Through careful consideration of the mutually plausible yet conflicting arguments on both sides of the issue, Alan Goldman attempts to derive a morally consistent position on the justice (or injustice) of reverse discrimination. From a philosophical framework that appeals to a contractual model of ethics, he develops principles of rights, compensation, and equal opportunity. He then applies these principles to the issue at hand, bringing his conclusions to bear on an evaluation of Affirmative Action programs as they tend to work in practice. Originally published in 1979. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

Contains fifteen essays on affirmative action

The definitive reckoning with one of America’s most explosively contentious and divisive issues—from “one of our most important and perceptive writers on race and the law.... The mere fact that he wrote this book is all the justification necessary for reading it.”—The Washington Post What precisely is affirmative action, and why is it fiercely championed by some and just as fiercely denounced by others? Does it signify a boon or a stigma? Or is it simply reverse discrimination? What are its benefits and costs to American society? What are the exact indicia determining who should or should not be accorded affirmative action? When should affirmative action end, if it must? Randall Kennedy gives us a concise and deeply personal overview of the policy, refusing to shy away from the myriad complexities of an issue that continues to bedevil American race relations.

Should government try to remedy persistent racial and ethnic inequalities by establishing and enforcing quotas and other statistical goals? Here is one of the most incisive books ever written on this difficult issue. Nathan Glazer surveys the civil rights tradition in the United States; evaluates public policies in the areas of employment, education, and housing; and questions the judgment and wisdom of their underlying premises--their focus on group rights, rather than individual rights. Such policies, he argues, are ineffective, unnecessary, and politically destructive of harmonious relations among the races. Updated with a long, new introduction by the author, Affirmative Discrimination will enable citizens as well as scholars to better understand and evaluate public policies for achieving social justice in a multiethnic society.

Reverse Discrimination in the European Union offers an up-to-date standard reference work on reverse discrimination.

In Challenging the Status Quo: Diversity, Democracy, and Equality in the 21st Century, David G. Embrick, Sharon M. Collins, and Michelle Dodson have compiled the latest ideas and scholarship in the area of diversity and inclusion. The contributors in this edited book offer critical analyses on many aspects of diversity as it pertains to institutional policies, practices, discourse, and beliefs. The book is broken down into 19 chapters over 7 sections that cover: policies and politics; pedagogy and higher education; STEM; religion; communities; complex organizations; and discourse and identity. Collectively, these chapters contribute to answering three main questions: 1) what, ultimately, does diversity mean; 2) what are the various mechanisms by which institutions understand and use diversity; and 3) and why is it important for us to rethink diversity? Contributors: Sharla Alegria, Joyce M. Bell, Sharon M. Collins, Ellen Berrey, Enobong Hannah Branch, Meghan A. Burke, Tiffany Davis, Michele C. Deramo, Michelle Dodson, David G. Embrick, Edward Orozco Flores, Emma González-Lesser, Bianca Gonzalez-Sobrino, Matthew W. Hughey, Paul R. Ketchum, Megan Klein, Michael Kreiter, Marie des Neiges Léonard, Wendy Leo Moore, Shan Mukhtar, Antonia Randolph, Victor Erik Ray, Arthur Scarritt, Laurie Cooper Stoll.

Affirmative action continues to be one of the most hotly contested issues in America. Volatile and divisive, the debates over its legitimacy have inspired a number of "reverse discrimination" suits in the federal courts. Like the landmark 1978 Bakke decision, most of these have focused on preferential treatment given racial minorities. In Johnson v. Santa Clara, however, the central issue was gender, not race discrimination, and the Supreme Court's decision in that case marked a resounding victory for women in the work force. Johnson v. Santa Clara involved two people who in 1980 competed for a dispatcher position with the transportation department of Santa Clara County, California. Paul Johnson had more experience and slightly higher test scores, but Diane Joyce was given the job based on affirmative action. An irate Johnson sued the county and won, only to have the decision reversed in appellate court. That reversal was subsequently upheld in the Supreme Court's 1987 decision, reaffirming that it was legitimate for employers to consider gender in hiring. Preeminent legal historian Melvin Urofsky proves an exemplary guide through the complexities of this case as he takes us from the workplace through the various levels of our federal court system. Balancing the particulars of the case with an overview of constitutional law and judicial process, he creates a model legal history that is both appealing and enlightening for the non-scholar. Urofsky is especially good at highlighting the fundamental human drama of this case and shows how Johnson and Joyce were simply ordinary people, each with valid reasons for their actions, but both ultimately caught up in legal and social issues that reached well beyond their own lives. Affirmative Action on Trial pointedly addresses the issue of sex discrimination and the broader controversy over the place of affirmative action in American society. The latter continues to generate headlines, like those that followed the 1996 Supreme Court decision to let stand a lower-court ruling that race cannot be used as a determination for admission to academic programs. More recently, several states have even taken steps to end affirmative action altogether. While it's hard to tell how such actions will ultimately impact affirmative action, there's no question that the rulings in cases like Johnson v. Santa Clara will continue to guide and influence the debates both inside and outside the courtroom.