Disability Affirmative Action Requirements for the U.S. HHS and Academic Medicine Centers Under the Rehabilitation Act

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas D. Lawson
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Academic Medicine ◽  
Rehabilitation Act ◽  
The U.S

Attitudes toward affirmative action and collectivism: A cross-cultural assessment for Brazil and the U.S

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy M. Knepple ◽  
James Carney ◽  
Mino Rios ◽  
Sara Santos Chaves ◽  
Gilcimar Santos Dantas
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Cultural Assessment ◽  
The U.S

The Compromise That Made the Republic and the Nation’s First Statistical Race

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Prewitt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Social Science ◽  
American History ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The U.S

This chapter demonstrates how assumptions of racial superiority and inferiority tightly bound together statistical races, social science, and public policy. The starting point of this is constitutional language. The U.S. Constitution required a census of the white, the black, and the red races. Without this statistical compromise there would not have been a United States as it is today. In the early censuses slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person, a ratio demanded by slaveholder interests as the price of joining the Union. A deep policy disagreement at the moment of founding the nation was resolved in the creation of a statistical race. Later in American history the reverse frequently occurred. Specific policies—affirmative action, for example—took the shape they did because the statistical races were already at hand.

An Inconsistent Jurisprudence: The Doctrinal Spectrum

2020 ◽  
pp. 93-136
Author(s):  
Edward A. Jr. Purcell
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Commerce Clause ◽  
Constitutional Jurisprudence ◽  
The U.S

This chapter explores Justice Antonin Scalia’s constitutional jurisprudence across the broad range of issues he addressed. The chapter shows that he contradicted his originalist jurisprudence in interpreting the First Amendment (both its free speech and religion clauses) as well as the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Amendments, and that he did the same in construing a variety of other constitutional doctrines including those involving standing, the treaty power, affirmative action, the Commerce Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s own appellate jurisdiction. The chapter argues that he frequently twisted, ignored, and abandoned his jurisprudential principles and methodologies he proclaimed and that the principal consistency his decisions and opinions reveal was his commitment to his own ideological goals and values.

Racial Counterfactuals and the Uncertain Event of Emancipation

2017 ◽  
pp. 161-184
Author(s):  
Mark C. Jerng
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Equal Protection ◽  
Race Discrimination ◽  
Legal Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The U.S

This chapter discusses alternate histories of the Civil War in relation to U.S. Equal Protection jurisprudence and race discrimination law. It shows how the racial counterfactual shapes what counts as discrimination in an important anti-affirmative action legal case, Ricci v. Destefano. In particular, it analyzes the prominent use of racial counterfactuals by the Supreme Court justices in order to organize the perception of race. It then surveys alternate histories of the U.S. Civil War and describes their logics of narrative explanation. Finally, it turns to Terry Bissons’ Fire on the Mountain and Steven Barnes’s Lion’s Blood as examples of a strategic use of the racial counterfactual in order to envision different understandings of racial freedom and equality.

Case Study 2: The Fisher Supreme Court Cases against the University of Texas at Austin

2020 ◽  
pp. 155-188
Author(s):  
J. Scott Carter ◽  
Cameron D. Lippard
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
University Of Texas ◽  
Admissions Policies ◽  
Continued Use ◽  
Color Blind ◽  
The University ◽  
The U.S

This chapter looks at the most recent case to challenge affirmative action in college admissions policies in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Fisher v. The University of Texas at Austin (2013 and 2016). Like chapter 5, the purpose of this chapter is to understand precisely what supporters and opponents are saying about the controversial policy. That is, how are they framing the debate surrounding affirmative action. However, this chapter looks at how framing may have changed over a decade later. We again focus on amicus briefs submitted by social authorities to the U.S. Supreme Court who had interests in the outcome of the cases. While we were interested in variation in types of frames used in these two cases (Fisher I and II) relative to the Gratz and Grutter cases, we mainly focused on authors continued use of both color-blind and group threat frames to state their positions. While some nuanced changes were observed from Gratz/Grutter to Fisher, our findings revealed a great deal of consistency from case to case and that the briefs continued to rely on color-blind and threat frames to characterize the policy. Particularly among opponents’ briefs, threat frames suggested that whites, in general, were losing in a country consumed by liberal agendas of diversification and entitlements only afforded to unqualified and ill-prepared non-whites.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document