimination-hiring-over
  104. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=lu_law_review
  105. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/what-systemic-racism-systematically-downplays
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4306458/
  107. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105516
  108. https://andreamoro.net/assets/papers/palgrave-statistical-discrimination.pdf
  109. http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/115921/14-661-fall-2003-fall-2004/contents/lecture-notes/lecture_8.pdf
  110. https://chambers.georgetown.domains/phelpsian.pdf
  111. https://uwaterloo.ca/economics/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/rationally-inattentive-statistical-discrimination-arrow-meets-phelps_0.pdf
  112. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/belief_flipping_in_a_dynamic_model_of_statistical_discrimination.pdf
  113. http://tankona.free.fr/wan87.pdf
  114. https://academic.oup.com/ej/article/131/637/2018/5899046
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B978044453187200005X
  116. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/eri/278/
  117. https://chataboutsociology.com/sociological-theories-of-discrimination/
  118. https://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Doleac_SowellReview_JEL.pdf
  119. https://www.hoover.org/research/discrimination-and-disparities-thomas-sowell
  120. https://shenviapologetics.com/a-brief-review-of-sowells-discrimination-and-disparities/
  121. https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817998721_167.pdf
  122. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/17456916231203204
  123. https://www.utdallas.edu/~plewin/EngLewinDiscrimSocSpectrum1989.pdf
  124. https://www.independent.org/article/2021/05/21/being-careful-with-numbers-words-and-visions-review-of-thomas-sowell-discrimination-and-disparities/
  125. https://www.hoover.org/research/race-culture-and-equality
  126. https://www.academia.edu/127277571/Summary_and_Critique_of_Discrimination_and_Disparities_by_Thomas_Sowell
  127. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb//population/qa01202.asp?qaDate=2023
  128. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7100145/
  129. https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article/68/4/964/6312901
  130. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-5890.12404
  131. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4060674/
  132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X15300570
  133. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/lamont/files/reconsidering_culture_and_poverty_2.pdf
  134. https://equityhealthj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12939-021-01522-2
  135. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421002219
  136. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3282048
  137. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2022-08/discriminationchapter_7Jan2016_submitted.pdf
  138. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22278/w22278.pdf
  139. https://wol.iza.org/articles/identifying-and-measuring-economic-discrimination/long
  140. https://www.epi.org/publication/race-and-ethnicity-in-empirical-analysis/
  141. https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/107/3/605/117714/Inaccurate-Statistical-Discrimination-An
  142. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/140/3/1743/8123617
  143. https://economics.ucsd.edu/events/economics-60th-anniversary/Aislinn-Bohren-Presentation.pdf
  144. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w10068/w10068.pdf
  145. https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/docs/DisparityStudies5-2006.pdf
  146. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ade7979
  147. https://www.epi.org/unequalpower/publications/understanding-black-white-disparities-in-labor-market-outcomes/
  148. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/12/20/racial-disparities-in-government-contracting/
  149. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00346446231162596
  150. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1805471
  151. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/auditing-employment-algorithms-for-discrimination/
  152. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/upshot/employment-discrimination-fake-resumes.html
  153. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21913/w21913.pdf
  154. https://fee.org/articles/statistical-disparities-among-groups-are-not-proof-of-discrimination/
  155. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
  156. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-elimination-all-forms-intolerance-and-discrimination
  157. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial
  158. https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-2&chapter=4&clang=_en
  159. https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cerd/60th-anniversary-international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial-discrimination
  160. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-elimination-all-forms-discrimination-against-women
  161. https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/
  162. https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312256
  163. https://www.ilo.org/media/325526/download
  164. https://www.ohchr.org/en/what-are-human-rights/international-bill-human-rights
  165. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9372541/
  166. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/612/1/JournalofConflictResolution_49%286%29.pdf
  167. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5264626
  168. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act
  169. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance
  170. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010
  171. https://leglobal.law/countries/germany/employment-law/employment-law-overview-germany/04-anti-discrimination-laws/
  172. https://leglobal.law/countries/france/employment-law/employment-law-overview-france/04-anti-discrimination-laws/
  173. https://oxfordre.com/economics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.001.0001/acrefore-9780190625979-e-844
  174. https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/VerBruggen_Does-Affirmative-Action-Lead-to-Mismatch.pdf
  175. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/are-minority-students-harmed-by-affirmative-action/
  176. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292122000290
  177. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-55119-0
  178. https://www.hunton.com/insights/publications/the-legal-landscape-for-dei-one-year-after-the-harvard-unc-decision
  179. https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/implications-for-private-employers-of-the-supreme-courts-harvard-decision-banning-race-based-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions
  180. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2024/08/06/one-year-later-the-implications-of-sffa-for-corporate-america/
  181. https://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/85/85_4_Bowen.pdf
  182. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292121001501
  183. https://theconversation.com/we-analyzed-racial-justice-statements-from-the-500-largest-us-companies-and-found-that-dei-officials-really-did-have-an-influence-249999
  184. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240304-us-corporate-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-programme-controversy
  185. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c24110m30ddo
  186. https://thelastmile.org/death-of-dei/
  187. https://www.kornferry.com/institute/from-moment-to-movement
  188. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11617101/
  189. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10890819/
  190. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-ruling-affirmative-action-and-impact-companies-dei-programs
  191. https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/sep/06/dei-affirmative-action-lawsuits
  192. https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/the-supreme-courts-affirmative-action-ruling-a-shift-in-how-private-employers-approach-dei/
  193. https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/04/11/ibm-reportedly-walks-back-diversity-policies-citing-inherent-tensions-here-are-all-the-companies-rolling-back-dei-programs/
  194. https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-cutting-dei-activist-backlash-harley-davidson-deere-tractor-supply-2024-8
  195. https://www.wsj.com/business/corporate-dei-policy-changes-pull-back-33fdab87
  196. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/07/us/dei-attacks-experts-warn-of-consequences-reaj
  197. https://www.naceweb.org/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/trends-and-predictions/supreme-court-affirmative-action-ruling-appears-to-have-no-impact-on-employers-dei
  198. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/19/views-of-dei-have-become-slightly-more-negative-among-us-workers/
  199. https://news.gallup.com/poll/696221/fewer-americans-diversity-business-priority.aspx
  200. https://manhattan.institute/article/an-ideological-screening-tool-dei-statements-do-matter-for-faculty-hiring-evaluations
  201. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/how-popular-is-dei/
  202. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/fiscal-year-2024-eeoc-litigation-focuses-emerging-issues-and-underserved-vulnerable
  203. https://www.eeoc.gov/2024-annual-performance-report
  204. https://blogs.duanemorris.com/classactiondefense/2025/09/30/signaling-a-slowdown-eeocs-fy-2025-lawsuit-filings-reflect-a-narrowing-of-priorities-after-change-in-presidential-administration/
  205. https://www.theemployerreport.com/2025/09/an-employers-back-to-school-guide-on-recent-developments-in-workplace-dei/
  206. https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2024/04/us-supreme-court-lowers-standard-to-challenge-discriminatory-job-transfers-under-title-vii
  207. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf
  208. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2024-december/legal-landscape-dei-one-year-after-harvard-unc-decision/
  209. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/
  210. https://www.aclu.org/trump-on-dei-and-anti-discrimination-law
  211. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2025/country-chapters/united-states
  212. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/E/bo22415931.html
  213. https://cdep.sipa.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/WP58Soares-2.pdf
  214. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/141523/1/dp9764.pdf
  215. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2915472/
  216. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1999/12/art5full.pdf
  217. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/how-discrimination-harms-economy-and-business
  218. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3648603
  219. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016762459390029G
  220. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=249191
  221. https://academic.oup.com/ej/article/128/611/1570/5088351
  222. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00018392211029930
  223. https://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/publications/downside-diversity
  224. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/world/americas/05iht-diversity.1.6986248.html
  225. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339817667_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_A_Narrative_and_Meta-Analytical_Review
  226. http://homepages.se.edu/cvonbergen/files/2013/01/Affirmative-Actions-Contradictory-Consequences.pdf
  227. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/inclusion-diversity/affirmative-action-policies-can-perpetuate-stigmas
  228. https://diversity.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/understanding_affrirmative_action.pdf
  229. https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/asap.12236
  230. https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S0025174725000059
  231. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389450052_Forty-five_years_of_research_on_diversity_equity_and_inclusion_in_management
  232. https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/32/1/54/2404332
  233. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2747726/
  234. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38330346/
  235. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/148/6/e2021051378/183387/Discrimination-and-Subsequent-Mental-Health
  236. https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567%2825%2900302-8/fulltext
  237. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8451383/
  238. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953621006407
  239. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-6773.13222
  240. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rode.13218
  241. https://crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/2025-01/47_2024_alpaslan_kurtulmuslar.pdf
  242. https://manhattan.institute/article/fight-bias-and-legalize-meritocracy-a-unifying-vision-for-antidiscrimination-law
  243. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/609/
  244. https://fraternallaw.com/newsletter2/u-s-supreme-court-limits-freedom-of-association
  245. https://www.cato.org/policy-report/march/april-2016/libertarianism-right-discriminate
  246. https://mises.org/power-market/discrimination-libertarian
  247. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
  248. https://fee.org/articles/libertarianism-anti-racism/
  249. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meritocracy/
  250. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667111523000191
  251. https://www.hoover.org/research/affirmative-action-around-world
  252. https://rlo.acton.org/archives/125395-the-fallacy-of-fairness-sowells-critique-of-modern-social-justice.html
  253. https://manhattan.institute/article/does-affirmative-action-lead-to-mismatch
  254. https://constitutingamerica.org/90day-fp-principle-of-equality-over-equity-guest-essayist-andrew-langer/
  255. https://www.breakpoint.org/thomas-sowell-on-affirmative-action/
  256. https://www.manifold1.com/episodes/richard-sander-affirmative-action-mismatch-theory-academic-freedom-6/transcript
  257. https://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Doleac_testimony_BTB_2019.pdf
  258. https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail
  259. https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sipr.12059
  260. https://www.constangy.com/sharpen-your-focus/the-rise-of-reverse-discrimination-claims
  261. https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/labor-days/recent-settlement-latest-in-developing-trend-in-reverse-discrimination-cases
  262. https://www.employmentlawworldview.com/supreme-court-eases-burden-of-proof-in-reverse-discrimination-claims-us/
  263. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2025-august/reverse-discrimination-developments-econometrics/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.