Just Who Loses?
Discrimination in the United States, Volume 2
Publication Year: 2013
In Just Who Loses? Samuel Roundfield Lucas continues his penetrating and comprehensive assessment of sex and race discrimination in the United States that he began in Theorizing Discrimination in an Era of Contested Prejudice.
This new volume demonstrates that the idea of discrimination being a zero-sum game is a fallacy. If discrimination costs women, men do not necessarily reap the gains. Likewise, if discrimination costs blacks, non-blacks do not reap the gains. Lucas examines the legal adjudication of discrimination, as well as wider public debates about policy on the issue, to prove how discrimination actually operates.
He uses analytic methods to show that across the socioeconomic lifecycle—including special education placement, unemployment, occupational attainment, earnings, poverty, and even mortality—both targets and non-targets of discrimination “lose.”
In Just Who Loses? Lucas proposes the construction of a broad-based coalition to combat the pervasive discrimination that affects social relations and law in the United States.
Published by: Temple University Press
Title Page, Copyright Page
List of Tables and Figures
All thought is social. My thinking on the definition and measurement of discrimination effects and my efforts to estimate those effects follow from numerous conversations and correspondences. The opportunity I have been provided to engage such issues is the result of a vast social network that delivered aid in multiple forms, including technical assistance, ...
Introduction: Evidently, Too
I opened Volume 1 of Discrimination in the United States by asserting that the vast majority of evidence used to ascertain the effect of race discrimination on the success of blacks and the effect of sex discrimination on the success of women is, in a word, irrelevant. I noted that the evidence was silent not only concerning the impact of discrimination on blacks and women ...
1. Effects of Discrimination in the United States
When people are held down, they tend not to do as well as they otherwise might. This straightforward observation implies that a phenomenon such as discrimination should be expected to have some effect on persons, certainly touching targets of discrimination in possibly many ways. ...
2. Biological Explanations of Gender and Racial Inequality in the United States
I establish in Chapter 1 that inequality is not the proper basis for assessing the effect of discrimination. The claim can be generalized— in attempting to understand the reach of some putative causal phenomenon, one may easily be led astray by focusing on inequality of outcomes across different groups, ...
3. Socialization and Cultural Difference Explanations of Race and Gender Inequality in the United States
I have claimed analysts have at their disposal only three fundamental ingredients to explain black disadvantage or gender socioeconomic inequality: (1) something is inherently wrong with blacks or women, (2) something is amiss in the socialization or culture of women or blacks, or (3) something is destructive in the treatment of blacks or women. ...
4. The Comparative Measurement of Expected Exposure to Discrimination
In the first volume, Theorizing Discrimination in an Era of Contested Prejudice, I erect the ontological and epistemological foundation for a strategy of measuring discrimination as expected exposure. In concluding the volume, I claim that laws would provide a way to measure discrimination so theorized. ...
5. Education and Discrimination
We begin with education. Education is where the first turns of the formal socioeconomic life cycle occur. Schools are the first public institution most persons encounter without direct parental oversight, and thus schools arguably provide the first place where public concerns with fairness can be brought to bear. ...
6. Opportunity to Work and Discrimination
Material well-being has several dimensions. Opportunity to work is key to all of them. Years of training for an occupation would have little material or perhaps even emotional payoff were there no work opportunities afterward. The vast majority of adults would have no income, or grossly insufficient income, were it not for their earnings from wage labor. ...
7. Job Quality and Discrimination
Obtaining a job is important, but the quality of the job obtained, its complex constellation of characteristics, is also of intrinsic importance. Sociologists have shown that the socioeconomic and nonsocioeconomic characteristics of jobs have wide-ranging effects, playing an important role in persons’ own intellectual development ...
8. Poverty, Earnings, and Discrimination
Poverty has negative ramifications for outcomes as disparate as cognitive ability (e.g., Guo 1998), educational achievement (e.g., Entwisle and Alexander 1992), infant mortality (e.g., Gortmaker 1979), and overall life expectancy (Geronimus et al. 2001). Earnings are the primary source of economic sustenance for Americans, ...
9. Mortality and Discrimination
Death is the final outcome of interest, beside which all others pale in comparison. Analysts have long studied the age distribution of death, roughly indexed by life expectancy and mortality rates (e.g., Gaunt 1662). These social indicators differ across many subpopulations. ...
10. Just Who Loses?
The presentation of empirical results has reached its end. Over the course of this journey we noted the central distinction between inequality and discrimination; outlined the limitations of common alternative explanations of inequality; described and justified the specific research decisions implemented to produce these analyses; ...
Page Count: 369
Publication Year: 2013
OCLC Number: 833155922
MUSE Marc Record: Download for Just Who Loses?