Discrimination

Discrimination is the act of making distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong. People may discriminate on the basis of age, caste, criminal record, height, weight, physical appearance, disability, family status, gender identity, gender expression, generation, genetic characteristics, marital status, nationality, Profession, color, race and ethnicity, religion, sex and sex characteristics, sexual orientation, political ideology, social class, personality, as well as other categories. Discrimination especially occurs when individuals or groups are treated "in a way which is worse than the way people are usually treated," on the basis of their actual or perceived membership in certain groups or social categories.[1] It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction going on to influence the individual's actual behavior towards the group's leader or the group, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to members of another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on illogical or irrational decision-making.[2]

"Othering" redirects here. For the concept in phenomenology, see Other.
This article is about the prejudicial treatment. For other uses, see Discrimination (disambiguation).

An African American drinking from a racially segregated water cooler marked "Colored", in Oklahoma City circa 1939.
Part of a series on
Discrimination
Specific forms
 

Discriminatory traditions, policies, ideas, practices and laws exist in many countries and institutions in all parts of the world, including territories where discrimination is generally looked down upon. In some places, attempts such as quotas have been used to benefit those who are believed to be current or past victims of discrimination. These attempts have often been met with controversy, and have sometimes been called reverse discrimination.

Etymology

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.[3] 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.[4] The word "discrimination" derives from Latin, where the verb discrimire means "to separate, to distinguish, to make a distinction".

Definitions

Moral philosophers have defined discrimination as disadvantageous treatment or consideration. 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 black children out of a racist attitude, then they would be acting in a discriminatory way despite the fact that the people they discriminate against actually benefit by receiving a donation.[5][6] In addition to this discrimination develops into a source of oppression. It is similar to the action of recognizing someone as 'different' so much that they are treated inhumanly and degraded.[7]

Based on realistic-conflict theory[8] and social-identity theory,[9] Rubin and Hewstone[10] 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., favouring 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., favouring an in-group in order to make it better than an out-group).
  3. Consensual discrimination is driven by the need for accuracy and reflects stable and legitimate inter group status hierarchies (e.g., favouring a high-status in-group because it is high status).

The United Nations stance on discrimination includes the statement: "Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection."[11] International bodies United Nations Human Rights Council work towards helping ending discrimination around the world.

Examples of Discrimination

Age
Main articles: Ageism and Adultism

Ageism or age discrimination is discrimination and stereotyping based on the grounds of someone's age.[12] It is a set of beliefs, norms, and values which used to justify discrimination or subordination based on a person's age.[13] Ageism is most often directed towards old people, or adolescents and children.[14][15]

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.[16] 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.[17]

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.[18]

Caste
See also: Caste

According to UNICEF and Human Rights Watch, caste discrimination affects an estimated 250 million people worldwide.[19][20][21] Discrimination based on caste, as perceived by UNICEF, is mainly prevalent in parts of Asia, (India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, China, Pakistan, Nepal, Japan), Africa and others.[19] As of 2011, there were 200 million Dalits or Scheduled Castes (formerly known as "untouchables") in India.[22]

Disability

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, educational settings, and social services that are built to serve 'standard' people, thereby excluding those with various disabilities. Studies have shown that disabled people not only need employment in order to be provided with the opportunity to earn a living but they also need employment in order to sustain their mental health and well-being. Work fulfils a number of basic needs for an individual such as collective purpose, social contact, status, and activity.[23] A person with a disability is often found to be socially isolated and work is one way to reduce his or her isolation.

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.

Language
Main article: Linguistic discrimination
Nationalists in Corsica sometimes spray-paint or shoot traffic signs in French.

Diversity of language is protected and respected by most nations who value cultural diversity. However, people are sometimes subjected to different treatment because their preferred language is associated with a particular group, class or category. Notable examples are the Anti-French sentiment in the United States as well as the Anti-Quebec sentiment in Canada targeting people who speak the French language. Commonly, the preferred language is just another attribute of separate ethnic groups. Discrimination exists if there is prejudicial treatment against a person or a group of people who either do or do not speak a particular language or languages. An example of this is when thousands of Wayúu Native Colombians were given derisive names and the same birth date, by government officials, during a campaign to provide them with identification cards. The issue was not discovered until many years later.[24]

Another noteworthy example of linguistic discrimination is the backdrop to the Bengali Language Movement in erstwhile Pakistan, a political campaign that played a key role in the creation of Bangladesh. In 1948, Mohammad Ali Jinnah declared Urdu as the national language of Pakistan and branded those supporting the use of Bengali, the most widely spoken language in the state, as enemies of the state.[25]

Language discrimination is suggested to be labeled linguicism or logocism. Anti-discriminatory and inclusive efforts to accommodate persons who speak different languages or cannot have fluency in the country's predominant or "official" language, is bilingualism such as official documents in two languages, and multiculturalism in more than two languages.

Name

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.[26][27][28][29][30] 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.[31] 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.[32] Some apparent discrimination may be explained by other factors such as name frequency.[33] The effects of name discrimination based on a name's fluency is subtle, small and subject to significantly changing norms.[34]

Nationality

Discrimination on the basis of nationality is usually included in employment laws[35] (see above section for employment discrimination specifically). It is sometimes referred to as bound together with racial discrimination[36] although it can be separate. It may vary from laws that stop refusals of hiring based on nationality, asking questions regarding origin, to prohibitions of firing, forced retirement, compensation and pay, etc., based on nationality.

Discrimination on the basis of nationality may show as a "level of acceptance" in a sport or work team regarding new team members and employees who differ from the nationality of the majority of team members.[37]

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.[38] Westerners might also get paid more than other expatriates.[39]

Race or ethnicity
Main articles: Racism, 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 signs read "Jews out" and "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.[40] 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.[41][42][43][44] It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity.[42][43] 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.[42][43][45] 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[46] After the Vietnam War, many Vietnamese refugees moved to Australia and the United States, where they face discrimination.[47]

Region
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.[48]

Religious beliefs
Main article: Religious discrimination
Freedom of religion
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".[49] 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.[50][51] Furthermore, private non-Muslim religious gatherings might be raided by the religious police.[51]

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".[52]

Sex, sex characteristics, gender, and gender identity
Main article: Sexism
See also: Homophobia, Misogyny, Misandry, Discrimination against intersex people, Transphobia, Discrimination towards 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,[53][54] and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another.[55] Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape, and other forms of sexual violence.[56] Gender discrimination may encompass sexism, and is discrimination toward people based on their gender identity[57] or their gender or sex differences.[58] Gender discrimination is especially defined in terms of workplace inequality.[58] It may arise from social or cultural customs and norms.[59]

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'.[60] Australia was the first country to add an independent attribute, of 'intersex status'.[61][62] 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.[63][64]

Sexual orientation
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".[65] 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 to homosexual or bisexual people.[66]

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.[67][68][69][70] 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, 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.[71] In the report, this is described as "State sponsored homophobia".[72] This happens in Islamic states, or in two cases regions under Islamic authority.[73][74] 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.[75] 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.[76] Although gay marriage has been legal in South Africa since 2006, same-sex unions are often condemned as "un-African".[77] Research conducted in 2009 shows 86% of black lesbians from the Western Cape live in fear of sexual assault.[78]

Further information: LGBT rights by country or territory

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.

Drug use
Global Marijuana March, Paris.
Main article: Discrimination against drug addicts
See also: Responsible drug use

Drug use discrimination is the unequal treatment people experience because of the drugs they use.[79] People who use or have used illicit drugs may face discrimination in employment, welfare, housing, child custody, and travel,[80][81][82][83] in addition to imprisonment, asset forfeiture, and in some cases forced labor, torture, and execution.[84][85] Though often prejudicially stereotyped as deviants and misfits, most drug users are well-adjusted and productive members of society.[86][87] Drug prohibitions may have been partly motivated by racism and other prejudice against minorities,[88][89][90] and racial disparities have been found to exist in the enforcement and prosecution of drug laws.[91][92][93] Discrimination due to illicit drug use was the most commonly reported type of discrimination among Blacks and Latinos in a 2003 study of minority drug users in New York City, double to triple that due to race.[94] People who use legal drugs such as tobacco and prescription medications may also face discrimination.[95][96][97]

Reverse discrimination
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!")

In the US, a government policy which is known as affirmative action was instituted in order to encourage employers and universities to seek out and accept groups such as African Americans and women, who have been subject to discrimination for a long time.[98]

Some attempts at antidiscrimination have been criticized as reverse discrimination. In particular, minority quota systems such as affirmative action) may discriminate against members of a dominant or majority group or members of other minority groups. In its opposition to race preferences, the American Civil Rights Institute's Ward Connerly stated, "There is nothing positive, affirmative, or equal about 'affirmative action' programs that give preference to some groups based on race."[99]

Legislation
Main article: List of anti-discrimination acts

Australia

Canada

Hong Kong

  • Sex Discrimination Ordinance (1996)

Israel

Netherlands

  • 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.[101][102]
  • Part 2 increases the maximum imprisonment to two years and the maximum fine category to 4,[103] 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.[104]
  • 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.[101][105]
  • Part 2 increases the maximum imprisonment to one year and the maximum fine category to 4,[103] 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.[106][107]

United Kingdom

United States

  • Equal Pay Act of 1963[108] – (part of the Fair Labor Standards Act) – prohibits wage discrimination by employers and labor organizations based on sex.
  • Civil Rights Act of 1964 – many provisions, including broadly prohibiting discrimination in the workplace including hiring, firing, workforce reduction, benefits, and sexually harassing conduct.[109]
  • Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibited discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is charged with administering and enforcing the Act.
  • Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – covers discrimination based upon pregnancy in the workplace.[110]
  • Violence Against Women Act
  • Racism is still rampant in real estate.[111]

United Nations documents

Important UN documents addressing discrimination include:

  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. It states that:" Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."[112]
  • The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is a United Nations convention. The Convention commits its members to the elimination of racial discrimination. The convention was adopted and opened for signature by the United Nations General Assembly on December 21, 1965, and entered into force on January 4, 1969.
  • The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is an international treaty adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly. Described as an international bill of rights for women, it came into force on September 3, 1981.
  • The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an international human rights instrument treaty of the United Nations. Parties to the Convention are required to promote, protect, and ensure the full enjoyment of human rights by persons with disabilities and ensure that they enjoy full equality under the law. The text was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 13, 2006, and opened for signature on March 30, 2007. Following ratification by the 20th party, it came into force on May 3, 2008.

Theories

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.[113] 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 its species), warrant equal consideration with the interests of humans, and that not doing so is "speciesist".[114]

Labeling theory

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[115] 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. 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.[116]

Game theory

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.[117] Varoufakis and Shaun Hargreaves-Heap (2002) 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.[118]

State vs. free market

It is debated as to whether or not markets discourage discrimination brought about by the state. One argument is that since discrimination restricts access to customers and incurs additional expense, market logic will punish discrimination. Opposition by companies to "Jim Crow" segregation laws is an example of this.[119] An alternative argument is that markets don't necessarily undermine discrimination, as it is argued that if discrimination is profitable by catering to the "tastes" of individuals (which is the point of the market), then the market will not punish discrimination. It is argued that micro economic analysis of discrimination uses unusual methods to determine its effects (using explicit treatment of production functions) and that the very existence of discrimination in employment (defined as wages which differ from marginal product of the discriminated employees) in the long run contradicts claims that the market will function well and punish discrimination.[120][121] Furthermore, economic actors may have imperfect information and statistical discrimination may occur rationally and without prejudice.

gollark: Don't they already get stupid amounts of money.
gollark: That's horrible.
gollark: ***NOOOOO!***
gollark: Wyvern is much more useful. It's designed to solve my problems, and also those of people with identical storage-system desires.
gollark: I would use an amulet version if it were nice and client-server.

See also

References
  1. "discrimination, definition". Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Cambridge University. Retrieved March 29, 2013.
  2. Introduction to sociology. 7th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc, 2009. p. 334.
  3. "Definition of discrimination; Origin". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University. Retrieved January 14, 2013.
  4. Introduction to sociology (Print) (7th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc. 2009. p. 324.
  5. Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper (2006). "Private Discrimination: A Prioritarian, Desert-Accommodating Account". San Diego Law Review. 43: 817–856.
  6. Horta, Oscar (2010). "Discrimination in Terms of Moral Exclusion". Theoria. 76 (4): 314–332. doi:10.1111/j.1755-2567.2010.01080.x.
  7. Thompson, Neil (2016). Anti-Discriminatory Practice: Equality, Diversity and Social Justice. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-137-58666-7.
  8. Sherif, M. (1967). Group conflict and co-operation. London: Routledge.
  9. Tajfel, H.; Turner, J. C. (1979). "An integrative theory of intergroup conflict". In Austin, W.G.; Worchel, S. (eds.). The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. pp. 33–47.
  10. Rubin, M.; Hewstone, M.; et al. (2004). "Social identity, system justification, and social dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al". Political Psychology. 25 (6): 823–844. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00400.x.
  11. "United Nations CyberSchoolBus: What is discrimination?". Archived from the original on June 1, 2014.
  12. "Definition of Ageism". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. Retrieved December 4, 2012.
  13. Kirkpatrick, George R.; Katsiaficas, George N.; Kirkpatrick, Robert George; Mary Lou Emery (1987). Introduction to critical sociology. Ardent Media. p. 261. ISBN 978-0-8290-1595-9. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  14. Wilkinson J and Ferraro K, "Thirty Years of Ageism Research". In Nelson T (ed). Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002
  15. "Young and Oppressed". youthrights.org. Retrieved April 11, 2012. Archived July 28, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  16. Lahey, J. (2005) Do Older Workers Face Discrimination? Boston College. Archived April 14, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
  17. Baert, S., Norga, J., Thuy, Y., Van Hecke, M. (In press) Getting Grey Hairs in the Labour Market: An Alternative Experiment on Age Discrimination Journal of Economic Psychology.
  18. (2006) How Ageist is Britain? London: Age Concern. Archived October 27, 2005, at the Wayback Machine
  19. Discrimination, UNICEF
  20. "Global Caste Discrimination". Human Rights Watch. Archived from the original on November 15, 2008. Retrieved April 26, 2016.
  21. "Caste – The Facts". Archived from the original on August 11, 2010.
  22. "India: Official Dalit population exceeds 200 million". International Dalit Solidarity Network. May 29, 2013. Retrieved July 30, 2014.
  23. Vornholt, Katharina; Sjir Uitdewilligen; Frans J.N. Nijhuis (December 2013). "Factors Affecting the Acceptance of People with Disabilities at Work: A Literature Review". Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 23 (4): 463–75. doi:10.1007/s10926-013-9426-0. PMID 23400588.
  24. Brodzinsky, Sibylla (October 3, 2011). "Colombian clans who speak no Spanish mocked with joke names on ID cards" – via www.theguardian.com.
  25. Hossain & Tollefson 2006, p. 345.
  26. Silberzhan, Raphael (May 19, 2013). "It Pays to be Herr Kaiser". Psychological Science. 24 (12): 2437–2444. doi:10.1177/0956797613494851. PMID 24113624.
  27. Laham, Simon (December 9, 2011). "The name-pronunciation effect: Why people like Mr. Smith more than Mr. Colquhoun". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 48 (2012): 752–756. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.002.
  28. Cotton, John (July 2007). "The "name game": affective and hiring reactions to first names". Journal of Managerial Psychology. 23 (1): 18–39. doi:10.1108/02683940810849648.
  29. Bertrand, Marianne (September 2004). "Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamaal?" (PDF). The American Economic Review. 94 (4): 991–1013. doi:10.1257/0002828042002561.
  30. Easton, Stephen (June 30, 2017). "Blind recruiting study suggests positive discrimination common in the APS". The Mandarin.
  31. Smith, Jacquelyn (November 4, 2014). "Here's What Recruiters Look At In The 6 Seconds They Spend On Your Résumé". Business Insider.
  32. "No names, no bias". The Economist. October 29, 2015.
  33. Silberzhan, Raphael; Simonsohn, Uri; Uhlmann, Eric (February 4, 2014). "Matched-Names Analysis Reveals No Evidence of Name-Meaning Effects: A Collaborative Commentary on Silberzahn and Uhlmann" (PDF). Psychological Science. 25 (7): 1504–1505. doi:10.1177/0956797614533802. PMID 24866920.
  34. "The Power of Names". The New York Times. May 29, 2013.
  35. Race, Color, National Origin and Ancestry, State of Wisconsin Archived October 24, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
  36. "Race and National Origin Discrimination". Office for Civil Rights. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved December 16, 2017.
  37. Christiane Schwieren, Mechanisms Underlying Nationality-Based Discrimination in Teams. A Quasi-Experiment Testing Predictions From Social Psychology and Microeconomics Archived 2015-12-31 at the Wayback Machine, Maastricht University
  38. Ayesha Almazroui. "Emiratisation won't work if people don't want to learn". Retrieved April 26, 2016.
  39. "'Western workers favoured in UAE', survey respondents say". The National. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
  40. Carmichael, F.; Woods, R. (2000). "Ethnic Penalties in Unemployment and Occupational Attainment: Evidence for Britain". International Review of Applied Economics. 14 (1): 71–98. doi:10.1080/026921700101498.
  42. Racism Oxford Dictionaries
  43. Ghani, Navid (2008). "Racism". In Schaefer, Richard T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society. SAGE. pp. 1113–1115. ISBN 978-1-4129-2694-2.
  44. Newman, D. M. (2012). Sociology : exploring the architecture of everyday life (9th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. p. 405. ISBN 978-1-4129-8729-5. racism: Belief that humans are subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as superior or inferior.
  45. Newman, D.M. (2012). Sociology: exploring the architecture of everyday life (9th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. p. 405. ISBN 978-1-4129-8729-5. racism: Belief that humans are subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as superior or inferior.
  46. "Malaysia's lingering ethnic divide". March 4, 2008. BBC News.
  47. Levine, Bertram. (2005). "Not All Black and White". J. Cropp (Ed.), Resolving Racial Conflict, 193-218. London: University of Missouri Press.
  48. "Accent Discrimination Law and Legal Definition". USLegal.
  49. "Did Discrimination Enhance Intelligence of Jews?". National Geographic News. July 18, 2005 Archived December 6, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  50. Sandra Mackey's account of her attempt to enter Mecca in Mackey, Sandra (1987). The Saudis: Inside the Desert Kingdom. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 63–64. ISBN 978-0-393-32417-4.
  51. Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs (September 19, 2008). "Saudi Arabia". 2001-2009.state.gov. Retrieved July 24, 2019.
  52. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1979: Religious discrimination. A neglected issue. A consultation sponsored by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Washington. D.C., April 9–10, 1979
  53. Matsumoto, David (2001). The Handbook of Culture and Psychology. Oxford University Press. p. 197. ISBN 978-0-19-513181-9.
  54. Nakdimen, K. A. (1984). "The Physiognomic Basis of Sexual Stereotyping". American Journal of Psychiatry. 141 (4): 499–503. doi:10.1176/ajp.141.4.499. PMID 6703126.
  55. Witt, Jon (2017). SOC 2018 (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 9781259702723. OCLC 968304061.
  56. Forcible Rape Institutionalized Sexism in the Criminal Justice System| Gerald D. Robin Division of Criminal Justice, University of New Haven
  57. Macklem, Tony (2003). Beyond Comparison: Sex and Discrimination. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-82682-2.
  58. Sharyn Ann Lenhart (2004). Clinical Aspects of Sexual Harassment and Gender Discrimination: Psychological Consequences and Treatment Interventions. Routledge. p. 6. ISBN 978-1135941314. Retrieved April 20, 2018. GENDER OR SEX DISCRIMINATION: This term refers to the types of gender bias that have a negative impact. The term has legal, as well as theoretical and psychological, definitions. Psychological consequences can be more readily inferred from the latter, but both definitions are of significance. Theoretically, gender discrimination has been described as (1) the unequal rewards that men and women receive in the workplace or academic environment because of their gender or sex difference (DiThomaso, 1989); (2) a process occurring in work or educational settings in which an individual is overtly or covertly limited access to an opportunity or a resource because of a sex or is given the opportunity or the resource reluctantly and may face harassment for picking it (Roeske & Pleck, 1983); or (3) both.
  59. FIFA must act after death of Iran's 'Blue Girl,' says activist
  60. Judicial Matters Amendment Act, No. 22 of 2005, Republic of South Africa, Vol. 487, Cape Town, January 11, 2006.
  61. "Australian Parliament, Explanatory Memorandum to the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013". Archived from the original on December 19, 2014. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
  62. We welcome the Senate Inquiry report on the Exposure Draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 Archived 2014-01-01 at the Wayback Machine, Organisation Intersex International Australia, February 21, 2013.
  63. Cabral, Mauro (April 8, 2015). "Making depathologization a matter of law. A comment from GATE on the Maltese Act on Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics". Global Action for Trans Equality. Archived from the original on July 4, 2015. Retrieved July 3, 2015.
  64. OII Europe (April 1, 2015). "OII-Europe applauds Malta's Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics Act. This is a landmark case for intersex rights within European law reform". Retrieved July 3, 2015.
  65. World English Dictionary, "Sexual Orientation"
  66. MacInnis, Cara C.; Hodson, Gordon (2012). "Intergroup bias toward "Group X": Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 15 (6): 725–743. doi:10.1177/1368430212442419.
  67. Drydakis, Nick (2011). "Women's Sexual Orientation and Labor Market Outcomes in Greece". Feminist Economics. 17: 89–117. doi:10.1080/13545701.2010.541858.
  68. Drydakis, Nick (2014). "Sexual orientation discrimination in the Cypriot labour market. Distastes or uncertainty?". International Journal of Manpower. 35 (5): 720–744. doi:10.1108/IJM-02-2012-0026. hdl:10419/62444.
  69. Ahmed, A. M., Andersson, L., Hammarstedt, M. (2011) Are gays and lesbians discriminated against in the hiring situation? Archived 2015-05-29 at the Wayback Machine Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation Working Paper Series 21.
  70. Baert, Stijn (2014). "Career lesbians. Getting hired for not having kids?". Industrial Relations Journal. 45 (6): 543–561. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.467.2102. doi:10.1111/irj.12078.
  71. "New Benefits for Same-Sex Couples May Be Hard to Implement Abroad". ABC News. June 22, 2009.
  72. "ILGA: 2009 Report on State Sponsored Homophobia (2009)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 2, 2010.
  73. "ILGA:7 countries still put people to death for same-sex acts". Archived from the original on October 29, 2009.
  74. "Islamic views of homosexuality". Archived from the original on April 15, 2015. Retrieved April 26, 2016.
  75. "AU welcomes progress in peace process". IRIN. September 29, 2004. Retrieved April 26, 2016.
  76. "They Want Us Exterminated". Human Rights Watch. August 16, 2009.
  77. Harrison, Rebecca. "South African gangs use rape to "cure" lesbians". Reuters. March 13, 2009.
  78. Kelly, Annie (March 12, 2009). "Raped and killed for being a lesbian: South Africa ignores 'corrective' attacks". The Guardian.
  79. Ahern J, Stuber J, Galea S (May 2007). "Stigma, discrimination and the health of illicit drug users". Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 88 (2–3): 188–96. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.10.014. PMID 17118578. In addition to the burdens of stigmatization, those who use illicit drugs experience discrimination." "We define drug use discrimination as experiences of rejection and unequal treatment attributed to drug use.
  80. Della Costa C (June 15, 2015). "How Employee Drug Testing Targets the Poor and Minorities". The Cheat Sheet. Retrieved July 2, 2015."Roughly 40% of U.S. employees are subjected to drug testing during the hiring process. The rate of employee drug testing has increased 277% since 1987, and drug testing has even expanded to welfare programs in some states."
  81. Greenhouse L (March 27, 2002). "Justices Rule Drug-Eviction Law Is Fair". New York Times. Retrieved July 2, 2015.
  82. Wyatt K (June 15, 2014). "Changing pot laws create gray areas in child-welfare and custody cases". Washington Post. Retrieved July 1, 2015.
  83. "Nigella Lawson stopped from boarding flight to US after cocaine confession". The Guardian. April 3, 2014. Retrieved July 5, 2015. The US department of homeland security told the Mail that foreigners who had admitted drug taking were deemed "inadmissible".
  84. Szalavitz M (August 6, 2012). "Human Rights Watch: Hundreds of Thousands Still Tortured in Name of Drug Treatment". Time. Retrieved July 1, 2015.
  85. Dehghan SK (June 25, 2012). "Iranian pair face death penalty after third alcohol offence". The Guardian. Retrieved July 1, 2015."Under Iranian Sharia law, certain crimes such as sodomy, rape, theft, fornication, apostasy and consumption of alcohol for the third time are considered to be "claims of God" and therefore have mandatory death sentences."
  86. Bennetto J, Todd B (November 5, 1997). "Habits: Most drug users are happy, successful people with a taste for the good life". The Independent. Retrieved July 2, 2015."According to a survey of more than 850 people aged between 16 and 24, and 100 in-depth interviews, drug use is commonplace and consumers tend to be independent, lead active lives, and do not lack self-esteem."
  87. Nicholson T, White J, Duncan D (September 1998). "Drugnet: A Pilot Study of Adult Recreational Drug Use via the WWW". Substance Abuse. 19 (3): 109–121. doi:10.1080/08897079809511380. PMID 12511811. This survey further documents the existence of a nonclinical population of drug users which is generally healthy, well-adjusted, and productive.
  88. Block F (January 3, 2013). "Racism's Hidden History in the War on Drugs". Huffington Post. Retrieved July 5, 2015. A 1914 New York Times article proclaimed: "Negro Cocaine 'Fiends' Are a New Southern Menace: Murder and Insanity Increasing Among Lower Class Blacks Because They Have Taken to 'Sniffing.'" A Literary Digest article from the same year claimed that "most of the attacks upon women in the South are the direct result of the cocaine-crazed Negro brain." It comes as no surprise that 1914 was also the year Congress passed the Harrison Tax Act, effectively outlawing opium and cocaine.
  89. Staples B (July 29, 2014). "The Federal Marijuana Ban Is Rooted in Myth and Xenophobia". New York Times. Retrieved July 5, 2015. As the legal scholars Richard Bonnie and Charles Whitebread explain in their authoritative history, "The Marihuana Conviction," the drug’s popularity among minorities and other groups practically ensured that it would be classified as a "narcotic," attributed with addictive qualities it did not have, and set alongside far more dangerous drugs like heroin and morphine.
  90. Sandy KR (2003). "The Discrimination Inherent in America's Drug War: Hidden Racism Revealed by Examining the Hysteria over Crack" (PDF). Alabama Law Review. 54 (2): 665–693. Retrieved July 5, 2015. Myths about the "superhuman strength, cunning and efficiency" of the Negro on cocaine flourished in the South. Such myths included ideas such as cocaine induced Black men to rape White women, cocaine improved Black marksmanship, and cocaine made Blacks impervious to .32 caliber bullets ("caus[ing] southern police departments to switch to .38 caliber revolvers").
  91. McKinley J (July 8, 2014). "Study Finds Racial Disparity in Criminal Prosecutions". New York Times. Retrieved July 6, 2015. One of the starkest disparities emerged in the prosecution of misdemeanor drug crimes like possession of marijuana or cocaine. The study found blacks were 27 percent more likely than whites to receive jail or prison time for misdemeanor drug offenses, while Hispanic defendants were 18 percent more likely to be incarcerated for those crimes.
  92. Kurtzleben D (August 3, 2010). "Data Show Racial Disparity in Crack Sentencing". U.S. News and World Report. Archived from the original on July 6, 2015. Retrieved July 6, 2015. According to U.S. Sentencing Commission figures, no class of drug is as racially skewed as crack in terms of numbers of offenses. According to the commission, 79 percent of 5,669 sentenced crack offenders in 2009 were black, versus 10 percent who were white and 10 percent who were Hispanic.
  93. Berman D, Protass H (July 29, 2013). "Obama Can Fix the Race Gap in Sentencing Law". Slate. Retrieved July 6, 2015. ...from 1988 to 1995 not a single white person was charged with crack-related crimes in 17 states, including major cities such as Boston, Denver, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, and Los Angeles.
  94. Minior T, Galea S, Stuber J, Ahern J, Ompad D (Fall 2003). "Racial differences in discrimination experiences and responses among minority substance users". Ethnicity & Disease. 13 (4): 521–7. PMID 14632272. 500 Black and 419 Latino active substance users.
  95. Sulszberger AG (February 11, 2011). "Hospitals Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Ban". New York Times. Retrieved July 4, 2015. Smokers have been turned away from jobs in the past — prompting more than half the states to pass laws rejecting bans on smokers — but the recent growth in the number of companies adopting no-smoker rules has been driven by a surge of interest among health care providers, according to academics, human resources experts and tobacco opponents. "Some even prohibit nicotine patches."
  96. Hargrove D (January 19, 2011). "Antismoking Law: Where Do the Smoker's Rights End?". San Diego Reader. Retrieved July 4, 2015. According to the American Lung Association’s Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing, 12 cities and 1 county in California have adopted ordinances that ban smoking in some percentage of multiunit apartment buildings.
  97. Katie Z, Goodnough A (October 24, 2010). "Drug Testing Poses Quandary for Employers". New York Times. Retrieved July 4, 2015. What companies consider an effort to maintain a safe work environment is drawing complaints from employees who cite privacy concerns and contend that they should not be fired for taking legal medications, sometimes for injuries sustained on the job.
  98. "Bibliography on Race, Gender and Affirmative Action". Race, Gender, and Affirmative Action. University of Michigan. Retrieved September 28, 2014.
  99. "American Civil Rights Institute | Press Release". Archived from the original on December 14, 2008.
  100. "What is Discrimination?". Canadian Human Rights Commission. Archived from the original on April 15, 2018. Retrieved April 15, 2018.
  101. € 7,800
  102. "wetten.nl – Regeling – Wetboek van Strafrecht – BWBR0001854". Retrieved April 26, 2016.
  103. € 19,500
  104. "wetten.nl – Regeling – Wetboek van Strafrecht – BWBR0001854". Retrieved April 26, 2016.
  105. "wetten.nl – Regeling – Wetboek van Strafrecht – BWBR0001854". Retrieved April 26, 2016.
  106. € 3,900
  107. "wetten.nl – Regeling – Wetboek van Strafrecht – BWBR0001854". Retrieved April 26, 2016.
  108. "Equal Pay Act of 1963 – EPA – 29 U.S. Code Chapter 8 § 206(d)". Archived from the original on November 23, 2011. Retrieved April 26, 2016.
  109. "Civil Rights Act of 1964 – CRA – Title VII – Equal Employment Opportunities – 42 US Code Chapter 21". Archived from the original on December 29, 2011. Retrieved April 26, 2016.
  110. "Pregnancy Discrimination Act". Retrieved May 14, 2008.
  111. Bouie, Jamelle (May 13, 2015). "A Tax on Blackness". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  112. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Archived from the original on December 8, 2014.
  113. "Civil rights". Archived from the original on October 23, 1999. Retrieved March 20, 2019.
  114. Singer, Peter (1999) [1993]. "Equality for Animals?". Practical Ethics (Second ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 57–58. ISBN 978-0-521-43971-8. If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. ... This is why the limit of sentience ... is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. ... Similarly those I would call 'speciesists' give greater weight to their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species.
  115. Slattery, M. (2002). Key Ideas in Sociology. Nelson Thornes. pp. 134–137. ISBN 978-0-7487-6565-2.
  116. Adam, Heribert (July 1, 1996). "Anti-Semitism and Anti-Black Racism: Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa". Telos. 1996 (108): 25–46. doi:10.3817/0696108025.
  117. Yanis Varoufakis (2013). "Chapter 11: Evolving domination in the laboratory". Economic Indeterminacy: A personal encounter with the economists' peculiar nemesis. Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy. Routledge. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-415-66849-1.
  118. Shaun Hargreaves-Heap; Yanis Varoufakis (July 2002), "Some experimental evidence on the evolution of discrimination, co-operation and perceptions of fairness", The Economic Journal, 112 (481): 679–703, doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00735
  119. Jennifer Roback, "The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars." Journal of Economic History 56, no. 4 (December 1986): 893–917.
  120. Richard S. Toikka, The Welfare Implications of Becker’s Discrimination Coefficient, 13 J. Econ. Theory 472, 472 (1976); Glen G. Cain, "The Economic Analysis of Labor Market Discrimination: A Survey", in Handbook of Labor Economics 693, 774 (Orley Ashenfelter & Richard Layard eds., 1986).
  121. For review of the literature in regard to the last two points see Menahem Pasternak, Employment Discrimination: Some Economic Definitions, Critique and Legal Implications, 33 N. C. Cent. L. Rev. (2011) 163
Library resources about
Discrimination
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.