cause of discrimination essay

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Discrimination Essay | Essay on Discrimination for Students and Children in English

February 13, 2024 by Prasanna

Discrimination Essay:  According to the Oxford dictionary, discrimination is the practice of treating an individual or a particular group in society unfairly than others based on age, race, sex, religion, finance, etc.

Throughout history, we have seen discrimination tainting every society and nation. This essay examines and analyses the causes and effects of discrimination in various forms on an individual, society, or nation.

You can also find more  Essay Writing  articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.

Long and Short Essays on Discrimination for Students and Kids in English

We provide children and students with essay samples on a long essay of 500 words and a short essay of 150 words on the topic “Discrimination” for reference.

Long Essay on Discrimination 500 Words in English

Long Essay on Discrimination is usually given to classes 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Our world has always been parted into two groups: victims of discrimination and those who discriminate against the former. The definition of discrimination denies opportunity or equal rights to a specific group of people that may be differentiated based on their religion, skin colour, or gender.

However, discrimination could be confused with prejudice and stereotype. Stereotypes are mental images we have on a particular group of people because of their religion, culture, or gender. Prejudice stems from stereotypes. It’s the act of judging by popular stereotypes.

Discrimination Is a mix of both with the addition of oppression and unfair treatment towards the deemed ‘inferior’ group or individual. Keep in mind that prejudice is a result of attitude, and discrimination results from an action.

Human history is saturated with acts of discrimination. It takes different forms, and modern society is not an exception. It is at the stake of cultural history and has influenced many social, cultural, and economic occurrences that we see today.

One of the most common forms being discrimination based on the financial background of an individual. The world is divided. The oppressive rich and powerful one’s greed to earn more and frowns upon the one who doesn’t have it all while the poor struggles to survive.

When we come across racial discrimination or racism, globally, we see acts of violence and unfair treatment done against people of colour, usually against people who aren’t Caucasian or commonly termed ‘white’ in appearance.

You can now access more Essay Writing on this topic and many more.

This form of oppression started when European countries started colonizing lands outside Europe in the 1600s and claiming them to be superior. Sadly, racism is still prevalent in the modern world, where a person’s ethnicity derives them from equal rights and opportunities.

In the history of humanity, we have come across several gruesome acts of discrimination. One of them being the mass genocide of Jews living in Europe, led by the Nazis and their leader Hitler, during the 2nd world war. We still see acts of systemic racism in countries all across the group.

Sexism has also been a significant issue over the centuries. Women face discrimination and double standards in their homes and their workplaces. Here we see women being oppressed, abused, and mistreated by men. Sexism resides in every society worldwide, blocking women from attaining every other right that a man gets to enjoy.

We also see people getting discriminated against for their sexual orientation. Homophobia and transphobia are what every queer has to go through living in today’s society. They get judged, oppressed, threatened, and even illegalized just for being who they are.

Another form of discrimination that’s primarily affecting the world today is discrimination based on religion. Today’s world is so divided that one wrong act from a community will form a lousy rep around the group.

A country like India, which is constitutionally secular, is now fragmented because of fights struck against religious minorities. In America, after the 9/11 massacre struck, people developed this strange stereotype and hatred towards people who follow Islam, also known as Islamophobia.

To sum it up, discrimination forms a menace to society and the person who has to face such an adverse treatment as it is a straight denial of the equal worth of the victim. It is a violation of an individual’s identity.

Short Essay on Discrimination 150 Words in English

Short Essay on Discrimination is usually given to classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Discrimination is as common and abundant as corruption in politics and pollution in the air. Every type of discrimination implicates the superiority of a specific group of people over another group of people.

In today’s world, we see several forms of discrimination: gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, age, education, finance, workplace hierarchy, disabilities, etc. All of these arises from prolonged superiority complex, ignorance, and indifference to people’s identity.

The world we live in now faces significant issues like racism, sexism, homophobia, and Islamophobia. All these issues pile up to build a society filled with injustice, inequality, and in general toxic.

We study all the gruesome and bloody acts and events that have stained humankind all because of discrimination in history. Nowadays, these acts of discrimination are getting recognized and being called out, but it’s far from getting eradicated.

The government should form laws to avoid it; parents and schools should educate children on equality. The fight against discrimination is a long and hard one, but we have to continue fighting this social evil.

10 Lines on Discrimination Essay in English

1. Discrimination is an act when a person is treated unequally and differently. 2. Stereotype and prejudice are not discrimination. They are a part of the discrimination spectrum. 3. Particular forms of discrimination are also punishable by law. 4. Discrimination is of many types—racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. 5. Two anti-discrimination movements around the world are- ‘Me Too’ movement (a feminist movement / a protest against sexism) and the ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement (protest against racism and systemic racism. 6. On 1st March every year, the Zero Discrimination Day is celebrated. 7. On 1st March 2014, The United Nations, along with UNAIDS, celebrated this day for the first time. 8. This day generally focuses on no discrimination despite having different gender, sex, ethnicity, and physical disability. 9. Any form of discrimination violates human rights. 10. Acts of discrimination are deeply rooted in our society, and we have to get rid of it.

FAQ’s on Discrimination Essay

Question 1. What is Discrimination?

Answer: Discrimination is an act of making unjustified distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong.

Question 2.  What are the four main types of discrimination?

Answer: There are four main types of discrimination– direct discrimination and indirect discrimination, harassment, and victimization.

Question 3.  What is the cause of discrimination?

Answer: All forms of discrimination are prejudice based on identity concepts and the need to identify with a certain group. This can lead to division, hatred, and even the dehumanization of other people because they have different identities.

Question 4.  What kind of discrimination is illegal?

Answer: Employers can’t discriminate based on race, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age (40 and older), disability, or national origin.

• Picture Dictionary
• English Speech
• English Slogans
• English Letter Writing
• English Essay Writing
• English Textbook Answers
• Types of Certificates
• ICSE Solutions
• Selina ICSE Solutions
• ML Aggarwal Solutions
• HSSLive Plus One
• HSSLive Plus Two
• Kerala SSLC
• Distance Education

Racism: A Cause and Effect Essay Sample

Talking about the widespread topic of racism, there is a need to involve an official word that is referred to in many essays. It states: Racism is the process by which systems, policies, and attitudes create inequitable opportunities and outcomes for people based on race. Racism is more than just prejudice in thought or action. It occurs when it – whether individual or institutional – is accompanied by the power to discriminate against, oppress, or limit the civil rights of others.

The essence of racism is in the interpretation of differences as natural, as well as in establishing the connection between difference and domination. Racism first interprets differences as “natural” and then links them to existing relations of domination. Groups that are higher than others in the hierarchy are thereby “natural” right of superiority. Describing racism with the help of the cause and effect of racism essay is a brilliant idea. Get sure of it yourself by reading further!

If you need more in-deep research on a similar subject, feel free to use Edusson’s professional custom essay writing help . Racism is a scourge that has been present in societies around the world since antiquity, and it is still present today. Despite many efforts to eradicate it, its effects still remain, which is why it is necessary to understand the cause and effects of racism in order to combat it. This can help you with homework if you’re writing a racism cause and effect essay, as understanding the causes of racism can help you determine the most effective solutions for its eradication.

Cause and Effect of Racism

The phenomenon of modern racism is neither a recent invention of history nor purely European and was actively developing in the United States. As a form of xenophobia, racism has been inherent in people since ancient times. Racism has its own forms in different countries because of specific features: historical, cultural, and other factors. Use this cause and effect essay writing example to get information through the essays on how slavery causes racism, and racial discrimination in general: what causes racism, the effects of racism, and how African-Americans lives were neglected throughout history.

Cause 1 – Xenophobia

The leading cause of racism as a phenomenon is stated to be xenophobia. This topic is greatly researched in related books or different scientific essays and works. Racism is, to a large extent, xenophobia based on the visible difference in appearance. As a type of xenophobia, racism is an irrational but natural reaction of people to the foreign and unknown. However, racism is by no means exhausted by xenophobia alone. The level of rejection and intolerance in society directly depends on the development of a particular country. In the most developed countries, where the intellectual level of the population allows rejecting stupid superstitions about the differences between people, xenophobic attitudes are separate cases and take place as an exception.

Cause 2 – Straightforward Conclusions

Another cause of racial inequality is the destructive ability of many people to jump to quick conclusions, especially judging others because of their appearance, apparel, speech, and other visible traits. Mainly, it intensifies that because of the media representations of races, creating specific racial beliefs. Such cliches aren’t always harmful, like how Asian people are stereotyped as intelligent. But in the minds of undereducated people, quick judgments can play a bad thing and significantly influence how people are perceived.

Finished papers

Customer reviews

Cause 3 – Keeping the Status Quo

Keeping the status quo means, in simple words, the desire to keep the peace, avoid conflicts and clashes, and maintain law and order. Research from viral essays shows that when people believe in racial ideas, e.g., that blacks are inherently more violent and dangerous – they aren’t disturbed by police brutality or mass incarceration. “Keeping the peace” becomes more important than justice and equality.

Cause 4 – Media Impact

How modern media (TV, music industry, cinematography, etc.) describes race has a big influence on society’s race perception. As far as the media shows us our culture from an exaggerated point of view, it keeps racial stereotypes alive and well and therefore fuels racism. Racism cases appear in the media in a very subtle manner, without negative intent, but unfortunately, work the opposite. The most common thing for American society in this matter is representing a black person as a perpetrator of violent crimes or giving examples of stories related to theft and poverty. Such generalizations have a bad influence on society, as the perception of specific circles of people is formed according to the wrong representation.

Cause 5 – Blaming Others for Our Problems

Last but not least, the subjective reason for racism is that we blame others for our problems. When individuals feel mad or miserable, they often want to shift the problem to someone else’s shoulders and blame anyone but them for their problems. As a society, we act the same. Members of each race who look or behave differently from us are easy targets. You should have heard phrases like ‘Mexicans take all our workplaces’. This statement is absolutely false, though it sounds like a perfect justification for those who cannot find a job for a while and feel anger which translates to insecure people.

Writing essays on such a topic is challenging and demands a good understanding of a problem and statement of thought. If you like the structure of this article, check other cause and effect essay ideas to develop the skill of writing qualitative essays. The main part – the effects of racism – is ahead. Keep reading!

Racism and Its Effects

Racism and its effects can appear in different ways. There are many essays by the victims, who were either facing racism on a daily basis or had a frightening experience once in a lifetime. We have highlighted 5 effects of racism.

Physical Impacts of Racism

The physical threat is among the worst effects of racism. If an individual ever becomes a victim of racist aggression, he could have serious physical injuries that can end up with a disability, which in fact, is a common thing. This is a superior case of all the spectrum of racial issues today, because views, roles in society, or simply belonging to different races cannot be the causes of racism.

Effect on Mental Health

As we can see from the previous paragraph, racism can have a deeply no good effect on people’s mental health and health commonly. Experiencing discrimination can lead to feelings of humiliation when others make you feel like you are less worthy. Racism can sabotage people’s dignity, forcing them to adjust their usual behavior to the norms of another group of people who consider themselves better or higher. Such effects of racism lead from infrequent situations to changing whole daily routines ( for example, bypassing particular places or skipping activities, being afraid of leaving the house or traveling alone, changing clothes, etc. ). It can also lead to other emotional impacts such as distress, PTSD, insomnia, depression, fear, a sense of isolation, and a lack of trust in people.

When a person gets into a stressful situation, his body prepares to respond. The heart begins to beat faster, blood pressure rises, and breathing quickens as the body releases stress hormones. It is a natural way of preparing the body to deal with stress. But when a stressor, such as structural racism, never goes away, the body can remain in that tense state.

Social Consequences of Racism

Handling racism can lead to feeling inferior, isolated, of less worth, and even having questions about own existence in this world. Such an effect of racism – having less trust in other people – explains the reasons why African-Americans feel so insecure in any social circle where some whites belong too. So, if a person faces repeated harassment in any form, like skin color racism in schools, it can affect their social circles and add more challenges to it. Such an issue can prevent us from building a circle of friends or settling down for a family. Other effects of racism are institutional racism (where all of the ongoing advantages are given to white people) and housing discrimination can also create obstacles to free and healthy life in society.

Effect on Economy and Personal Finances

Discrimination has financial consequences too. It has been proved that people encountering racism tend to face obstacles to employment, fair payment levels, and discrimination when trying to access housing or financial help, especially with a child today. The same thing with discrimination from landlords and an issue with transportation. Many people who can be discriminated against by any visual sign tend to avoid public places or take walks to get places due to frequent incidents in transport, which affect their financial status too. Racial discrimination hurts those it affects. It also costs money. A recent study estimated the economic influence of racism at nearly $2 trillion a year in the United States alone.

How Does Racism Affect Families, Communities, and Society?

Racial belief can have a no good influence not only on a person who directly experienced it but also on his family, the community, or even the whole world. Racism cases lead to anxiety and stress spreading through the community every day, especially when there is no good response from the leaders or local people. And sometimes, even governmental structures stop defending the civil rights of African Americans in favor of other time-consuming questions. As a result, people in communities that have gotten used to being held together can become isolated and torn apart. Such a break of social bounds can more likely lead to criminal actions than racial differences.

To understand the white American racial theories, there should be solid essays review on the topic. And even after that, you will probably decide on the side of equal rights of all people independently on any features.

Racism has become one of the most burning social issues of our time, so it’s often the topic of discussion in educational institutions. As a result, more and more students have to write a college essay on racism, exploring its causes and effects. One of the most common sources of racism is a lack of understanding and communication between different cultural groups. To tackle this, it’s essential to have someone write a college essay that covers different perspectives on racism and helps to bridge the gap between different cultures and ethnic groups. To do this, many students find essay writers for hire to ensure their paper is well-written and engaging. Writing an essay about racism can be difficult, as there are many sensitive topics to address. It is important to be mindful when writing a racism cause and effect essay, as the writer must acknowledge all sides of the argument.

European Convention on Human Rights states: ‘The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or another status.’ and these words seem to be right.

Related posts:

• The Great Gatsby (Analyze this Essay Online)
• Pollution Cause and Effect Essay Sample
• Essay Sample on How Can I Be a Good American
• The Power of Imaging: Why I am Passionate about Becoming a Sonographer

Improve your writing with our guides

Youth Culture Essay Prompt and Discussion

Why Should College Athletes Be Paid, Essay Sample

Reasons Why Minimum Wage Should Be Raised Essay: Benefits for Workers, Society, and The Economy

Get 15% off your first order with edusson.

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

100% privacy. No spam ever.

Main Causes of Discrimination

This essay will examine the root causes of discrimination in society. It will explore various factors such as societal norms, historical prejudices, lack of education, and fear of the unknown that contribute to discriminatory attitudes and behaviors. The piece will discuss how these causes manifest in different forms of discrimination like racial, gender, and age discrimination, and their impact on individuals and communities. PapersOwl showcases more free essays that are examples of Discrimination.

How it works

To the extent verifiable records appear, no general public or country has been insusceptible to discrimination, either as a victim or victimizer. Most of the causes of that discrimination and racism is given by fear of difference, through ignorance, and because people strive to show that they are stronger. Contemporary types of segregation go back to when European colonizers infiltrated and changed recently disengaged social orders and people groups. The more outrageous types of biased practices incorporate slavery, genocide, and prejudicial migration laws.

Less extraordinary types of preference and discrimination, however all things considered inescapable and onerous, incorporate social rejection at the institutional dimension, (in schools and hospitals), and the more unobtrusive structures drilled by the media. A few gatherings seem to experience the ill effects of increasingly diligent types of segregation, for example, Jews (as in hostile to Semitism) and the Roma (a.k.a. Vagabonds), paying little respect to time and place.

At the point when there is no understanding or tuning in to other people, or tolerating that it’s ok to appear as something else, at that point segregation and bias can end up set up. Discrimination originates from ignorance and fear. It is powered by the unknown and is immediately changed by anxiety. “None of us likes being in the dark and not knowing something. It can lead to us feeling uncomfortable, nervous or anxious. But prejudice and discrimination are not caused by what happens outside of us. They are caused by how we see things (usually incorrectly), and what we say to ourselves, commonly referred to as self-talk, thoughts or beliefs” (Discrimination from Ignorance p 4-5). But, when we enable ourselves to be vexed, restless or furious in light of the fact that we don’t know something or misjudge things about another person, we build up a mentality of segregation or partiality.

Another cause of discrimination is the impact media and developing technology have on society.

You will find that most people have a fear of difference “Prejudice is an antipathy towards another person based upon pre-existing belief or opinion, resulting from some form of social categorisation or membership of a particular group. It relies upon a stereotypical characterisation, or generalisation, of others, which is not grounded in evidence or experience”(Cantle, p1). biased perspectives are not founded on same decisions and are characteristically vile. Now and again, the perspectives held about the individuals from another gathering are so misrepresented and misinterpreted that they turn out to be relatively ludicrous. Be that as it may, it is anything but difficult to expel them as the result of insensible and shut personalities as they can frequently be a piece of a social framework which makes a various leveled arrange, defending segregation so as to safeguard the situation of the predominant gathering.

Cite this page

Main Causes of Discrimination. (2020, May 10). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/main-causes-of-discrimination/

"Main Causes of Discrimination." PapersOwl.com , 10 May 2020, https://papersowl.com/examples/main-causes-of-discrimination/

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Main Causes of Discrimination . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/main-causes-of-discrimination/ [Accessed: 5 Oct. 2024]

"Main Causes of Discrimination." PapersOwl.com, May 10, 2020. Accessed October 5, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/main-causes-of-discrimination/

"Main Causes of Discrimination," PapersOwl.com , 10-May-2020. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/main-causes-of-discrimination/. [Accessed: 5-Oct-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Main Causes of Discrimination . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/main-causes-of-discrimination/ [Accessed: 5-Oct-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Discrimination and Prejudice — Discrimination

Essays on Discrimination

Discrimination is a pervasive issue that affects individuals and groups across various aspects of society. When writing an essay on discrimination, it's important to choose a topic that is not only relevant but also thought-provoking. The right topic can make your essay more engaging and relevant, while the wrong topic can make it feel stale and unoriginal. Here is a list of discrimination essay topics categorized by different aspects of discrimination.

When choosing a discrimination essay topic, consider your interests, personal experiences, and the current social and political climate. It is essential to select a topic that is relevant and meaningful to you, as it will make the writing process more enjoyable and authentic. Additionally, think about the audience you are writing for and aim to select a topic that will engage and educate them.

List of Discrimination Essay Topics

Racial discrimination.

• The impact of racial profiling on minority communities
• The role of media in perpetuating racial stereotypes
• Exploring the concept of white privilege
• Racial discrimination in the workplace
• Colorism within communities of color

Gender Discrimination

• The effects of gender discrimination on women's mental health
• The gender pay gap and its implications
• The portrayal of gender in the media
• Challenges faced by transgender individuals in society
• The intersectionality of gender and race in discrimination

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

• The impact of conversion therapy on LGBTQ+ individuals
• Discrimination against same-sex couples in adoption and parenting
• Homophobia and transphobia in sports
• The portrayal of LGBTQ+ individuals in popular culture
• The impact of religious beliefs on LGBTQ+ discrimination

Disability Discrimination

• Accessibility challenges faced by individuals with disabilities
• The stigmatization of mental health conditions
• The portrayal of disabilities in the media
• The impact of ableism in the workplace
• The intersectionality of race and disability in discrimination

Age Discrimination

• The discrimination faced by older adults in the workforce
• The portrayal of aging in popular culture
• Ageism in healthcare and medical treatment
• The impact of age discrimination on mental health
• Challenges faced by young individuals in a society focused on age

Writing about discrimination is an important task, as it helps raise awareness of various forms of discrimination and promotes understanding and equality. The topic you choose can help you address specific issues and explore different perspectives, making your essay more impactful and thought-provoking. Therefore, it is crucial to select a topic that resonates with you and has the potential to spark meaningful discussions.

These are just a few examples of discrimination essay topics to consider. When choosing a topic, remember to research and gather information from reputable sources to support your arguments. By selecting a compelling and relevant topic, you can create an impactful and thought-provoking essay that contributes to the ongoing dialogue on discrimination.

Alzheimer's Disease: a Student Perspective

The scholarship jacket: a symbol of inequality and discrimination, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Exploring Discourse Communities: a Student's Perspective

The history of discrimination in america, the hidden impact of internalized racism on psychology and society, the issue of employment discrimination in america, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Race Discrimination System in The Workplace

The discrimination and bigotry faced by the lgbtq society, racism and discrimination in the shining country - america, discrimination african-americans in i have a dream, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Civil Rights Movement and African American Discriminations

Gender and racial discrimination on example of "hidden figures" & "the hate u give", the problem of hatred, racism, and discrimination in america, the root of racial discrimination in society, modern examples of discrimination and possible solutions, gender discrimination in society and its possible solutions, analysis of the problems faced by intersectional people, racism in the united states of america, rosa parks' fight for women's rights and social justice, the problem of women sexism in advertising, the role of stereotypes, racism, and hate nowadays, police brutality and partiality toward african americans, racial tendencies existing in our world and their impact on minorities, example of discrimsnation in the hate u give, gender and race based income inequality and its impacts on people, oppression of minorities in modern society, fight against affirmative action: pros and cons, the rising issue of discrimination against asian american, gender prejudice and discrimination in workplace, the discrimination of asian american on the government level.

Discrimination is the intended or accomplished differential treatment of persons or social groups for reasons of certain generalized traits.

People may be discriminated on the basis of age, caste, disability, language, name, nationality, race or ethnicity, region, religious beliefs, sex, sex characteristics, gender, and gender identity, sexual orientation. There is also reverse discrimination, which is a discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.

Racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia, or cissexism (discrimination against transgender persons), classism (discrimination based on social class), lookism (discrimination based on physical appearance), and ableism (discrimination based on disability).

Nearly half (45%) of African Americans experienced racial discrimination when trying to rent an apartment or buy a home. Nearly 1 in 5 Latinos have avoided medical care due to concern of being discriminated against or treated poorly. 34% of LGBTQ Americans say they that they or a friend have been verbally harassed while using the restroom. 41% of women report being discriminated against in equal pay and promotion opportunities.

Relevant topics

• Racial Profiling
• Illegal Immigration
• Gun Control
• I Have a Dream
• Gun Violence
• Death Penalty

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

10 Causes of Gender Inequality

Over the years, the world has gotten closer to achieving gender equality. There is better representation of women in politics, more economic opportunities, and better healthcare in many places of the world. However, the World Economic Forum estimates it will take another century before true gender equality becomes a reality. What drives the gap between genders? Here are 10 causes of gender inequality:

#1. Uneven access to education

Around the world, women still have less access to education than men. ¼ of young women between 15-24 will not finish primary school . That group makes up 58% of the people not completing that basic education. Of all the illiterate people in the world, ⅔ are women. When girls are not educated on the same level as boys, it has a huge effect on their future and the kinds of opportunities they’ll get.

#2. Lack of employment equality

Only 6 countries in the world give women the same legal work rights as men. In fact, most economies give women only ¾ the rights of men. Studies show that if employment became a more even playing field, it has a positive domino effect on other areas prone to gender inequality.

#3. Job segregation

One of the causes for gender inequality within employment is the division of jobs. In most societies, there’s an inherent belief that men are simply better equipped to handle certain jobs. Most of the time, those are the jobs that pay the best. This discrimination results in lower income for women. Women also take on the primary responsibility for unpaid labor, so even as they participate in the paid workforce, they have extra work that never gets recognized financially.

#4. Lack of legal protections

According to research from the World Bank , over one billion women don’t have legal protection against domestic sexual violence or domestic economic violence. Both have a significant impact on women’s ability to thrive and live in freedom. In many countries, there’s also a lack of legal protections against harassment in the workplace, at school, and in public. These places become unsafe and without protection, women frequently have to make decisions that compromise and limit their goals.

#5. Lack of bodily autonomy

Many women around the world do not have authority over their own bodies or when they become parents. Accessing birth control is frequently very difficult. According to the World Health Organization , over 200 million women who don’t want to get pregnant are not using contraception. There are various reasons for this such as a lack of options, limited access, and cultural/religious opposition. On a global scale, about 40% of pregnancies are not planned and while 50% of them do end in abortion, 38% result in births. These mothers often become financially dependent on another person or the state, losing their freedom.

#6. Poor medical care

In addition to limited access to contraception, women overall receive lower-quality medical care than men. This is linked to other gender inequality reasons such as a lack of education and job opportunities, which results in more women being in poverty. They are less likely to be able to afford good healthcare. There’s also been less research into diseases that affect women more than men, such as autoimmune disorders and chronic pain conditions. Many women also experience discrimination and dismissal from their doctors, broadening the gender gap in healthcare quality.

#7. Lack of religious freedom

When religious freedom is attacked, women suffer the most. According to the World Economic Forum , when extremist ideologies (such as ISIS) come into a community and restrict religious freedom, gender inequality gets worse. In a study performed by Georgetown University and Brigham Young University, researchers were also able to connect religious intolerance with women’s ability to participate in the economy. When there’s more religious freedom, an economy becomes more stable thanks to women’s participation.

#8. Lack of political representation

Of all national parliaments at the beginning of 2019, only 24.3% of seats were filled by women. As of June of 2019, 11 Heads of State were women. Despite progress in this area over the years, women are still grossly underrepresented in government and the political process. This means that certain issues that female politicians tend to bring up – such as parental leave and childcare, pensions, gender equality laws and gender-based violence – are often neglected.

It would be impossible to talk about gender inequality without talking about racism. It affects what jobs women of color are able to get and how much they’re paid, as well as how they are viewed by legal and healthcare systems. Gender inequality and racism have been closely-linked for a long time. According to Sally Kitch, a professor and author, European settlers in Virginia decided what work could be taxed based on the race of the woman performing the work. African women’s work was “labor,” so it was taxable, while work performed by English women was “domestic” and not taxable. The pay gaps between white women and women of color continues that legacy of discrimination and contributes to gender inequality.

#10. Societal mindsets

It’s less tangible than some of the other causes on this list, but the overall mindset of a society has a significant impact on gender inequality. How society determines the differences and value of men vs. women plays a starring role in every arena, whether it’s employment or the legal system or healthcare. Beliefs about gender run deep and even though progress can be made through laws and structural changes, there’s often a pushback following times of major change. It’s also common for everyone (men and women) to ignore other areas of gender inequality when there’s progress, such as better representation for women in leadership . These types of mindsets prop up gender inequality and delay significant change.

Related: Take a free course on Gender Equality

You may also like

13 Ways Inequality Affects Society

15 Inspiring Quotes for Transgender Day of Visibility

Freedom of Expression 101: Definition, Examples, Limitations

15 Trusted Charities Addressing Child Poverty

12 Trusted Charities Advancing Women’s Rights

13 Facts about Child Labor

Environmental Racism 101: Definition, Examples, Ways to Take Action

11 Examples of Systemic Injustices in the US

Women’s Rights 101: History, Examples, Activists

What is Social Activism?

15 Inspiring Movies about Activism

15 Examples of Civil Disobedience

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets

Persistent racial inequality in employment, housing, and a wide range of other social domains has renewed interest in the possible role of discrimination. And yet, unlike in the pre–civil rights era, when racial prejudice and discrimination were overt and widespread, today discrimination is less readily identifiable, posing problems for social scientific conceptualization and measurement. This article reviews the relevant literature on discrimination, with an emphasis on racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit markets, and consumer interactions. We begin by defining discrimination and discussing relevant methods of measurement. We then provide an overview of major findings from studies of discrimination in each of the four domains; and, finally, we turn to a discussion of the individual, organizational, and structural mechanisms that may underlie contemporary forms of discrimination. This discussion seeks to orient readers to some of the key debates in the study of discrimination and to provide a roadmap for those interested in building upon this long and important line of research.

Persistent racial inequality in employment, housing, and other social domains has renewed interest in the possible role of discrimination. Contemporary forms of discrimination, however, are often subtle and covert, posing problems for social scientific conceptualization and measurement. This article reviews the relevant literature on racial discrimination, providing a roadmap for scholars who wish to build on this rich and important tradition. The charge for this article was a focus on racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit markets, and consumer interactions, but many of the arguments reviewed here may also extend to other domains (e.g., education, health care, the criminal justice system) and to other types of discrimination (e.g., gender, age, sexual orientation). We begin this discussion by defining discrimination and discussing methods for measuring discrimination. We then provide an overview of major findings from studies of discrimination in employment, housing, and credit and consumer markets. Finally, we turn to a discussion of the individual, organizational, and structural mechanisms that may underlie contemporary forms of discrimination.

WHAT IS DISCRIMINATION?

According to its most simple definition, racial discrimination refers to unequal treatment of persons or groups on the basis of their race or ethnicity. In defining racial discrimination, many scholars and legal advocates distinguish between differential treatment and disparate impact, creating a two-part definition: Differential treatment occurs when individuals are treated unequally because of their race. Disparate impact occurs when individuals are treated equally according to a given set of rules and procedures but when the latter are constructed in ways that favor members of one group over another ( Reskin 1998 , p. 32; National Research Council 2004 , pp. 39–40). The second component of this definition broadens its scope to include decisions and processes that may not themselves have any explicit racial content but that have the consequence of producing or reinforcing racial disadvantage. Beyond more conventional forms of individual discrimination, institutional processes such as these are important to consider in assessing how valued opportunities are structured by race.

A key feature of any definition of discrimination is its focus on behavior. Discrimination is distinct from racial prejudice (attitudes), racial stereotypes (beliefs), and racism (ideologies) that may also be associated with racial disadvantage (see Quillian 2006 ). Discrimination may be motivated by prejudice, stereotypes, or racism, but the definition of discrimination does not presume any unique underlying cause.

HOW CAN WE MEASURE DISCRIMINATION?

More than a century of social science interest in the question of discrimination has resulted in numerous techniques to isolate and identify its presence and to document its effects ( National Research Council 2004 ). Although no method is without its limitations, together these techniques provide a range of perspectives that can help to inform our understanding of whether, how, and to what degree discrimination matters in the lives of contemporary American racial minorities.

Perceptions of Discrimination

Numerous surveys have asked African Americans and other racial minorities about their experiences with discrimination in the workplace, in their search for housing, and in other everyday social settings ( Schuman et al. 2001 ). One startling conclusion from this line of research is the frequency with which discrimination is reported. A 2001 survey, for example, found that more than one-third of blacks and nearly 20% of Hispanics and Asians reported that they had personally been passed over for a job or promotion because of their race or ethnicity ( Schiller 2004 ). A 1997 Gallup poll found that nearly half of all black respondents reported having experienced discrimination at least once in one of five common situations in the past month ( Gallup Organ. 1997 ). Further, the frequency with which discrimination is reported does not decline among those higher in the social hierarchy; in fact, middle-class blacks are as likely to perceive discrimination as are working-class blacks, if not more ( Feagin & Sikes 1994 , Kessler et al. 1990 ). Patterns of perceived discrimination are important findings in their own right, as research shows that those who perceive high levels of discrimination are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and other negative health outcomes ( Kessler et al. 1990 ). Furthermore, perceived discrimination may lead to diminished effort or performance in education or the labor market, which itself gives rise to negative outcomes ( Ogbu 1991 ; Steele 1997 ; Loury 2002 , pp. 26–33). What remains unclear from this line of research, however, is to what extent perceptions of discrimination correspond to some reliable depiction of reality. Because events may be misperceived or overlooked, perceptions of discrimination may over- or underestimate the actual incidence of discrimination.

Reports by Potential Discriminators

Another line of social science research focuses on the attitudes and actions of dominant groups for insights into when and how racial considerations come into play. In addition to the long tradition of survey research on racial attitudes and stereotypes among the general population (cf. Schuman et al. 2001 , Farley et al. 1994 ), a number of researchers have developed interview techniques aimed at gauging propensities toward discrimination among employers and other gatekeepers. Harry Holzer has conducted a number of employer surveys in which employers are asked a series of questions about “the last worker hired for a noncollege job,” thereby grounding employers’ responses in a concrete recent experience (e.g., Holzer 1996 ). In this format, race is asked about as only one incidental characteristic in a larger series of questions concerning this recent employee, thereby reducing the social desirability bias often triggered when the subject of race is highlighted. Likewise, by focusing on a completed action, the researcher is able to document revealed preferences rather than expressed ones and to examine the range of employer, job, and labor market characteristics that may be associated with hiring decisions.

A second prominent approach to investigating racial discrimination in employment has relied on in-depth, in-person interviews, which can be effective in eliciting candid discussions about sensitive hiring issues. Kirschenman & Neckerman (1991) , for example, describe employers’ blatant admission of their avoidance of young, inner-city black men in their search for workers. Attributing characteristics such as “lazy” and “unreliable” to this group, the employers included in their study were candid in their expressions of strong racial preferences in considering low wage workers (p. 213; see also Wilson 1996 , Moss & Tilly 2001 ). These in-depth studies have been invaluable in providing detailed accounts of what goes through the minds of employers—at least consciously— as they evaluate members of different groups. However, we must keep in mind that racial attitudes are not always predictive of corresponding behavior ( LaPiere 1934 , Allport 1954 , Pager & Quillian 2005 ). Indeed, Moss & Tilly (2001) report the puzzling finding that “businesses where a plurality of managers complained about black motivation are more likely to hire black men” (p. 151). Hiring decisions (as with decisions to rent a home or approve a mortgage) are influenced by a complex range of factors, racial attitudes being only one. Where understanding persistent racial prejudice and stereotypes is surely an important goal in and of itself, this approach will not necessarily reveal the extent of discrimination in action.

Statistical Analyses

Perhaps the most common approach to studying discrimination is by investigating inequality in outcomes between groups. Rather than focusing on the attitudes or perceptions of actors that may be correlated with acts of discrimination, this approach looks to the possible consequences of discrimination in the unequal distribution of employment, housing, or other social and economic resources. Using large-scale datasets, researchers can identify systematic disparities between groups and chart their direction over time. Important patterns can also be detected through detailed and systematic case studies of individual firms, which often provide a richer array of indicators with which to assess patterns of discrimination (e.g., Castilla 2008 , Petersen & Saporta 2004 , Fernandez & Friedrich 2007 ).

Discrimination in statistical models is often measured as the residual race gap in any outcome that remains after controlling for all other race-related influences. Differences may be identified through the main effect of race, suggesting a direct effect of race on an outcome of interest, or through an interaction between race and one or more human capital characteristics, suggesting differential returns to human capital investments on the basis of race ( Oaxaca 1973 ; National Research Council 2004 , chapter 7). The main liability of this approach is that it is difficult to effectively account for the multitude of factors relevant to unequal outcomes, leaving open the possibility that the disparities we attribute to discrimination may in fact be explained by some other unmeasured cause(s). In statistical analyses of labor market outcomes, for example, even after controlling for standard human capital variables (e.g., education, work experience), a whole host of employment-related characteristics typically remain unaccounted for. Characteristics such as reliability, motivation, interpersonal skills, and punctuality, for example, are each important to finding and keeping a job, but these are characteristics that are often difficult to capture with survey data (see, for example, Farkas & Vicknair 1996 , Farkas 2003 ). Complicating matters further, some potential control variables may themselves be endogenous to the process under investigation. Models estimating credit discrimination, for example, typically include controls for asset accumulation and credit history, which may themselves be in part the byproduct of discrimination ( Yinger 1998 , pp. 26–27). Likewise, controls for work experience or firm tenure may be endogenous to the process of employment discrimination if minorities are excluded from those opportunities necessary to building stable work histories (see Tomaskovic-Devey et al. 2005 ). While statistical models represent an extremely important approach to the study of race differentials, researchers should use caution in making causal interpretations of the indirect measures of discrimination derived from residual estimates. For a more detailed discussion of the challenges and possibilities of statistical approaches to measuring discrimination, see the National Research Council (2004 , chapter 7).

Experimental Approaches to Measuring Discrimination

Experimental approaches to measuring discrimination excel in exactly those areas in which statistical analyses flounder. Experiments allow researchers to measure causal effects more directly by presenting carefully constructed and controlled comparisons. In a laboratory experiment by Dovidio & Gaertner (2000) , for example, subjects (undergraduate psychology students) took part in a simulated hiring experiment in which they were asked to evaluate the application materials for black and white job applicants of varying qualification levels. When applicants were either highly qualified or poorly qualified for the position, there was no evidence of discrimination. When applicants had acceptable but ambiguous qualifications, however, participants were nearly 70% more likely to recommend the white applicant than the black applicant (see also Biernat & Kobrynowicz’s 1997 discussion of shifting standards). 1

Although laboratory experiments offer some of the strongest evidence of causal relationships, we do not know the extent to which their findings relate to the kinds of decisions made in their social contexts—to hire, to rent, to move, for example—that are most relevant to understanding the forms of discrimination that produce meaningful social disparities. Seeking to bring more realism to the investigation, some researchers have moved experiments out of the laboratory and into the field. Field experiments offer a direct measure of discrimination in real-world contexts. In these experiments, typically referred to as audit studies, researchers carefully select, match, and train individuals (called testers) to play the part of a job/apartment-seeker or consumer. By presenting equally qualified individuals who differ only by race or ethnicity, researchers can assess the degree to which racial considerations affect access to opportunities. Audit studies have documented strong evidence of discrimination in the context of employment (for a review, see Pager 2007a ), housing searches ( Yinger 1995 ), car sales ( Ayres & Siegelman 1995 ), applications for insurance ( Wissoker et al. 1998 ), home mortgages ( Turner & Skidmore 1999 ), the provision of medical care ( Schulman et al. 1999 ), and even in hailing taxis ( Ridley et al. 1989 ).

Although experimental methods are appealing in their ability to isolate causal effects, they nevertheless suffer from some important limitations. Critiques of the audit methodology have focused on questions of internal validity (e.g., experimenter effects, the problems of effective tester matching), generalizability (e.g., the use of overqualified testers, the limited sampling frame for the selection of firms to be audited), and the ethics of audit research (see Heckman 1998 , Pager 2007a for a more extensive discussion of these issues). In addition, audit studies are often costly and difficult to implement and can only be used for selective decision points (e.g., hiring decisions but not training, promotion, termination, etc.).

Studies of Law and Legal Records

Since the civil rights era, legal definitions and accounts of discrimination have been central to both popular and scholarly understandings of discrimination. Accordingly, an additional window into the dynamics of discrimination involves the use of legal records from formal discrimination claims. Whether derived from claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the courts, or state-level Fair Employment/Fair Housing Bureaus, official records documenting claims of discrimination can provide unique insight into the patterns of discrimination and antidiscrimination enforcement in particular contexts and over time.

Roscigno (2007) , for example, analyzed thousands of “serious claims” filed with the Civil Rights Commission of Ohio related to both employment and housing discrimination. These claims document a range of discriminatory behaviors, from harassment, to exclusion, to more subtle forms of racial bias. [See also Harris et al. (2005) for a similar research design focusing on federal court claims of consumer discrimination.] Although studies relying on formal discrimination claims necessarily overlook those incidents that go unnoticed or unreported, these records provide a rare opportunity to witness detailed descriptions of discrimination events across a wide range of social domains not typically observed in conventional research designs.

Other studies use discrimination claims, not to assess patterns of discrimination, but to investigate trends in the application of antidiscrimination law. Nielsen & Nelson (2005) provide an overview of research in this area, examining the pathways by which potential claims (or perceived discrimination) develop into formal legal action, or conversely the many points at which potential claims are deflected from legal action. Hirsh & Kornrich (2008) examine how characteristics of the workplace and institutional environment affect variation in the incidence of discrimination claims and their verification by EEOC investigators. Donohue & Siegelman (1991 , 2005 ) analyze discrimination claims from 1970 through 1997 to chart changes in the nature of antidiscrimination enforcement over time. The overall volume of discrimination claims increased substantially over this period, though the composition of claims shifted away from an emphasis on racial discrimination toward a greater emphasis on gender and disability discrimination. Likewise, the types of employment discrimination claims have shifted from an emphasis on hiring discrimination to an overwhelming emphasis on wrongful termination, and class action suits have become increasingly rare. The authors interpret these trends not as indicators of changes in the actual distribution of discrimination events, but rather as reflections of the changing legal environment in which discrimination cases are pursued (including, for example, changes to civil rights law and changes in the receptivity of the courts to various types of discrimination claims), which themselves may have implications for the expression of discrimination ( Donohue & Siegelman 1991 , 2005 ).

Finally, a number of researchers have exploited changes in civil rights and antidiscrimination laws as a source of exogenous variation through which to measure changes in discrimination (see Holzer & Ludwig 2003 ). Freeman (1973 , see table 6 therein), for example, investigates the effectiveness of federal EEO laws by comparing the black-white income gap before and after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Heckman & Payner (1989) use microdata from textile plants in South Carolina to study the effects of race on employment between 1940 and 1980, concluding that federal antidiscrimination policy resulted in a significant improvement in black economic status between 1965 and 1975. More recent studies exploiting changes in the legal context include Kelly & Dobbin (1998) , who examine the effects of changing enforcement regimes on employers’ implementation of diversity initiatives; Kalev & Dobbin (2006) , who examine the relative impact of compliance reviews and lawsuits on the representation of women and minorities in management positions; and a volume edited by Skrentny (2001) , which examines many of the complex and unexpected facets related to the rise, expansion, and impact of affirmative action and diversity policies in the United States and internationally.

Although no research method is without flaws, careful consideration of the range of methods available helps to match one’s research question with the appropriate empirical strategy. Comparisons across studies can help to shed light on the relative strengths and weaknesses of existing methodological approaches (see National Research Council 2004 ). At the same time, one must keep in mind that the nature of discrimination may itself be a moving target, with the forms and patterns of discrimination shifting over time and across domains (see Massey 2005 , p. 148). These complexities challenge our traditional modes of operationalization and encourage us to continue to update and refine our measures to allow for an adequate accounting of contemporary forms of racial discrimination.

IS DISCRIMINATION STILL A PROBLEM?

Simple as it may be, one basic question that preoccupies the contemporary literature on discrimination centers around its continuing relevance. Whereas 50 years ago acts of discrimination were overt and widespread, today it is harder to assess the degree to which everyday experiences and opportunities may be shaped by ongoing forms of discrimination. Indeed, the majority of white Americans believe that a black person today has the same chance at getting a job as an equally qualified white person, and only a third believe that discrimination is an important explanation for why blacks do worse than whites in income, housing, and jobs ( Pager 2007a ). Academic literature has likewise questioned the relevance of discrimination for modern-day outcomes, with the rising importance of skill, structural changes in the economy, and other nonracial factors accounting for increasing amounts of variance in individual outcomes ( Heckman 1998 , Wilson 1978 ). Indeed, discrimination is not the only nor even the most important factor shaping contemporary opportunities. Nevertheless, it is important to understand when and how discrimination does play a role in the allocation of resources and opportunities. In the following discussion, we examine the evidence of discrimination in four domains: employment, housing, credit markets, and consumer markets. Although not an exhaustive review of the literature, this discussion aims to identify the major findings and debates within each of these areas of research.

Although there have been some remarkable gains in the labor force status of racial minorities, significant disparities remain. African Americans are twice as likely to be unemployed as whites (Hispanics are only marginally so), and the wages of both blacks and Hispanics continue to lag well behind those of whites (author’s analysis of Current Population Survey, 2006). A long line of research has examined the degree to which discrimination plays a role in shaping contemporary labor market disparities.

Experimental audit studies focusing on hiring decisions have consistently found strong evidence of racial discrimination, with estimates of white preference ranging from 50% to 240% ( Cross et al. 1989 , Turner et al. 1991 , Fix & Struyk 1993 , Bendick et al. 1994 ; see Pager 2007a for a review). For example, in a study by Bertrand & Mullainathan (2004) , the researchers mailed equivalent resumes to employers in Boston and Chicago using racially identifiable names to signal race (for example, names like Jamal and Lakisha signaled African Americans, while Brad and Emily were associated with whites). 2 White names triggered a callback rate that was 50% higher than that of equally qualified black applicants. Further, their study indicated that improving the qualifications of applicants benefited white applicants but not blacks, thus leading to a wider racial gap in response rates for those with higher skill.

Statistical studies of employment outcomes likewise reveal large racial disparities unaccounted for by observed human capital characteristics. Tomaskovic-Devey et al. (2005) present evidence from a fixed-effects model indicating that black men spend significantly more time searching for work, acquire less work experience, and experience less stable employment than do whites with otherwise equivalent characteristics. Wilson et al. (1995) find that, controlling for age, education, urban location, and occupation, black male high school graduates are 70% more likely to experience involuntary unemployment than whites with similar characteristics and that this disparity increases among those with higher levels of education. At more aggregate levels, research points to the persistence of occupational segregation, with racial minorities concentrated in jobs with lower levels of stability and authority and with fewer opportunities for advancement ( Parcel & Mueller 1983 , Smith 2002 ). Of course, these residual estimates cannot control for all relevant factors, such as motivation, effort, access to useful social networks, and other factors that may produce disparities in the absence of direct discrimination. Nevertheless, these estimates suggest that blacks and whites with observably similar human capital characteristics experience markedly different employment outcomes.

Unlike the cases of hiring and employment, research on wage disparities comes to more mixed conclusions. An audit study by Bendick et al. (1994) finds that, among those testers who were given job offers, whites were offered wages that were on average 15 cents/hour higher than their equally qualified black test partners; audit studies in general, however, provide limited information on wages, as many testers never make it to the wage setting stage of the employment process. Some statistical evidence comes to similar conclusions. Cancio et al. (1996) , for example, find that, controlling for parental background, education, work experience, tenure, and training, white men earn roughly 15% more than comparable blacks (white women earned 6% more than comparable black women). Farkas & Vicknair (1996) , however, using a different dataset, find that the addition of controls for cognitive ability eliminates the racial wage gap for young black and white full-time workers. According to the authors, these findings suggest that racial differences in labor market outcomes are due more to factors that precede labor market entry (e.g., skill acquisition) rather than discrimination within the labor market (see also Neal & Johnson 1996 ).

Overall, then, the literature points toward consistent evidence of discrimination in access to employment, but less consistent evidence of discrimination in wages. Differing methodologies and/or model specification may account for some of the divergent results. But there is also reason to believe that the processes affecting access to employment (e.g., the influence of first impressions, the absence of more reliable information on prospective employees, and minimal legal oversight) may be more subject to discriminatory decision making than those affecting wages. Further, the findings regarding employment and wages may be in part causally related, as barriers to labor market entry will lead to a more select sample of black wage earners, reducing measured racial disparities (e.g., Western & Pettit 2005 ). These findings point to the importance of modeling discrimination as a process rather than a single-point outcome, with disparities in premarket skills acquisition, barriers to labor market entry, and wage differentials each part of a larger employment trajectory and shaped to differing degrees by discrimination.

Residential segregation by race remains a salient feature of contemporary American cities. Indeed, African Americans were as segregated from whites in 1990 as they had been at the start of the twentieth century, and levels of segregation appear unaffected by rising socioeconomic status ( Massey & Denton 1993 ). Although segregation appears to have modestly decreased between 1980 and 2000 ( Logan et al. 2004 ), blacks (and to a lesser extent other minority groups) continue to experience patterns of residential placement markedly different from whites. The degree to which discrimination contributes to racial disparities in housing has been a major preoccupation of social scientists and federal housing agents ( Charles 2003 ).

The vast majority of the work on discrimination in housing utilizes experimental audit data. For example, between 2000 and 2002 the Department of Housing and Urban Development conducted an extensive series of audits measuring housing discrimination against blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans, including nearly 5500 paired tests in nearly 30 metropolitan areas [see Turner et al. (2002) , Turner & Ross (2003a) ; see also Hakken (1979) , Feins & Bratt (1983) , Yinger (1986) , Roychoudhury & Goodman (1992 , 1996 ) for additional, single-city audits of housing discrimination]. The study results reveal bias across multiple dimensions, with blacks experiencing consistent adverse treatment in roughly one in five housing searches and Hispanics experiencing consistent adverse treatment in roughly one out of four housing searches (both rental and sales). 3 Measured discrimination took the form of less information offered about units, fewer opportunities to view units, and, in the case of home buyers, less assistance with financing and steering into less wealthy communities and neighborhoods with a higher proportion of minority residents.

Generally, the results of the 2000 Housing Discrimination Study indicate that aggregate levels of discrimination against blacks declined modestly in both rentals and sales since 1989 (although levels of racial steering increased). Discrimination against Hispanics in housing sales declined, although Hispanics experienced increasing levels of discrimination in rental markets.

Other research using telephone audits further points to a gender and class dimension of racial discrimination in which black women and/or blacks who speak in a manner associated with a lower-class upbringing suffer greater discrimination than black men and/or those signaling a middle-class upbringing ( Massey & Lundy 2001 , Purnell et al. 1999 ). Context also matters in the distribution of discrimination events ( Fischer & Massey 2004 ). Turner & Ross (2005) report that segregation and class steering of blacks occurs most often when either the housing or the office of the real estate agent is in a predominantly white neighborhood. Multi-city audits likewise suggest that the incidence of discrimination varies substantially across metropolitan contexts ( Turner et al. 2002 ).

Moving beyond evidence of exclusionary treatment, Roscigno and colleagues (2007) provide evidence of the various forms of housing discrimination that can extend well beyond the point of purchase (or rental agreement). Examples from a sample of discrimination claims filed with the Civil Rights Commission of Ohio point to the failure of landlords to provide adequate maintenance for housing units, to harassment or physical threats by managers or neighbors, and to the unequal enforcement of a residential association’s rules.

Overall, the available evidence suggests that discrimination in rental and housing markets remains pervasive. Although there are some promising signs of change, the frequency with which racial minorities experience differential treatment in housing searches suggests that discrimination remains an important barrier to residential opportunities. The implications of these trends for other forms of inequality (health, employment, wealth, and inheritance) are discussed below.

Credit Markets

Whites possess roughly 12 times the wealth of African Americans; in fact, whites near the bottom of the income distribution possess more wealth than blacks near the top of the income distribution ( Oliver & Shapiro 1997 , p. 86). Given that home ownership is one of the most significant sources of wealth accumulation, patterns that affect the value and viability of home ownership will have an impact on wealth disparities overall. Accordingly, the majority of work on discrimination in credit markets focuses on the specific case of mortgages.

Available evidence suggests that blacks and Hispanics face higher rejection rates and less favorable terms in securing mortgages than do whites with similar credit characteristics ( Ross & Yinger 1999 ). Oliver & Shapiro (1997 , p. 142) report that blacks pay more than 0.5% higher interest rates on home mortgages than do whites and that this difference persists with controls for income level, date of purchase, and age of buyer.

The most prominent study of the effect of race on rejection rates for mortgage loans is by Munnell et al. (1996) , which uses 1991 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data supplemented by data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, including individual applicants’ financial, employment, and property background variables that lenders use to calculate the applicants’ probability of default. Accounting for a range of variables linked to risk of default, cost of default, loan characteristics, and personal and neighborhood characteristics, they find that black and Hispanic applications were 82% more likely to be rejected than were those from similar whites. Critics argued that the study was flawed on the basis of the quality of the data collected ( Horne 1994 ), model specification problems ( Glennon & Stengel 1994 ), omitted variables ( Zandi 1993 , Liebowitz 1993 , Horne 1994 , Day & Liebowitz 1996 ), and endogenous explanatory variables (see Ross & Yinger 1999 for a full explication of the opposition), although rejoinders suggest that the race results are affected little by these modifications ( Ross & Yinger 1999 ; S.L. Ross & G.M.B. Tootell, unpublished manuscript).

Audit research corroborates evidence of mortgage discrimination, finding that black testers are less likely to receive a quote for a loan than are white testers and that they are given less time with the loan officer, are quoted higher interest rates, and are given less coaching and less information than are comparable white applicants (for a review, see Ross & Yinger 2002 ).

In addition to investigating the race of the applicant, researchers have investigated the extent to which the race of the neighborhood affects lending decisions, otherwise known as redlining. Although redlining is a well-documented factor in the origins of contemporary racial residential segregation (see Massey & Denton 1993 ), studies after the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which outlawed redlining, and since the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which made illegal having a smaller pool of mortgage funds available in minority neighborhoods than in similar white neighborhoods, find little evidence of its persistence ( Benston & Horsky 1991 , Schafer & Ladd 1981 , Munnell et al. 1996 ). This conclusion depends in part, however, on one’s definition of neighborhood-based discrimination. Ross & Yinger (1999) distinguish between process-based and outcome-based redlining, with process-based redlining referring to “whether the probability that a loan application is denied is higher in minority neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods, all else equal” whereas outcome-based redlining refers to smaller amounts of mortgage funding available to minority neighborhoods relative to comparable white neighborhoods. Although evidence on both types of redlining is mixed, several studies indicate that, controlling for demand, poor and/or minority neighborhoods have reduced access to mortgage funding, particularly from mainstream lenders ( Phillips-Patrick & Rossi 1996 , Siskin & Cupingood 1996 ; see also Ladd 1998 for methodological issues in measuring redlining).

As a final concern, competition and deregulation of the banking industry have led to greater variability in conditions of loans, prompting the label of the “new inequality” in lending ( Williams et al. 2005 , Holloway 1998 ). Rather than focusing on rejection rates, these researchers focus on the terms and conditions of loans, in particular whether a loan is favorable or subprime ( Williams et al. 2005 , Apgar & Calder 2005 , Squires 2003 ). Immergluck & Wiles (1999) have called this the “dual-mortgage market” in which prime lending is given to higher income and white areas, while subprime and predatory lending is concentrated in lower-income and minority communities (see also Dymski 2006 , pp. 232–36). Williams et al. (2005) , examining changes between 1993 and 2000, find rapid gains in loans to under-served markets from specialized lenders: 78% of the increase in lending to minority neighborhoods was from subprime lenders, and 72% of the increase in refinance lending to blacks was from subprime lenders. Further, the authors find that “even at the highest income level, blacks are almost three times as likely to get their loans from a subprime lender as are others” (p. 197; see also Calem et al. 2004 ). Although the disproportionate rise of subprime lending in minority communities is not solely the result of discrimination, some evidence suggests that in certain cases explicit racial targeting may be at work. In two audit studies in which creditworthy testers approached sub-prime lenders, whites were more likely to be referred to the lenders’ prime borrowing division than were similar black applicants (see Williams et al. 2005 ). Further, subprime lenders quoted the black applicants very high rates, fees, and closing costs that were not correlated with risk ( Williams et al. 2005 ). 4

Not all evidence associated with credit market discrimination is bad news. Indeed, between 1989 and 2000 the number of mortgage loans to blacks and Hispanics nationwide increased 60%, compared with 16% for whites, suggesting that some convergence is taking place ( Turner et al. 2002 ). Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that blacks and Hispanics continue to face higher rejection rates and receive less favorable terms than whites of equal credit risk. At the time of this writing, the U.S. housing market is witnessing high rates of loan defaults and foreclosures, resulting in large part from the rise in unregulated subprime lending; the consequences of these trends for deepening racial inequalities have yet to be fully explored.

Consumer Markets

Relative to employment, housing, and credit markets, far less research focuses on discrimination in consumer transactions. Nevertheless, there are some salient disparities. A 2005 report by New Jersey Citizen Action using data from two New Jersey lawsuits found that, between 1993 and 2000, blacks and Hispanics were disproportionately subject to financing markup charges at car dealerships, with minority customers paying an average of $339 more than whites with similar credit histories. Harris et al. (2005) analyze federal court cases of consumer discrimination filed from 1990 to 2002, examining the dimensions of subtle and overt degradation (including extended waiting periods, prepay requirements, and higher prices, as well as increased surveillance and verbal and/or physical attacks) and subtle and overt denial of goods and services. They report cases filed in hotels, restaurants, gas stations, grocery/food stores, clothing stores, department stores, home improvement stores, and office equipment stores filed by members of many racial minority groups. Likewise, Feagin & Sikes (1994) document the myriad circumstances in which their middle-class African American respondents report experiences of discrimination, ranging from poor service in restaurants to heightened surveillance in department stores to outright harassment in public accommodations. Together, these studies suggest that discrimination in consumer markets continues to impose both psychic and financial costs on minority consumers.

Much of the empirical work on discrimination in consumer markets has focused specifically on the case of car purchases, which, aside from housing, represent one of the most significant forms of personal consumption expenditures ( Council of Economic Advisers 1997 , table B-14). 5 Ayres & Siegelman (1995) conducted an audit study in Chicago in which testers posed as customers seeking to purchase a new car, approaching dealers with identical rehearsed bargaining strategies. The results show that dealers were less flexible in their negotiations with blacks, resulting in a significant disparity in the ultimate distribution of prices (relative to white men, black men and black women paid on average $1132 and $446 more, respectively) ( Ayres 1995 ). Although analyses using microdata have come to more mixed conclusions about the relevance of race in actual car purchase prices (see Goldberg 1996 , Morton et al. 2003 ), the audit evidence suggests that simply equating information, strategy, and credit background is insufficient to eliminate the effects of race on a customer’s bargaining position.

Although much of the literature on consumer discrimination focuses on the race of the individual customer, a few studies have also investigated the effects of community characteristics on the pricing of goods and services. Graddy (1997) , for example, investigated discrimination in pricing among fast food chains on the basis of the race and income characteristics of a local area. Using information about prices from over 400 fast food restaurants, matched with 1990 census data for zip code–level income, race, crime, and population density, and controlling for a host of neighborhood, business, and state-level characteristics, the author finds that a 50% increase in a zip code’s percent black is associated with a 5% increase in the price of a meal, corresponding to roughly 15 cents per meal. The study is a useful example of how discrimination, especially in consumer markets, might be examined as a function of segregated residential patterns, suggesting a more contextualized approach to studying discrimination (see also Moore & Roux 2006 ).

Evidence of consumer discrimination points to a range of situations in which minority customers receive poorer service or pay more than their white counterparts. Although few individual incidents represent debilitating experiences in and of themselves, the accumulation of such experiences over a lifetime may represent an important source of chronic stress ( Kessler et al. 1990 ) or distrust of mainstream institutions ( Feagin & Sikes 1994 , Bobo & Thompson 2006 ). Indeed, the cumulative costs of racial discrimination are likely to be far higher than any single study can document.

WHAT CAUSES DISCRIMINATION?

Measuring the prevalence of discrimination is difficult; identifying its causes is far more so. Patterns of discrimination can be shaped by influences at many different levels, and the specific mechanisms at work are often difficult to observe. Following Reskin (2003) , in this discussion we consider influences that operate at the individual, organizational, and societal level. Each level of analysis contains its own range of dynamics that may instigate or mediate expressions of discrimination. Although by no means an exhaustive catalog, this discussion provides some insight into the range of factors that may underlie various forms of discriminatory behavior.

Intrapsychic Factors

Much of the theoretical work on discrimination aims to understand what motivates actors to discriminate along racial lines. Although internal motivations are difficult to measure empirically ( Reskin 2003 ), their relevance to the understanding and conceptualization of discrimination has been central ( Quillian 2006 ). Classical works in this area emphasized the role of prejudice or racial animus as key underpinnings of discrimination, with feelings and beliefs about the inferiority or undesirability of certain racial groups associated with subsequent disadvantaging behavior ( Allport 1954 , Pettigrew 1982 ). Conceptualizations of prejudice range from individual-level factors, such as an authoritarian personality ( Adorno et al. 1950 ) or a “taste for discrimination” ( Becker 1957 ), to more instrumental concerns over group competition and status closure ( Blumer 1958 , Blalock 1956 , Jackman 1994 , Tilly 1998 ).

Scholars have characterized changes in the nature of racial prejudice over the past 50 years—as expressed through racial attitudes— as shifting toward the endorsement of equal treatment by race and a repudiation of overt forms of prejudice and discrimination ( Schuman et al. 2001 ). Some, however, question the degree to which these visible changes reflect the true underlying sentiments of white Americans or rather a more superficial commitment to racial equality. Theories of “symbolic racism” ( Kinder & Sears 1981 ), “modern racism” ( McConahay 1986 ), and “laissez-faire racism” ( Bobo et al. 1997 ), for example, each point to the disconnect between attitudes of principle (e.g., racial equality as an ideal) and policy attitudes (e.g., government action to achieve those ideals) as indicative of limited change in underlying racial attitudes (but see Sniderman et al. 1991 for a countervailing view). These new formulations of prejudice include a blending of negative affect and beliefs about members of certain groups with more abstract political ideologies that reinforce the status quo.

Whereas sociological research on prejudice is based largely on explicit attitudes measured through large-scale surveys, psychologists have increasingly turned to measures of implicit prejudice, or forms of racial bias that operate without conscious awareness yet can influence cognition, affect, and behavior ( Greenwald & Banaji 1995 , Fazio & Olson 2003 ). Experiments in which subjects are unconsciously primed with words or images associated with African Americans reveal strong negative racial associations, even among those who consciously repudiate prejudicial beliefs. Whereas the links between explicit and implicit forms of prejudice and between implicit prejudice and behavior remain less well understood, the presence of widespread unconscious racial biases has been firmly established across a multitude of contexts (see Lane et al. 2007 ).

Parallel to the study of racial prejudice (the more affective component of racial attitudes) is a rich history of research on racial stereotypes (a more cognitive component). Whereas many general racial attitudes have shifted toward more egalitarian beliefs, the content and valence of racial stereotypes appears to have changed little over time ( Devine & Elliot 1995 , Lane et al. 2007 ). 6 White Americans continue to associate African Americans with characteristics such as lazy, violence-prone, and welfare-dependent and Hispanics with characteristics such as poor, unintelligent, and unpatriotic ( Smith 1991 , Bobo & Kluegel 1997 ). Culturally embedded stereotypes about racial differences are reflected in both conscious and unconscious evaluations ( Greenwald & Banaji 1995 ) and may set the stage for various forms of discriminatory treatment ( Farley et al. 1994 ).

Researchers differ in perspectives regarding the cognitive utility and accuracy of stereotypes. Whereas many social psychologists view stereotypes as “faulty or inflexible generalization[s]” ( Allport 1954 ), economic theories of statistical discrimination emphasize the cognitive utility of group estimates as a means of dealing with the problems of uncertainty ( Phelps 1972 , Arrow 1972 ). Group-level estimates of difficult-to-observe characteristics (such as average productivity levels or risk of loan default) may provide useful information in the screening of individual applicants. Although some important research questions the accuracy of group-level estimates (e.g., Bielby & Baron 1986 ), the mechanism proposed in models of statistical discrimination—rational actors operating under conditions of uncertainty—differ substantially from those based on racial prejudice. Indeed, much of the literature across the various domains discussed above attempts to discern whether discrimination stems primarily from racial animus or from these more instrumental adaptations to information shortages (e.g., Ayres & Siegelman 1995 ).

The various factors discussed here, including prejudice, group competition, modern racism, stereotypes, and statistical discrimination, represent just a few of the varied intrapsychic influences that may affect discrimination. It is important to emphasize, however, that the behavioral manifestation of discrimination does not allow one readily to assume any particular underlying intrapsychic motivation, just as a lack of discrimination does not presume the absence of prejudice (see Merton 1970 ). Continued efforts to measure the processes by which internal states translate into discriminatory action [or what Reskin (2003) calls a shift from “motives” to “mechanisms”] will help to illuminate the underlying causes of contemporary racial discrimination.

Organizational Factors

Beyond the range of interpersonal and intrapsychic factors that may influence discrimination, a large body of work directs our attention toward the organizational contexts in which individual actors operate. Baron & Bielby’s (1980) classic article established a central role for organizations in stratification research, arguing for a framework that links “the ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ dimensions of work organization and inequality” (p. 738). More recent theoretical and empirical advances in the field of discrimination have maintained a strong interest in the role of organizations as a key structural context shaping inequality.

Tilly’s (1998) analysis of durable inequality emphasizes the importance of organizational dynamics in creating and maintaining group boundaries. “Durable inequality arises because people who control access to value-producing resources solve pressing organizational problems by means of categorical distinctions” (p. 8). Although actors “rarely set out to manufacture inequality as such,” their efforts to secure access to valued resources by distinguishing between insiders and outsiders, ensuring solidarity and loyalty, and monopolizing important knowledge often make use of (and thereby reinforce the salience of) established categories in the service of facilitating organizational goals (p. 11). Tilly’s analysis places organizational structure at the center stage, arguing that “the reduction or intensification of racist, sexist, or xenophobic attitudes will have relatively little impact on durable inequality, whereas the introduction of new organizational forms … will have great impact” (p. 15). In line with these arguments, an important line of sociological research has sought to map the dimensions of organizational structures that may attenuate or exacerbate the use of categorical distinctions and, correspondingly, the incidence of discrimination ( Vallas 2003 ).

Much of the empirical literature exploring organizational mechanisms of discrimination has focused specifically on how organizational practices mediate the cognitive biases and stereotypes of actors ( Baron & Pfeffer 1994 ). Indeed, Reskin (2000) argues that “the proximate cause of most discrimination is whether and how personnel practices in work organizations constrain the biasing effects of… automatic cognitive processes” (p. 320). Petersen & Saporta (2004) take a bolder stance, starting with the assumption that “discrimination is widespread, and employers discriminate if they can get away with it” (p. 856). Rather than asking why employers discriminate, then, these authors look to the “opportunity structure for discrimination” (in their case, features of job ladders within organizations) that allow or inhibit the expression of discriminatory tendencies (pp. 855–56).

In the following discussion, we briefly consider several important themes relevant to the literature on organizational mechanisms of discrimination. In particular, we examine how organizational structure and practices influence the cognitive and social psychological processes of decision makers (the role of formalized organizational procedures and diversity initiatives), how organizational practices create disparate outcomes that may be independent of decision makers (the role of networks), and how organizations respond to their broader environment.

The role of formalization

One important debate in this literature focuses on the degree to which formalized organizational procedures can mitigate discrimination by limiting individual discretion. The case of the military ( Moskos & Butler 1996 ), for example, and the public sector more generally ( DiPrete & Soule 1986 , Moulton 1990 ) provide examples in which highly rationalized systems of hiring, promotion, and remuneration are associated with an increasing representation of minorities, greater racial diversity in positions of authority, and a smaller racial wage gap. Likewise, in the private sector, formal and systematic protocols for personnel management decisions are associated with increases in the representation of racial minorities ( Reskin et al. 1999 , Szafran 1982 , Mittman 1992 ), and the use of concrete performance indicators and formalized evaluation systems has been associated with reductions in racial bias in performance evaluations ( Krieger 1995 , Reskin 2000 ).

Individual discretion has been associated with the incidence of discrimination in credit markets as well. For example, Squires (1994) finds that credit history irregularities on policy applications were often selectively overlooked in the case of white applicants. Conversely, Gates et al. (2002) report that the use of automated underwriting systems (removing lender discretion) was associated with a nearly 30% increase in the approval rate for minority and low-income clients and at the same time more accurately predicted default than traditional methods. These findings suggest that formalized procedures can help to reduce racial bias in ways that are consistent with goals of organizational efficiency.

At the same time, increased bureaucratization does not necessarily mitigate discriminatory effects. According to Bielby (2000) , rules and procedures are themselves subject to the influence of groups inside and outside the organization who “mobilize resources in a way that advances their interests,” with competition between groups potentially undermining the neutrality of bureaucratic procedures ( Bielby 2000 , p. 123; see also Ross & Yinger 2002 , Acker 1989 ). Additionally, there is evidence that formalized criteria are often selectively enforced, with greater flexibility or leeway applied in the case of majority groups ( Wilson et al. 1999 , Squires 1994 ). Likewise, indications of racial bias in performance evaluations cast doubt on the degree to which even formalized assessments of work quality can escape the influence of race ( McKay & McDaniel 2006 ). The degree to which formalization can reduce or eliminate discrimination, thus, remains open to debate, with effects depending on the specific context of implementation.

Diversity initiatives

Since the passage of Title VII in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, most large organizations have taken active steps to signal compliance with antidiscrimination laws. Deliberate organizational efforts to address issues of discrimination (or the perception thereof), either in disparate treatment or disparate impact, often are labeled as diversity initiatives, and these practices are widespread. Winterle (1992) cites a 1991 survey of organizations demonstrating that roughly two-thirds provided diversity training for managers, half provided a statement on diversity from top management, and roughly one-third provided diversity training for employees and/or had a diversity task force (see also Wheeler 1995 , Edelman et al. 2001 ). Not all such initiatives, however, have any proven relationship to actual diversity outcomes. Kalev et al. (2006) examine the efficacy of active organizational efforts to promote diversity, focusing specifically on three of the most common organizational practices: the implementation of organizational accountability by creating new positions or taskforces designed specifically to address diversity issues, managerial bias training, and mentoring and network practices. They find that practices designed to increase organizational authority and accountability are the most effective in increasing the number of women and minorities in management positions. Networking and mentoring programs appear somewhat useful, whereas programs focused on reducing bias (e.g., diversity training) have little effect. These results suggest that organizational initiatives to reduce racial disparities can be effective, but primarily when implemented with concrete goals to which organizational leadership is held accountable. 7

Taking a broader look at race-targeted employment policies, Holzer & Neumark (2000) investigate the effects of affirmative action on the recruitment and employment of minorities and women. They find that affirmative action is associated with increases in the number of recruitment and screening practices used by employers, increases in the number of minority applicants and employees, and increases in employers’ tendencies to provide training and formal evaluations of employees. Although the use of affirmative action in hiring is associated with somewhat weaker credentials among minority hires, actual job performance appears unaffected.

The role of networks

In addition to examining how organizational policies and practices shape the behavior of decision makers and gatekeepers, researchers must acknowledge that some mechanisms relevant to the perpetuation of categorical inequality might operate independently of the actions of individuals. Indeed, many organizational policies or procedures can impose disparate impact along racial lines with little direct influence from individual decision makers. The case of networks represents one important example. The role of networks in hiring practices is extremely well documented, with networks generally viewed as an efficient strategy for matching workers to employers with advantages for both job seekers (e.g., Granovetter 1995 ) and employers (e.g., Fernandez et al. 2000 ). At the same time, given high levels of social segregation (e.g., McPherson et al. 2001 ), the use of referrals is likely to reproduce the existing racial composition of the company and to exclude members of those groups not already well represented ( Braddock & McPartland 1987 ). In an analysis of noncollege jobs, controlling for spatial segregation, occupational segregation, city, and firm size, Mouw (2002) finds that the use of employee referrals in predominantly white firms reduces the probability of a black hire by nearly 75% relative to the use of newspaper ads. 8 Petersen et al. (2000) using data on a high-technology organization over a 10-year period find that race differences in hiring are eliminated when the method of referral is considered, suggesting that the impact of social networks on hiring outcomes is strong and may be more important than any direct action taken by organization members. Irrespective of an employer’s personal racial attitudes, the use of employee referrals is likely to reproduce the existing racial composition of an organization, restricting valuable employment opportunities from excluded groups (see also Royster 2003 , Waldinger & Lichter 2003 ).

Networks and network composition may matter not only for the purposes of obtaining information and referrals for jobs, but also within jobs for the purposes of informal mentoring, contacts, and relevant information important to advancement ( Ibarra 1993 , Grodsky & Pager 2001 ). Mechanisms of homosocial reproduction, or informal preferences for members of one’s own group, can lead to network configurations of informal mentorship and sponsorship that contribute to the preservation of existing status hierarchies ( Kanter 1977 ; see also Elliot & Smith 2001 , Sturm 2001 ). The wide-ranging economic consequences that follow from segregated social networks corresponds to what Loury (2001 , p. 452) refers to as the move from “discrimination in contract” to “discrimination in contact.” According to Loury, whereas earlier forms of discrimination primarily reflected explicit differences in the treatment of racial groups, contemporary forms of discrimination are more likely to be perpetuated through informal networks of opportunity that, though ostensibly race-neutral, systematically disadvantage members of historically excluded groups.

Organizations in context

Much of the research discussed above considers the organization as a context in which decisions and procedures that affect discriminatory treatment are shaped. But organizations themselves are likewise situated within a larger context, with prevailing economic, legal, and social environments conditioning organizational responses ( Reskin 2003 ). When labor markets expand or contract, organizations shift their recruitment and termination/retention strategies in ways that adapt to these broader forces (e.g., Freeman & Rodgers 1999 ). When antidiscrimination laws are passed or amended, organizations respond in ways that signal compliance ( Dobbin et al. 1993 ), with the impact of these measures varying according to shifting levels or strategies of government enforcement ( Kalev & Dobbin 2006 , Leonard 1985 ). At the same time, organizations are not merely passive recipients of the larger economic and legal context. In the case of the legal environment, for example, organizations play an active role in interpreting and shaping the ways that laws are translated into practice. Edelman (1992) , Dobbin et al. (1993) , and Dobbin & Sutton (1998) have each demonstrated ways in which the U.S. federal government’s lack of clear guidance regarding compliance with antidiscrimination laws and regulations allowed organizations to establish and legitimate their own compliance measures. According to Edelman (1992 , p. 1542), “organizations do not simply ignore or circumvent weak law, but rather construct compliance in a way that, at least in part, fits their interests.” Organizational actors, then, can wind up playing the dual role of both defining and demonstrating compliance, with important implications for the nature, strength, and impact of antidiscrimination laws and likewise for the patterns of discrimination that emerge in these contexts.

Organizations occupy a unique position with respect to shaping patterns of discrimination. They mediate both the cognitive and attitudinal biases of actors within the organization as well as the influence of broader economic and legal pressures applied from beyond. Recognizing the specific features of organizational action that affect patterns of discrimination represents one of the most important contributions of sociological research in this area. To date, the vast majority of organizational research has focused on the context of labor markets; investigations of organizational functioning in other domains (e.g., real estate, retail sales, lending institutions) would do much to further our understanding of how collective policies and practices shape the expression of discrimination.

Structural Factors

The majority of research on discrimination focuses on dynamics between individuals or small groups. It is easiest to conceptualize discrimination in terms of the actions of specific individuals, with the attitudes, prejudices, and biases of majority group members shaping actions toward minority group members. And yet, it is important to recognize that each of these decisions takes place within a broader social context. Members of racial minority groups may be systematically disadvantaged not only by the willful acts of particular individuals, but because the prevailing system of opportunities and constraints favors the success of one group over another. In addition to the organizational factors discussed above, broader structural features of a society can contribute to unequal outcomes through the ordinary functioning of its cultural, economic, and political systems (see also National Research Council 2004 , chapter 11). The term structural discrimination has been used loosely in the literature, along with concepts such as institutional discrimination and structural or institutional racism, to refer to the range of policies and practices that contribute to the systematic disadvantage of members of certain groups. In the following discussion, we consider three distinct conceptualizations of structural discrimination, each of which draws our attention to the broader, largely invisible contexts in which group-based inequalities may be structured and reproduced.

A legacy of historical discrimination

This first conceptualization of structural discrimination stands furthest from conventional definitions of discrimination as an active and ongoing form of racial bias. By focusing on the legacies of past discrimination, this emphasis remains agnostic about the relevance of contemporary forms of discrimination that may further heighten or exacerbate existing inequalities. And yet, the emphasis on structural discrimination—as opposed to just inequality— directs our attention to the array of discriminatory actions that brought about present day inequalities. The origins of contemporary racial wealth disparities, for example, have well-established links to historical practices of redlining, housing covenants, racially targeted federal housing policies, and other forms of active discrimination within housing and lending markets (e.g., Massey & Denton 1993 ). Setting aside evidence of continuing discrimination in each of these domains, these historical practices themselves are sufficient to maintain extraordinarily high levels of wealth inequality through the intergenerational transition of advantage (the ability to invest in good neighborhoods, good schools, college, housing assistance for adult children, etc.) ( Oliver & Shapiro 1997 ). According to Conley (1999) , even if we were to eliminate all contemporary forms of discrimination, huge racial wealth disparities would persist, which in turn underlie racial inequalities in schooling, employment, and other social domains (see also Lieberson & Fuguitt 1967 ). Recent work based on formal modeling suggests that the effects of past discrimination, particularly as mediated by ongoing forms of social segregation, are likely to persist well into the future, even in the absence of ongoing discrimination (see Bowles et al. 2007 , Lundberg & Startz 1998 ).

These historical sources of discrimination may become further relevant, not only in their perpetuation of present-day inequalities, but also through their reinforcement of contemporary forms of stereotypes and discrimination. As in Myrdal’s (1944) “principle of cumulation,” structural disadvantages (e.g., poverty, joblessness, crime) come to be seen as cause, rather than consequence, of persistent racial inequality, justifying and reinforcing negative racial stereotypes (pp. 75–78). Bobo et al. (1997 , p. 23) argue that “sharp black-white economic inequality and residential segregation…provide the kernel of truth needed to regularly breathe new life into old stereotypes about putative black proclivities toward involvement in crime, violence, and welfare dependency.” The perpetuation of racial inequality through structural and institutional channels can thus be conducive to reinforcing negative racial stereotypes and shifting blame toward minorities for their own disadvantage (see also Sunstein 1991 , p. 32; Fiske et al. 2002 ).

Contemporary state policies and practices

This second conceptualization of structural discrimination accords more with conventional understandings of the term, placing its emphasis on those contemporary policies and practices that systematically disadvantage certain groups. Paradigmatic cases of structural discrimination include the caste system in India, South Africa under apartheid, or the United States during Jim Crow—each of these representing societies in which the laws and cultural institutions manufactured and enforced systematic inequalities based on group membership. Although the vestiges of Jim Crow have long since disappeared in the contemporary United States, there remain features of American society that may contribute to persistent forms of structural discrimination (see Massey 2007 , Feagin 2006 ).

One example is the provision of public education in the United States. According to Orfield & Lee (2005 , p. 18), more than 60% of black and Latino students attend high poverty schools, compared with 30% of Asians and 18% of whites. In addition to funding disparities across these schools, based on local property taxes, the broader resources of schools in poor neighborhoods are substantially limited: Teachers in poor and minority schools are likely to have less experience, shorter tenure, and emergency credentials rather than official teaching certifications ( Orfield & Lee 2005 ).At the same time, schools in high poverty neighborhoods are faced with a greater incidence of social problems, including teen pregnancy, gang involvement, and unstable households ( Massey & Denton 1993 ). With fewer resources, these schools are expected to manage a wider array of student needs. The resulting lower quality of education common in poor and minority school districts places these students at a disadvantage in competing for future opportunities ( Massey 2006 ).

A second relevant example comes from the domain of criminal justice policy. Although evidence of racial discrimination at selective decision points in the criminal justice system is weak ( Sampson & Lauritsen 1997 ), the unprecedented growth of the criminal justice system over the past 30 years has had a vastly disproportionate effect on African Americans. 9 Currently, nearly one out of three young black men will spend time in prison during his lifetime, a figure that rises to nearly 60% among young black high school dropouts ( Bonczar & Beck 1997 , Pettit & Western 2004 ). Given the wide array of outcomes negatively affected by incarceration—including family formation, housing, employment, political participation, and health—decisions about crime policy, even when race-neutral in content, represent a critical contemporary source of racial disadvantage ( Pattillo et al. 2003 , Pager 2007b , Manza & Uggen 2006 ).

These examples point to contexts in which ostensibly race-neutral policies can structure and reinforce existing social inequalities. According to Omi & Winant (1994) , “through policies which are explicitly or implicitly racial, state institutions organize and enforce the racial politics of everyday life. For example, they enforce racial (non)discrimination policies, which they administer, arbitrate, and encode in law. They organize racial identities by means of education, family law, and the procedures for punishment, treatment, and surveillance of the criminal, deviant and ill” (p. 83). Even without any willful intent, policies can play an active role in designating the beneficiaries and victims of a particular system of resource allocation, with important implications for enduring racial inequalities.

Accumulation of disadvantage

This third category of structural discrimination draws our attention to how the effects of discrimination in one domain or at one point in time may have consequences for a broader range of outcomes. Through spillover effects across domains, processes of cumulative (dis)advantage across the life course, and feedback effects, the effects of discrimination can intensify and, in some cases, become self-sustaining.

Although traditional measures of discrimination focus on individual decision points (e.g., the decision to hire, to rent, to offer a loan), the effects of these decisions may extend into other relevant domains. Discrimination in credit markets, for example, contributes to higher rates of loan default, with negative implications for minority entrepreneurship, home ownership, and wealth accumulation ( Oliver & Shapiro 1997 ). Discrimination in housing markets contributes to residential segregation, which is associated with concentrated disadvantage ( Massey & Denton 1993 ), poor health outcomes ( Williams 2004 ), and limited educational and employment opportunities ( Massey & Fischer 2006 , Fernandez & Su 2004 ). Single point estimates of discrimination within a particular domain may substantially underestimate the cumulative effects of discrimination over time and the ways in which discrimination in one domain can trigger disadvantage in many others.

In addition to linkages across domains, the effects of discrimination may likewise span forward in time, with the cumulative impact of discrimination magnifying initial effects. Blau & Ferber (1987) , for example, point to how the channeling of men and women into different job types at career entry “will virtually ensure sex differences in productivity, promotion opportunities, and pay” (p. 51). Small differences in starting points can have large effects over the life course (and across generations), even in the absence of continuing discrimination [for a rich discussion of cumulative (dis)advantage, see DiPrete & Eirich (2006) ].

Finally, anticipated or experienced discrimination can lead to adaptations that intensify initial effects. Research points to diminished effort or valuation of schooling ( Ogbu 1991 ), lower investments in skill-building ( Farmer & Terrell 1996 ), and reduced labor force participation ( Castillo 1998 ) as possible responses to perceived discrimination against oneself or members of one’s group. These adaptations can easily be coded as choices rather than constraints, as characteristics to be controlled for in estimates of discrimination rather than included as one part of that estimate. And yet, for an understanding of the full range of effects associated with discrimination, these indirect pathways and self-fulfilling prophesies should likewise be examined (see Loury 2002 , pp. 26– 33).

A focus on structural and institutional sources of discrimination encourages us to consider how opportunities may be allocated on the basis of race in the absence of direct prejudice or willful bias. It is difficult to capture the structural and cumulative consequences of discrimination using traditional research designs; advances in this area will require creative new approaches (see National Research Council 2004 , chapter 11). Nevertheless, for an accurate accounting of the impact of discrimination, we must recognize how historical practices and contemporary policies may contribute to ongoing and cumulative forms of racial discrimination.

Discrimination is not the only cause of racial disparities in the United States. Indeed, persistent inequality between racial and ethnic groups is the product of complex and multifaceted influences. Nevertheless, the weight of existing evidence suggests that discrimination does continue to affect the allocation of contemporary opportunities; and, further, given the often covert, indirect, and cumulative nature of these effects, our current estimates may in fact understate the degree to which discrimination contributes to the poor social and economic outcomes of minority groups. Although great progress has been made since the early 1960s, the problem of racial discrimination remains an important factor in shaping contemporary patterns of social and economic inequality.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Barbara Reskin, Douglas Massey, Frank Dobbin, and Lincoln Quillian for their generous comments and suggestions. Support for this research came from grants from NSF (SES-0547810) and NIH (K01-HD053694). The second author also received support from an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship.

1 Dovidio & Gaertner (2000) also examined changes over time, comparing parallel data collected at two time points, 1989 and 1999. Although the level of self-reported prejudice declined significantly over the decade, the extent of discrimination did not change.

2 Field experiments that rely on contact by mail (rather than in person) are referred to as correspondence studies. Although these studies are typically limited to a more restricted range of job openings than are in-person audit studies, and although the signaling of race is some what more complicated (see Fryer & Levitt 2004 for a discussion of the race-class association among distinctively African American names), these studies are not vulnerable to the concerns over experimenter effects that are relevant in in-person studies (see Heckman 1998 ). For a review of correspondence studies in international contexts, including a range of ethnic groups, see Riach & Rich (2002) .

3 Asian renters and homebuyers experienced similar levels of consistent adverse treatment, though the effects were not statistically significant for renters. The highest levels of discrimination among the groups was experienced by Native American renters, for whom reduced access to information comprised the bulk of differential treatment ( Turner & Ross 2003a , b ).

4 See Stuart (2003) for a useful discussion of how economic risk became defined in the mortgage lending industry and how this approach has impacted discrimination.

5 There is also a growing literature in economics that focuses on online auctions (e.g., eBay®), allowing researchers to test theories about consumer discrimination in more highly controlled (but real-world) environments (e.g., List 2004 ).

6 Indeed, social psychological research points to the hardwired tendency toward categorization, with preferences for in-groups and the stereotyping of out–groups a natural outgrowth of human cognition ( Fiske 1998 ). Although the social context certainly shapes the boundaries of social groups and the content of stereotypes, this cognitive impulse likely contributes to the resilience of social categorization and stereotypes ( Massey 2007 ).

7 Note, however, that the creation of new positions for diversity management may have its own disadvantages, inadvertently diverting minority employees away from more desirable management trajectories. Collins (1989 , 1993 ), for example, finds that upwardly mobile blacks are frequently tracked into racialized management jobs or into jobs that specifically deal with diversity issues, with black customers, or with relations with the black community. According to Collins, these jobs are also characterized by greater vulnerability to downsizing and fewer opportunities for advancement.

8 Mouw (2002) does not find evidence that this sorting process affects aggregate employment rates, although the segregation of job opportunities is itself associated with racial differences in job quality and stability ( Parcel & Mueller 1983 ).

9 The case of drug policy and enforcement is one area for which evidence of direct racial discrimination is stronger (see Beckett et al. 2005 , Tonry 1995 ).

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

LITERATURE CITED

• Acker J. Doing Comparable Worth: Gender, Class, and Pay Equity. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press; 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Adorno T, Frankel-Brunswik E, Levinson D, Sanford R. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper; 1950. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allport G. The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books; 1954. [ Google Scholar ]
• Apgar WC, Calder A. The dual mortgage market: the persistence of discrimination in mortgage lending. In: Briggs X Souzade., editor. The Geography of Opportunity: Race and Housing Choice in Metropolitan America. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press; 2005. pp. 101–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arrow KJ. Models of job discrimination. In: Pascal AH, editor. Racial Discrimination in Economic Life. Lexington, MA: Heath; 1972. pp. 83–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayres I. Further evidence of discrimination in new car negotiations and estimates of its cause. Mich. Law Rev. 1995; 94 (1):109–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayres I, Siegelman P. Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. Am. Econ. Rev. 1995; 85 :304–321. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron JN, Bielby WT. Bringing the firm back in: stratification, segmentation, and the organization of work. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1980; 45 :737–765. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron JN, Pfeffer J. The social psychology of organizations and inequality. Soc. Psychol. Q. 1994; 57 :190–209. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker GS. The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press; 1957. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckett K, Nyrop K, Pfingst L, Bowen M. Drug use, drug arrests, and the question of race: lessons from Seattle. Soc. Probl. 2005; 52 :419–441. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bendick M, Jackson C, Reinoso V. Measuring employment discrimination through controlled experiments. Rev. Black Polit. Econ. 1994; 23 :25–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benston GJ, Horsky D. The relationship between the demand and supply of home financing and neighborhood characteristics: an empirical study of mortgage redlining. J. Financ. Serv. Res. 1991; 5 :235–260. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertrand M, Mullainathan S. Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. Am. Econ. Rev. 2004; 94 :991–1013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bielby WT. Minimizing workplace gender and racial bias. Contemp. Sociol. 2000; 29 :120–129. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bielby WT, Baron J. Men and women at work: sex segregation and statistical discrimination. Am. J. Sociol. 1986; 91 :759–799. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biernat M, Kobrynowicz D. Gender- and race-based standards of competence: lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1997; 72 (3):544–557. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blalock HM. Economic discrimination and negro increase. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1956; 16 (4):584–588. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blau F, Ferber M. Occupations and earnings of women workers. In: Koziara KS, Moskow MH, Tanner LD, editors. Working Women: Past, Present, Future. Washington, DC: Bur. Natl. Aff; 1987. pp. 37–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blumer H. Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pac. Sociol. Rev. 1958; 1 :3–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bobo L, Kluegel J. Status, ideology, and dimensions of whites’ racial beliefs and attitudes: progress and stagnation. In: Tuch SA, Martin JK, editors. Racial Attitudes in the 1990s: Continuity and Change. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1997. pp. 93–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bobo L, Kluegel J, Smith R. Laissez-faire racism: the crystallization of a ‘kindler, gentler’ anti-black ideology. In: Tuch SA, Martin JK, editors. Racial Attitudes in the 1990s: Continuity and Change. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1997. pp. 15–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bobo L, Thompson V. Unfair by design: the war on drugs, race, and the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Soc. Res. 2006; 73 (2):445–472. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonczar TP, Beck AJ. Lifetime likelihood of going to state or federal prison. Washington, DC: Sp. Rep., US Dep. Just., Bur. Just. Stat.; 1997. Mar, [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowles S, Loury G, Sethi R. Is equal opportunity enough? A theory of persistent group inequality; Work. Pap. Presented at Santa Fe Inst.; April 20; 2007. http://www.santafe.edu/~bowles/IsEqualityEnough2007.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Braddock JH, McPartland JM. How minorities continue to be excluded from equal employment opportunities: research on labor market and institutional barriers. J. Soc. Issues. 1987; 43 (1):5–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Calem PS, Gillen K, Wachter S. The neighborhood distribution of subprime mortgage lending. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ. 2004; 29 :393–410. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cancio AS, Evans TD, Maume DJ. Reconsidering the declining significance of race: racial differences in early career wages. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1996; 61 :541–556. [ Google Scholar ]
• Castilla E. Gender, race, and meritocracy in organizational careers. Am. J. Sociol. 2008 In press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castillo MD. Persons outside the labor force who want a job. Mon. Labor Rev. 1998; 121 :34–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charles CZ. The dynamics of racial residential segregation. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003; 29 :167–207. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins S. The marginalization of black executives. Soc. Probl. 1989; 36 :317–331. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins S. Blacks on the bubble: the vulnerability of black executives in a white corporation. Sociol. Q. 1993; 34 :429–447. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conley D. Being Black, Living in the Red: Race, Wealth, and Social Policy in America. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cross H, Kenney G, Mell J, Zimmerman W. Differential Treatment of Hispanic and Anglo Job Seekers: Hiring Practices in Two Cities. Washington, DC: Urban Inst; 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Council of Economic Advisers. Annual Report. Washington, DC: USGPO; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Day T, Liebowitz SJ. Mortgages, minorities, and HMDA; April; Presented at Fed. Reserve Bank Chicago.1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Devine PG, Elliot AJ. Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy revisited. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1995; 21 :1139–1150. [ Google Scholar ]
• DiPrete TA, Eirich GM. Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: a review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006; 32 :271–297. [ Google Scholar ]
• DiPrete TA, Soule WT. The organization of career lines: equal employment opportunity and status advancement in a federal bureaucracy. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1986; 51 :295–309. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dobbin FR, Sutton JR. The strength of a weak state: the employment rights revolution and the rise of human resources management divisions. Am. J. Sociol. 1998; 104 :441–476. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dobbin FR, Sutton JR, Meyer JW, Scott WR. Equal opportunity law and the construction of internal labor markets. Am. J. Sociol. 1993; 99 :396–427. [ Google Scholar ]
• Donohue JJ, III, Siegelman P. The changing nature of employment discrimination litigation. Stanford Law Rev. 1991; 43 :983–1033. [ Google Scholar ]
• Donohue JJ, III, Siegelman P. The evolution of employment discrimination law in the 1990s: a preliminary empirical investigation. In: Nielsen LB, Nelson RL, editors. Handbook of Employment Discrimination Research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2005. pp. 261–284. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL. Aversive racism and selection decisions. Psychol. Sci. 2000; 11 (4):315–319. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dymski G. Discrimination in the credit and housing markets: findings and challenges. In: Rodgers W, editor. Handbook on the Economics of Discrimination. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar; 2006. pp. 215–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edelman LB. Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: organizational mediation of civil rights law. Am. J. Sociol. 1992; 97 :1531–1576. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edelman LB, Fuller SR, Mara-Drita I. Diversity rhetoric and the managerialization of law. Am. J. Sociol. 2001; 106 :1589–1641. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliott JR, Smith RA. Ethnic matching of supervisors to subordinate work groups: findings on bottom-up ascription and social closure. Soc. Probl. 2001; 48 :258–276. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farkas G. Cognitive skills and noncognitive traits and behaviors in stratification processes. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003; 29 :541–562. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farkas G, Vicknair K. Appropriate tests of racial wage discrimination require controls for cognitive skill: comment on Cancio, Evans, and Maume. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1996; 61 :557–560. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farley R, Steeh C, Krysan M, Jackson T, Reeves K. Stereotypes and segregation: neighborhoods in the Detroit area. Am. J. Sociol. 1994; 100 (3):750–780. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farmer A, Terrell D. Discrimination, Bayesian updating of employer beliefs, and human capital accumulation. Econ. Inq. 1996; 34 (2):204–219. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fazio RH, Olson MA. Implicit measures in social cognition: their meaning and use. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2003; 54 :297–327. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feagin JR. Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression. New York: Routledge; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feagin JR, Sikes MP. Living with Racism: The Black Middle-Class Experience. Boston, MA: Beacon; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feins JD, Bratt RG. Barred in Boston: racial discrimination in housing. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 1983; 49 :347–357. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernandez RM, Castilla EJ, Moore P. Social capital at work: networks and employment at a phone center. Am. J. Sociol. 2000; 105 (5):1288–1356. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernandez RM, Friedrich C. Job queues: gender and race at the application interface; Work. Pap., MIT Sloan Sch. Manag..2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernandez RM, Su C. Space in the study of labor markets. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2004; 30 :545–569. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer MJ, Massey DS. The ecology of racial discrimination. City Commun. 2004; 3 (3):221–241. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiske ST. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, editors. Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1998. pp. 357–411. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P, Xu J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2002; 82 (6):878–902. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fix M, Struyk RJ, editors. Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in America. Washington, DC: Urban Inst; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman RB. Changes in the labor market for black Americans, 1948–72. Brookings Pap. Econ. Activity. 1973:67–131. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman RB, Rodgers WM., III Area economic conditions and the labor market outcomes of young men in the 1990s expansion; NBER Work. Pap. 7073.1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fryer RG, Jr, Levitt SD. The causes and consequences of distinctively black names. Q. J. Econ. 2004; 119 :767–805. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallup Organ. The Gallup Poll Social Audit on Black/White Relations in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Gallup Organ; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates SW, Perry VG, Zorn P. Automated underwriting in mortgage lending: good news for the underserved? Hous. Policy Debate. 2002; 13 (2):369–391. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glennon D, Stengel M. An evaluation of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston’s study of racial discrimination in mortgage lending; Econ. Policy Anal. Work. Pap. 94–2, Off. Comptrol. Curr.; Washington, DC. 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg PK. Dealer price discrimination in new car purchases: evidence from the consumer expenditure survey. J. Polit. Econ. 1996; 104 (3):622–654. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graddy K. Do fast-food chains price discriminate on the race and income characteristics of an area? J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 1997; 15 (4):391–401. [ Google Scholar ]
• Granovetter MS. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol. Rev. 1995; 102 :4–27. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grodsky E, Pager D. The structure of disadvantage: individual and occupational determinants of black-white wage gap. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2001; 66 :542–567. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hakken J. Discrimination Against Chicanos in the Dallas Rental Housing Market: An Experimental Extension of the HMPS. Washington, DC: US Dep. HUD; 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris AMG, Henderson GR, Williams JD. Courting customers: assessing consumer racial profiling and other marketplace discrimination. J. Public Policy Mark. 2005; 24 (1):163–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heckman J. Detecting discrimination. J. Econ. Perspect. 1998; 12 :101–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heckman J, Payner B. Determining the impact of federal anti-discrimination policy on the economic progress of black Americans. Am. Econ. Rev. 1989; 79 (1):138–176. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirsh CE, Kornrich S. The context of discrimination: workplace conditions, institutional environments, and sex and race discrimination charges. Am. J. Sociol. 2008 In press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holloway SR. Exploring the neighborhood contingency of race discrimination in mortgage lending in Columbus, Ohio. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1998; 88 (2):252–276. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holzer HJ. What Employers Want: Job Prospects for Less-Educated Workers. New York: Russell Sage Found; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holzer HJ, Ludwig J. Measuring discrimination in education: Are methodologies from labor and markets useful? Teach. Coll. Rec. 2003; 105 (6):1147–1178. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holzer HJ, Neumark D. What does affirmative action do? Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 2000; 53 (2):240–271. [ Google Scholar ]
• Horne DK. Evaluating the role of race in mortgage lending. FDIC Bank. Rev. 1994 Spring–Summer;:1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibarra H. Personal networks of women and minorities in management: a conceptual framework. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1993; 18 :56–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Immergluck D, Wiles M. Two Steps Back: The Dual Mortgage Market, Predatory Lending, and the Undoing of Community Development, Nov. Chicago, IL: Woodstock Inst; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackman M. The Velvet Glove: Paternalism and Conflict in Gender, Class, and Race Relations. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalev A, Dobbin F. Enforcement of civil rights law in private workplaces: the effects of compliance reviews and lawsuits over time. Law Soc. Inq. 2006; 31 :855–879. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalev A, Dobbin F, Kelly E. Best practices or best guesses? Diversity management and the remediation of inequality. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2006; 71 :589–917. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kanter RM. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books; 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly E, Dobbin F. How affirmative action became diversity management: employer response to antidiscrimination law, 1961–1996. Am. Behav. Sci. 1998; 41 :960–984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kessler RC, Mickelson KD, Williams DR. The prevalence, distribution, and mental health correlates of perceived discrimination in the United States. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1990; 40 (3):208–230. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kinder DR, Sears DO. Prejudice and politics: symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1981; 40 :414–431. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirschenman J, Neckerman K. We’d love to hire them, but…: the meaning of race for employers. In: Jencks C, Peterson PE, editors. The Urban Underclass. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.; 1991. pp. 203–234. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krieger LH. The contents of our categories: a cognitive bias approach to discrimination and equal employment opportunity. Stanford Law Rev. 1995; 47 :1161–1248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ladd HF. Evidence on discrimination in mortgage lending. J. Econ. Perspect. 1998; 12 (2):41–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane KA, Banaji MR, Nosek BA, Greenwald AG. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What we know (so far) In: Wittenbrink B, Schwarz NS, editors. Implicit Measures of Attitudes: Procedures and Controversies. New York: Guilford; 2007. pp. 59–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• LaPiere RT. Attitudes vs actions. Soc. Forces. 1934; 13 :230–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leonard JS. Affirmative action as earnings redistribution: the targeting of compliance reviews. J. Labor Econ. 1985; 3 (3):363–384. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lieberson S, Fuguitt GV. Negro-white occupational differences in the absence of discrimination. Am. J. Sociol. 1967; 73 (2):188–200. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liebowitz SJ. A study that deserves no credit. Wall Street J. 1993 Sept. 1:A14. [ Google Scholar ]
• List JA. The nature and extent of discrimination in the marketplace: evidence from the field. Q. J. Econ. 2004; 119 :49–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Logan JR, Stults B, Farley R. Segregation of minorities in the metropolis: two decades of change. Demography. 2004; 41 (1):1–22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loury GC. Politics, race, and poverty research. In: Danziger SH, Haveman RH, editors. Understanding Poverty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; 2001. pp. 447–453. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loury GC. The Anatomy of Racial Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundberg S, Startz R. On the persistence of racial inequality. J. Labor Econ. 1998; 16 (2):292–322. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manza J, Uggen C. Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. New York: Oxford Univ. Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Massey DS. Racial discrimination in housing: a moving target. Soc. Probl. 2005; 52 (2):148–151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Massey DS. Social background and academic performance differentials: white and minority students at selective colleges. Am. Law Econ. Rev. 2006; 8 (2):1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Massey DS. Categorically Unequal: The American Stratification System. New York: Russell Sage Found; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Massey DS, Denton NA. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Massey DS, Fischer MJ. The effect of childhood segregation on minority academic performance at selective colleges. Ethn. Racial Stud. 2006; 29 :1–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Massey DS, Lundy G. Use of black English and racial discrimination in urban housing markets. Urban Aff. Rev. 2001; 36 (4):452–469. [ Google Scholar ]
• McConahay JB. Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In: Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL, editors. Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism. New York: Academic; 1986. pp. 91–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKay PF, McDaniel MA. A reexamination of black-white mean differences in work performance: more data, more moderators. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006; 91 :538–554. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2001; 27 :415–444. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merton RK. Discrimination and the American creed. In: Rose PI, editor. The Study of Society. New York: Random House; 1970. pp. 449–457. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mittman BS. Theoretical and methodological issues in the study of organizational demography and demographic change. Res. Sociol. Organ. 1992; 10 :3–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore LV, Roux AVD. Associations of neighborhood characteristics with the location and type of food stores. Am. J. Public Health. 2006; 96 (2):325–331. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morton SF, Zettelmeyer F, Silva-Risso J. Consumer information and discrimination: Does the internet affect the pricing of new cars to women and minorities? Quant. Mark. Econ. 2003; 1 :65–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moskos C, Butler JS. All That We Can Be: Black Leadership and Racial Integration the Army Way. New York: Basic Books; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moss P, Tilly C. Stories Employers Tell: Race, Skill and Hiring in America. New York: Russell Sage Found; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moulton B. A reexamination of the federal-private wage differential in the United States. J. Labor Econ. 1990; 8 :270–293. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mouw T. Are black workers missing the connection? The effect of spatial distance and employee referrals on interfirm racial segregation. Demography. 2002; 39 (3):507–528. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munnell AH, Tootell GMB, Browne LE, McEneaney J. Mortgage lending in Boston: interpreting HMDA data. Am. Econ. Rev. 1996; 86 (1):25–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Myrdal G. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York: Harper; 1944. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blank RM, Dabady M, Citro CF, editors. National Research Council. Measuring Racial Discrimination. Panel on Methods for Assessing Discrimination. Washington, DC: Comm. Natl. Stat., Div. Behav. Soc. Sci. Educ., Natl. Acad. Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neal DA, Johnson WR. The role of premarket factors in black-white wage differences. J. Polit. Econ. 1996; 104 (5):869–895. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen LB, Nelson RL. Scaling the pyramid: a sociolegal model of employment discrimination litigation. In: Nielsen LB, Nelson RL, editors. Handbook of Employment Discrimination Research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2005. pp. 3–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oaxaca R. Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. Int. Econ. Rev. 1973; 14 (3):693–709. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ogbu J. Low school performance as an adaptation: the case of blacks in Stockton, California. In: Gibson MA, Ogbu JU, editors. Minority Status and Schooling. New York: Garland; 1991. pp. 249–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliver M, Shapiro T. Black Wealth, White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. New York: Routledge; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Omi M, Winant H. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1980s. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orfield G, Lee C. Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and Educational Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Proj., Harvard Univ; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pager D. The use of field experiments for studies of employment discrimination: contributions, critiques, and directions for the future. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 2007a; 609 :104–133. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pager D. Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press; 2007b. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pager D, Quillian L. Walking the talk: what employers say versus what they do. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2005; 70 :355–380. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parcel TL, Mueller CW. Ascription and Labor Markets: Race and Sex Differences in Earnings. New York: Academic; 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pattillo M, Weiman D, Western B. Imprisoning America: The Social Effects of Mass Incarceration. New York: Russell Sage Found; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petersen T, Saporta I. The opportunity structure for discrimination. Am. J. Sociol. 2004; 109 (4):852–901. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petersen T, Saporta I, Seidel ML. Offering a job: meritocracy and social networks. Am. J. Sociol. 2000; 106 :763–816. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pettigrew TF. Prejudice. In: Thernstrom S, Orlov A, Handlin O, editors. Dimensions of Ethnicity. Cambridge, MA: Belknap; 1982. pp. 1–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pettit B, Western B. Mass imprisonment and the life course: race and class inequality in U.S. incarceration. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2004; 69 :151–169. [ Google Scholar ]
• Phelps E. The statistical theory of racism and sexism. Am. Econ. Rev. 1972; 62 :659–661. [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips-Patrick FJ, Rossi CV. Statistical evidence of mortgage redlining? A cautionary tale. J. Real Estate Res. 1996; 11 :13–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Purnell T, Idsardi W, Baugh J. Perceptual and phonetic experiments on American English dialect identification. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 1999; 18 (1):10–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quillian L. New approaches to understanding racial prejudice and discrimination. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006; 32 :299–328. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reskin BF. The Realities of Affirmative Action in Employment. Washington, DC: Am. Sociol. Assoc.; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reskin BF. The proximate causes of employment discrimination. Contemp. Sociol. 2000; 29 (2):319–328. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reskin BF. Including mechanisms in our models of ascriptive inequality: 2002 Presidential Address. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2003; 68 :1–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reskin BF, McBrier DB, Kmec JA. The determinants and consequences of workplace sex and race composition. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1999; 25 :335–361. [ Google Scholar ]
• Riach P, Rich J. Field experiments of discrimination in the market place. Econ. J. 2002; 112 :480–518. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ridley S, Bayton JA, Outtz JH. Taxi Service in the District of Columbia: Is It Influenced by Patrons’ Race and Destination? Washington, DC: Washington Lawyers’ Comm. Civil Rights Law. Mimeo; 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roscigno VJ. The Face of Discrimination: How Race and Gender Impact Work and Home Lives. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roscigno VJ, Karafin D, Tester G. Race and the process of housing discrimination. 2007:153–170. See Roscigno 2007 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross S, Yinger J. Does discrimination in mortgage lending exist? The Boston Fed study and its critics. 1999:43–83. See Turner & Skidmore 1999 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross S, Yinger J. The Color of Credit: Mortgage Discrimination, Research Methodology, and Fair-Lending Enforcement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roychoudhury C, Goodman AC. An ordered probit model for estimating racial discrimination through Fair Housing audits. J. Hous. Econ. 1992; 2 :358–373. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roychoudhury C, Goodman AC. Evidence of racial discrimination in different dimensions of owner-occupied housing search. Real Estate Econ. 1996; 24 :161–178. [ Google Scholar ]
• Royster D. Race and the Invisible Hand: How White Networks Exclude Black Men from Blue Collar Jobs. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson R, Lauritsen J. Racial and ethnic disparities in crime and criminal justice in the United States. Crime Justice. 1997; 21 :311–374. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schafer R, Ladd H. Discrimination in Mortgage Lending. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schiller B. The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schulman KA, Berlin JA, Harless W, Kerner JF, Sistrunk S, et al. The effect of race and sex on physicians’ recommendations for cardiac catheterization. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999; 340 (8):618–626. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schuman H, Steeh C, Bobo L, Krysan M. Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations. Revised ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Siskin BR, Cupingood LA. Use of statistical models to provide statistical evidence of discrimination in the treatment of mortgage loan applicants: a study of one lending institution. In: Goering J, Wienk R, editors. Mortgage Lending, Racial Discrimination, and Federal Policy. Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Press; 1996. pp. 451–468. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skrentny J. Color Lines: Affirmative Action, Immigration, and Civil Rights Options for America. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith RA. Race, gender, and authority in the workplace: theory and research. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2002; 28 :509–542. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith TW. Ethnic Images GSS Top. Rep. No. 19. Chicago: Natl. Opin. Res. Cent., Univ. Chicago; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sniderman P, Piazza T, Tetlock P, Kendrick A. The new racism. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 1991; 35 (2):423–447. [ Google Scholar ]
• Squires GD. Communities in Black and White: The Intersections of Race, Class, and Uneven Development. Albany: SUNY Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Squires GD. The new redlining: predatory lending in an age of financial service modernization. Sage Race Relat. Abstr. 2003; 28 (3–4):5–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steele C. A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Am. Psychol. 1997; 52 (6):613–629. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stuart G. Discriminating Risk: The U. S. Mortgage Lending Industry in the Twentieth Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sturm S. Second generation employment discrimination. Columbia Law Rev. 2001; 101 :458–568. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sunstein CR. Why don’t markets stop discrimination. Soc. Philos. Policy. 1991; 8 :22–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Szafran R. What kinds of firms hire and promote women and blacks? A review of the literature. Sociol. Q. 1982; 23 :171–190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tilly C. Durable Inequality. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomaskovic-Devey D, Thomas M, Johnson K. Race and the accumulation of human capital across the career: a theoretical model and fixed-effects application. Am. J. Sociol. 2005; 111 :58–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tonry M. Malign Neglect: Race, Crime, and Punishment in America. New York: Oxford Univ. Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner M, Fix M, Struyk R. Opportunities Denied, Opportunities Diminished: Racial Discrimination in Hiring. Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Press; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner MA, Ross SL. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase 2—Asians and Pacific Islanders. Washington, DC: Dep. Hous. Urban Dev.; 2003a. http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/phase2_final.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner MA, Ross SL. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase 3—Native Americans. Washington, DC: Dep. Hous. Urban Dev.; 2003b. http://www.huduser.org/publications/hsgfin/hds_phase3.html . [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner MA, Ross SL. How racial discrimination affects the search for housing. In: Briggs X Souzade., editor. The Geography of Opportunity: Race and Housing Choice in Metropolitan America. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press; 2005. pp. 81–100. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner MA, Ross SL, Gaister GC, Yinger J. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase 1 HDS 2000. Washington, DC: Urban Inst., Dep. Hous. Urban Dev.; 2002. http://www.huduser.org/intercept.asp?loc=/Publications/pdf/Phase1_Report.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner MA, Skidmore F, editors. Mortgage Lending Discrimination: A Review of Existing Evidence. Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vallas SP. Rediscovering the color line within work organizations: the ‘knitting’ of racial groups revisited. Work Occup. 2003; 30 (4):379–400. [ Google Scholar ]
• Waldinger R, Lichter M. How the Other Half Works: Immigration and the Social Organization of Labor. Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Western B, Pettit B. Black-white wage inequality, employment rates, and incarceration. Am. J. Sociol. 2005; 111 :553–578. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wheeler ML. Res. Rep. No. 1130–95-RR. New York: Conf. Board; 1995. Diversity: business rationale and strategies. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams D. Racism and health. In: Whitfield KE, editor. Closing the Gap: Improving the Health of Minority Elders in the New Millennium. Washington, DC: Gerontol. Soc. Am.; 2004. pp. 69–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams RA, Nesiba R, McConnell ED. The changing face of inequality in home mortgage lending. Soc. Probl. 2005; 52 (2):181–208. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson F, Tienda M, Wu L. Race and unemployment: labor market experiences of black and white men, 1968–1988. Work Occup. 1995; 22 (3):245–270. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson G, Sakura-Lemessy I, West JP. Reaching the top: racial differences in mobility paths to upper-tier occupations. Work Occup. 1999; 26 :165–186. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson WJ. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson WJ. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Vintage Books; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winterle M. Work Force Diversity: Corporate Challenges, Corporate Responses. New York: Conf. Board; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wissoker D, Zimmerman W, Galster G. Testing for Discrimination in Home Insurance. Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yinger J. Measuring racial discrimination with Fair Housing audits: caught in the act. Am. Econ. Rev. 1986; 76 :881–892. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yinger J. Closed Doors, Opportunities Lost: The Continuing Costs of Housing Discrimination. New York: Russell Sage Found; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yinger J. Evidence on discrimination in consumer markets. J. Econ. Perspect. 1998; 12 :23–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zandi M. Boston Fed’s study was deeply flawed. American Banker. 1993 Aug 19;:13. [ Google Scholar ]

Racism and History of Discrimination Essay

Racism and other kinds of discrimination have existed for centuries and still prevail in modern-day society. While many people view racism as a social construct that only exists among ordinary people, it is much more frequent among government authorities and law enforcement agencies, with police brutality being one of the most acute issues. Such an issue is not merely a local or state problem but a federal one, permeating the entire country. As a result, while different policies aim to eradicate racism-caused police brutality, it still exists and causes many deaths.

There are many instances of the given issue that led not just to disabilities but also to deaths. For example, despite a 1993 prohibition on chokeholds by the New York Police Department, policeman Daniel Pantaleo nonetheless fatally choked Eric Garner in 2014 (The Economist, 2020). In one of the latest occurrences, Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis law enforcement officer, knelt on George Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes on May 25, 2020, causing George Floyd to pass away (Valbuena et al., 2020). As a result, the policy sector this sort of social injustice falls under is criminal justice. According to the United Nations, among the core problems that impact this sector are “racial profiling, harassment, verbal abuse and abuse of power by law enforcement officials” (United Nations, 2022). As a result, advocacy should be aimed at creating new models in criminal justice that will ensure the protection of all minority groups and due process. As has been mentioned by the UN, “racial discrimination in law enforcement and the criminal justice system cannot be separated from systemic racism” (United Nations, 2022). Therefore, such a macro policy intervention should aim at holding those law enforcement officers responsible for the brutality.

Hence, despite efforts to end racism-related police violence, it still occurs and claims many lives. Criminal justice is the area of policy that deals with this kind of social injustice. Racial discrimination, harassment, emotional insults, and the misuse of authority by law enforcement authorities are among the significant issues that have an influence on this industry, according to the United Nations. Therefore, advocacy efforts should focus on developing new criminal justice models that would guarantee the protection of all minority groups and due process. The goal of such a macro-political intervention should be to hold violent law enforcement personnel accountable.

The Economist. (2020). In America protests have already brought policy changes . The Economist. Web.

United Nations. (2022). Addressing and responding to racial discrimination in the criminal justice system . UN. Web.

Valbuena, V., Howard, R., Bonner, S., & Dimick, J. (2020). Let us not be silent . Annals of Surgery , 272 (6), 915-916. Web.

• Racial Discrimination and Color Blindness
• Chapter 3 of “The Family” Book by Philip N. Cohen
• Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” Album Analysis
• How Parents of Color Transcend Nightmare of Racism
• Police Brutality: Is There a Solution?
• Race, Racism, and Dangers of Race Thinking
• Why Empathy in Racism Should Be Avoided
• How the Race Concept Has Changed Over Time
• Discrimination Against African-American Patients
• Racial Discrimination in High Education
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, January 19). Racism and History of Discrimination. https://ivypanda.com/essays/racism-and-history-of-discrimination/

"Racism and History of Discrimination." IvyPanda , 19 Jan. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/racism-and-history-of-discrimination/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Racism and History of Discrimination'. 19 January.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Racism and History of Discrimination." January 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/racism-and-history-of-discrimination/.

1. IvyPanda . "Racism and History of Discrimination." January 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/racism-and-history-of-discrimination/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Racism and History of Discrimination." January 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/racism-and-history-of-discrimination/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

COMPASS Manual for Human Rights Education with Young people

Discrimination and intolerance.

• Discrimination and intolerance

What are discrimination and intolerance?

Discrimination – in all its possible forms and expressions – is one of the most common forms of human rights violations and abuse. It affects millions of people everyday and it is one of the most difficult to recognise. Discrimination and intolerance are closely related concepts. Intolerance is a lack of respect for practices or beliefs other than one's own. It also involves the rejection of people whom we perceive as different, for example members of a social or ethnic group other than ours, or people who are different in political or sexual orientation. Intolerance can manifest itself in a wide range of actions from avoidance through hate speech to physical injury or even murder.

Discrimination occurs when people are treated less favourably than other people are in a comparable situation only because they belong, or are perceived to belong to a certain group or category of people. People may be discriminated against because of their age, disability, ethnicity, origin, political belief, race, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, language, culture and on many other grounds , including on several grounds at the same time. Discrimination, which is often the result of prejudices people hold, makes people powerless, impedes them from becoming active citizens, restricts them from developing their skills and, in many situations, from accessing work, health services, education or accommodation.

Discrimination has direct consequences on those people and groups being discriminated against, but it has also indirect and deep consequences on society as a whole. A society where discrimination is allowed or tolerated is a society where people are deprived from freely exercising their full potential for themselves and for society.

This section describes different faces of discrimination, the way it affects human rights, as well as the measures and initiatives that are underway or should be introduced to counter intolerance and discrimination and to contribute to a culture of peace and human rights. Some of the most pervasive forms of discrimination, such as discrimination based on disability, gender or religion, are also presented in more detail in other sections of this chapter.

The principles of equality and non-discrimination are laid down in the UDHR: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" (Article 1). This concept of equality in dignity and rights is embedded in contemporary democracy, so states are obliged to protect various minorities and vulnerable groups from unequal treatment. Article 2 enshrines freedom from discrimination: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind".

The Council of Europe member states are also committed to non-discrimination in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article only gives protection from discrimination in relation to the enjoyment of the other rights set forth in the convention. Protocol 12 to the ECHR was drawn up to provide a stronger, free-standing right to equality and a general prohibition of discrimination: "The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground…" 1 Thus, this protocol broadens the scope of the ECHR as it covers discrimination in any legal right, even when that right is not specifically covered by the convention.

Question: Has your country ratified Protocol 12 to the ECHR?

Direct and indirect discrimination

Discrimination may be practised in a direct or indirect way. Direct discrimination is characterised by the intent to discriminate against a person or a group, for example when an employment office rejects Roma job applicants or a housing company does not lend flats to immigrants. Indirect discrimination occurs when an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice de facto puts representatives of a particular group at a disadvantage compared with others. Examples may range from a minimum height criterion for fire-fighters (which may exclude many more female than male applicants) to the department store which does not hire people who cover their heads. These rules, apparently neutral in their language, may in fact disproportionately disadvantage members of certain social groups. Both direct and indirect discrimination are forbidden under the human rights instruments; Indirect discrimination is often more pervasive and difficult to prove than direct discrimination.

Question: Have you ever felt discriminated against?

Structural discrimination

The key element in structural discrimination is not the intent but the effect of keeping minority groups in a subordinate position. Fred Pincus

Structural discrimination is based on the very way in which our society is organised. The system itself disadvantages certain groups of people. Structural discrimination works through norms, routines, patterns of attitudes and behaviour that create obstacles in achieving real equality or equal opportunities. Structural discrimination often manifests itself as institutional bias, mechanisms that consistently err in favour of one group and discriminate against another or others. These are cases when the resulting discrimination is clearly not rooted in an individual's conviction regarding a person or a group of people, but in institutional structures, be they legal, organisational, and so on. The challenge of structural discrimination is to make it visible, as we often grow up with it being self-evident and unquestioned.

The existence of structural discrimination leaves states with the challenge of adopting policies that look not only at the legal framework but at other incentives as well, taking into account patterns of behaviour and how different institutions operate. Human rights education may be one of the responses to this problem.

Affirmative action

Structural inequality is a state which arises when certain groups enjoy unequal status in relation to other groups, as a result of unequal relations in their roles, functions, rights and opportunities. The fight against dis-crimination should step out of the courts and into the sphere of education and politics. Mirjana Najcevska, Chair of the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent.

In some cases a preferential or positive treatment of people belonging to certain groups may be applied as an attempt to alleviate or redress the harms caused by structural discriminations. Affirmative action, sometimes called "positive discrimination", may not only be allowed but even welcomed in order to counter inequality. For example, economic differences between rural and urban areas may lead to a different level of access to services. This may result in inequality unless special efforts are taken to counterbalance the effects of the original economic imbalance. In such cases the preferential treatment is necessary to secure effective equality rather than causing inequality.

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination stipulates that affirmative action programmes may be required of countries that have ratified the convention, in order to rectify systematic discrimination. Such measures, however, "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved".

Multiple discrimination

Each one of us belongs to or identifies with several social groups. When dealing with any particular disadvantaged social group, it is important to be aware of the internal heterogeneity of the group and the potential for multiple grounds of discrimination. These multiple identifications not only mean more possibilities of discrimination, but can also come from several directions: for example, a lesbian Roma woman might be subject to multiple discrimination by heterosexual non-Roma; at the same time she can be subject to homophobia within the Roma community and subject to racism within the LGBT community. In most cases multiple discrimination occurs to so-called visible minorities, women and people with disabilities.

Majorities and minorities

Civilisation should be judged by its treatment of minorities. Mahatma Gandhi

Discrimination is usually exerted by majorities upon minorities, even though discrimination from minorities also exists. Being in the majority is a static or a dynamic situation, depending on many factors. When we are on the winning side in a democratic election, we are in the majority as a result of our convictions, a decision, or, for example, the outcome of a vote. If our convictions change, or the party we support loses the next election, our majority status is no longer valid. There are more static positions of majority and minority, when one or several aspects of our identity (nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender, lifestyle, disability) are representative of a group that constitutes less (usually much less) than 50% of the whole of the population of a given geographical unit.

Democracies are vulnerable to the "tyranny of majority": a situation in which the majority rule is so oppressive that it completely disregards the needs and wants of members of minorities. The human rights framework not only protects citizens from the oppression of an individual or a small group of individuals, but is also a means of protection for minorities against the majority.

Majority is not necessarily dependent on the number of people in the group (though it often coincides), but rather with who has the power to make decisions. This aspect – decision-making power – is very important in the dynamic of minority-majority relations.

Question: Can you think of someone who may never experience discrimination?

The role of stereotypes and prejudices

Give me a prejudice and I'll move the world. Gabriel García Márquez

A stereotype is a generalised belief or opinion about a particular group of people, for example, that entrepreneurs are ambitious, public servants are humourless, or that women have long hair and wear skirts. The main function of stereotypes is to simplify reality. Stereotypes are usually based either on some kind of personal experience or on impressions that we have acquired during early childhood socialisation from adults surrounding us at home, in school or through mass media, which then become generalised to take in all the people who could possibly be linked. 3

All representation is misrepresentation in one form or the other. Edward Said

A prejudice is a judgment, usually negative, we make about another person or other people without really knowing them. Just like stereotypes, prejudices are learned as part of our socialisation process. One difference between a stereotype and a prejudice is that when enough information is available about an individual or a particular situation, we do away with our stereotypes. Prejudice rather works like a screen through which we perceive any given piece of reality: thus, information alone usually is not enough to get rid of a prejudice, as prejudices alter our perceptions of reality; we will process information that confirms our prejudice and fail to notice or "forget" anything that is in opposition. Prejudices are, therefore, very difficult to overcome; if contradicted by facts, we'd rather deny the facts than question the prejudice ("but he's not a real Christian"; "she is an exception").

Discrimination and intolerance are often based on or justified by prejudice and stereotyping of people and social groups, consciously or unconsciously; they are an expression of prejudice in practice. Structural discrimination is the result of perpetuated forms of prejudice, which led to specific categories of people having access to power and decision making, to the detriment of other groups.

• Forms of intolerance and discrimination

The Oxford English Dictionary defines xenophobia as "a morbid fear of foreigners or foreign countries". In other words, it means an irrational aversion to strangers or foreigners; it is irrational because it is not necessarily based on any direct concrete experiences of threat posed by foreigners. Xenophobia is a prejudice related to the false notion that people from other countries, groups, cultures, or speaking other languages are a threat. Xenophobia is closely related to racism: the more "different" the other is perceived, the stronger the fears and negative feelings tend to be. Xenophobia is one of the most common forms of and grounds for discrimination and it is for this that it is a challenge to human rights.

Question: Who are the targets of xenophobia in your society?

Prejudice squints when it looks, and lies when it talks. Laure Junot, Duchess de Abrantès

Some prejudices may transform into ideologies and feed hatred. One such ideology is racism. Racism involves discriminatory or abusive behaviour towards people because of their imagined "inferiority". There has been wide-spread belief that there are human races within the human species, distinguishable on the basis of physical differences. Scientific research shows, however, that "human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups" 4 , and that race is an imagined entity or social construct. All humans belong to the same species and, therefore, it makes no sense to talk of "races".

The impact of racist ideologies has been devastating to humanity; it has justified slavery, colonialism, apartheid, forced sterilisations and annihilations of peoples. It has been the basis of the Nazi and fascist ideologies and of the programmes to exterminate Jews and other people deemed inferior by the Nazis and their collaborators.

Unfortunately, racism continues to be present in contemporary European societies and politics. Although race is no longer accepted as a biological category and only few people believe now in "superior races" with an inherent right to exercise power over those considered "inferior", the impact of racism lingers on and takes on different forms, such as cultural racism or ethnocentrism, the belief that some cultures, usually their own, are superior or that other cultures, traditions, customs and histories are incompatible with theirs.

International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 21 March commemorates the Sharpeville massacre in 1960, when the police opened fire and killed 69 people at a peaceful demonstration against the apartheid laws in Sharpeville, South Africa. UNITED for Intercultural Action, a European network against nationalism, racism, fascism and in support of migrants and refugees, co-ordinates a European-wide action week around this date to promote tolerance and equal rights, and to celebrate diversity in Europe. 7

Discrimination, xenophobia and racism are widespread in many parts of the world: there are around 160 million Dalits (Untouchables) in India suffering from the caste system. In the USA, race is a key factor in de-termining who is sentenced to death.  Hospitals in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary have practised involuntary sterilisation of Roma women into the 21st century. 6

The widespread practices of deportation and unequal treatment of migrants, as well as the structural discrimination against certain ethnic minorities such as Roma by many governments, nourishes xenophobia and latent racist feelings. Hate-motivated crimes that are supported by racist ideology are regularly in the news in many of the Council of Europe member states.

Question: Can you point out any recent cases of racist violence in your country?

Antisemitism

Antisemitism can be defined as "hostility towards Jews as a religious or minority group often accompanied by social, economic, and political discrimination" 9 . Antisemitism has been widespread in European history up to the present. It is often called “the longest hatred”. In 70 CE, the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem and many Jews were killed or forced to leave. In Spain, in 1492 the entire Jewish population was expelled from the country. This followed the 1391 massacre when tens of thousands of Jewish people were killed. By the end of the 19th century, Jewish communities in Russia had regularly became victims of pogroms, which were systematic discriminatory acts of violence against Jewish communities organized by the local population, often with the passive consent or active participation of law enforcement, encouraged by the antisemitic policies. These are just a few examples, but attacks on Jewish communities were common in other European countries including among others France and Austria, along with severe discrimination, marginalisation and exclusion and perpetuation of stereotypes and prejudices.

The rise of Fascism in the first part of the 20th century brought further hardship for Jews in Europe, as antisemitism became part of the racist ideologies in power. This is true for Fascist regimes that collaborated directly or indirectly with the Nazis, but other societies and systems were also influenced by racist ideologies. During the Holocaust, perpetrated by Nazi Germany and its allies between 1933 and 1945, known also as the Shoah, an estimated 6 million Jews were systematically exterminated for no other reason than the fact that they were Jews.

With the success of the Bolshevik Revolution, pogroms ceased in the Soviet Union but antisemitism continued in different forms, including forced displacements, confiscation of property and show trials. Under communist regimes, antisemitism was often also disguised under official "anti-Zionist" policies.

Racism has gained a new respect as a commonsense solution to pressing political problems. Of course we don't call it racism. We call it anti-terrorism or immigration policy. Alana Lentin 8

Today, antisemitism remains widespread in Europe, even if in some cases it is harder for the public to identify or to admit. In recent years, Jewish cemeteries have been desecrated, Jews are regular targets of hate speech and they are sometimes physically attacked. Research regularly indicates ongoing high levels of antisemitism among mainstream European societies, accompanied by sporadic rises. As the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) pointed out, it is an alarming trend in Europe, that despite all efforts antisemitism "continues to be promoted, openly or in a coded manner, by certain political parties and leaders, including not only extremist parties, but also certain mainstream parties" 10 , and in many cases there is tolerance or even acceptance of these agendas by certain segments of the population.

Question: What are the main forms in which antisemitism is manifested in your country?

Young people working against antisemitism Movement against Intolerance (Spain) High School students repainted parts of Picasso's "Guernica" and reassembled them on a big wall in a public action to show that the fatal realities of the past are present here and now. During this process the symbols used in the painting and its relation to the Holocaust and the "Kristallnacht Pogrom" were explained to the audience. Holocaust Centre and Foundation (Russia): International contests "Holocaust lessons – a way to Tolerance" Since 2002 this centre has run memorial programmes and international educational activities about tolerance and the Holocaust, including an annual contest for students and teachers from Russia, other European and CIS countries, Israel and the USA.

The Resolution 1563 (2007) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe urges the member states to criminalise and/or implement such legislation which condemns antisemitism, including, but not limited to Holocaust denial, whether it is committed by individuals, groups or even political parties. 11

The Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) of the European Union publishes overviews of the situation of antisemitism in its member states. In their 2010 update on antisemitism in the EU, the Agency noted that "most Member States do not have official or even unofficial data and statistics on antisemitic incidents". The Agency has recognised the importance of Holocaust education as a means of addressing antisemitism, and over the years has initiated and participated in several joint projects in this area. 12

Discrimination against Roma people: Antigypsyism / anti-Roma racism

Antigypsyism can be defined as a specific form of racism, an ideology of racial superiority, a form of dehumanisation and of institutionalised rac-ism applied against Roma people. "It is based, on the one hand, on imag-ined fears, negative stereotypes and myths and, on the other, on denial or erasure from the public conscience of a long history of discrimination against Roma." 13

Discrimination against Roma is deep rooted and a common reality all over Europe. As the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights pointed out, there are alarming trends throughout Europe, strongly resembling Nazi ideology and reasoning in relation to Roma, such as fears for safety and public health. Rhetoric criminalising the whole Roma population is also very common throughout the member states. 14 As Roma are more likely to be discriminated against, the Roma population is disproportionately vulnerable to armed conflicts, natural catastrophes or economic crises. In many countries, Roma have been victims of violent racist groups (in Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Romania, and so on), resulting in murders. Roma were caught in the crossfire of the armed conflicts in former Yugoslavia; Roma neighbourhoods and villages are often segregated and isolated. 15 Many young Roma grow up in hostile social environments where the only support and recognition they have is in their own community or family. They are denied many basic rights such as education or health, or have limited access to them.

Question: What is the estimated proportion of Roma in the population of your country?

Deportations of Romanian and Bulgarian Roma in 2010 In 2010, the French government announced a crackdown on illegal camps of Roma who had recently migrated to France, and sent several thousand of their inhabitants back to Romania and Bulgaria, claiming that Roma settlements are major sources of crime and a public nuisance. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination sharply criticised France's crackdown and said that racism and xenophobia were undergoing a "significant resurgence". At the same time, opinion polls suggested that as many as 65% of French people backed the government's tough line. 16 The European Committee of Social Rights concluded unanimously that the forced evictions of Roma constituted a violation of rights provided for in the revised European Social Charter, including the freedom from discrimination and the right to housing. 17

Porrajmos refers to the genocide of European Roma perpetrated by the Nazis and their allies between 1933 and 1945. The estimated number of victims varies, according to different sources, from between half a million to 2 million, leading to the loss of up to 70% of the pre-war Roma population.

Question: What are the typical ways of presenting Roma in the news in your country?

A greater awareness and concern about the Roma is slowly emerging. The Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005–2015 stands as an unprecedented political commitment by European governments to improve the socio-economic status and social inclusion of Roma. 19 Actions and programmes by young people have also contributed to counteracting intolerance and prejudices towards Roma by deconstructing the stereotypes many of us have grown up with. The international campaign Typical Roma?, for instance, addressed stigmatisation and stereotypes as root causes of the social exclusion of Roma. 20

Effects on young people [of Romaphobia] include passivity, frustration, marginalisation, as well as mutual stereotyping and fear to interact with others due to the segregation and the wrong perceptions of the "others" and the lack of possibilities to interact. 18

The Council of Europe began working against the discrimination of Roma in 1969 by adopting the first official text on the "situation of Gypsies and other Travellers in Europe". In 2006, the Council of Europe launched the Roma campaign Dosta!, an awareness-raising effort that aims at bringing non-Roma closer to Roma people. In 2010 the Strasbourg Declaration on Roma was adopted at a High Level Meeting; in the declaration the member states agreed on prioritising action for non-discrimination and social inclusion of Roma, including the active participation of Roma.

In 2012 the youth sector of the Council of Europe, together with European Roma networks and organisations, initiated a Roma Youth Action Plan in order to improve the participation of Roma youth in European policies on Roma and youth, and to counter effects of discrimination on young Roma.

ECRI also pays attention to the situation of Roma in Europe; its General Recommendation 13 (2011) on Combating Antigypsyism and Discrimination against Roma stresses that antigypsyism is an "especially persistent, violent, recurrent and commonplace form of racism" and urges governments to combat antigypsyism in the fields of education, employment, housing and health and combat racist violence and crimes against Roma.

Roma are the true Europeans. Günter Grass

The European Union is also increasingly acknowledging the need to counteract the effects of discrimination against Roma in its member states. In April 2011, the European Commission issued "An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020" 21 , which stated that "In spite of some progress achieved both in the Member States and at EU level over the past years, little has changed in the day-to-day situation of most of the Roma".

Young people learn about the Roma Genocide  DIKH HE NA BISTER (“Look and don’t forget” in Romani) – the Roma Genocide Remembrance Initiative, mobilises each year thousands of young Roma and non-Roma all over Europe on the occasion of the 2 August – the European Holocaust Memorial Day for Sinti and Roma – to advance remembrance, recognition and education about the Genocide of Roma people. The event is a space of learning about the past, as well as of reflection about the role of young people in Holocaust remembrance. The initiative creates a dialogue and personal encounter of young people with Holocaust survivors. Their testimonies inspire the participants to address and resist against current challenges of antigypsyism, and other forms of racism in Europe today. https://2august.eu/about-us/

Intolerance based on religion

Freedom of religion and religious tolerance are basic values present in every European country, yet acts of discrimination based on religion have not yet disappeared. Religious intolerance is often linked with racism and xenophobia – particularly with Antisemitism and Islamophobia. Whereas in the past Europe was characterised by conflicts between, and discrimination of Protestant or Catholic Christians, Roman and Eastern Orthodox or "official" churches and dissenting groups, today the political differences among Christian denominations have become far less important. At the same time many religious communities in minority positions continue to thrive across Europe, including Baha'is, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Rastafarians. This growing religious diversity is often ignored, as well as those millions of Europeans who are not religious.

More detailed information about discrimination based on religion can be found in the section on Religion and Belief

Religious intolerance is often linked with racism and xenophobia – particularly with antisemitism and Islamophobia, leading thus to multiple and intersectional discrimination.

Belieforama  Trainings for schools, youth and public authorities are offered by CEJI to promote respect for religious diversity, to counteract prejudicial thinking and underline the importance of social action. Specific training programs have been developed in order to address:  - Religious diversity and anti-discrimination - Overcoming antisemitism - Overcoming Islamophobia - Reconciling religion, gender and sexual orientation. http://belieforama.org

Question: What minority religions exist in your country?

Discrimination based on gender identity, gender or sexual orientation

Gender-related discrimination includes the discrimination of women as opposed to men (this form is also called sexism or sex discrimination) and that of transgender or transsexual people, whose gender identity is inconsistent or not culturally associated with their assigned sex. Discrimination based on sexual orientation affects homosexual and bisexual people. As equality between women and men is discussed in detail in the section on Gender, here we only address the other forms of gender- or sex-related discrimination.

Homophobia is often defined as "an irrational fear of and aversion to homosexuality and of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT 22 ) people, based on prejudice, similar to racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and sexism" 23 , as well as people who are perceived as being LGBT. If directed against transgender people, it is called "transphobia". Various totalitarian regimes of the 20th century made homophobia a part of their political ideology, such as Nazism in Germany, Stalinism in the Soviet Union or Fascism in Spain. Democratic regimes in Europe have, nonetheless, justified homophobic legislation, including pathologisation and criminalisation of homosexuality, and, with it, structural discrimination of LGBT people for a long time.  Today, discrimination against LGBT people still occurs in all societies in Europe in spite of the fact that many states have adopted anti-discrimination legislation.  Many LGBT people cannot fully enjoy their universal human rights, run the risk of becoming victims of hate crime and may not receive protection when attacked in the street by fellow citizens.

When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one. Epitaph on the grave of Leonard Matlovich, gay and war veteran

In many parts of the world, LGBT people are subjected to different forms of violence that range from verbal attacks to being murdered. In many countries in the world, the practice of homosexuality is still a crime and in some of them it is punishable by a prison sentence or the death penalty 24 .

61% of young gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons from 37 European countries claimed that they experienced prejudice and/or dis-crimination in school, and 51% in their family. 38% of respondents said they had experienced prejudice and/or discrimination in a community they belonged to and 30% did so in their circle of friends. 25

LGBT people are often denied their human rights, for example the right to work, as they get fired or are discriminated against by employers because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The right to safety and security of a person is another which is very often violated when (young) people are bullied at school or harassed in the work place. Lesbian and gay couples in many countries of Europe feel discriminated in such areas as the right to marry, to constitute a family or to adopt children.

Question: In what areas of life are LGBT persons discriminated against in your country?

Council of Europe's work

The European Court of Human Rights has often had a pioneering role in sanctioning homophobia. In a series of cases the court found that discrimination in the criminal law regarding consenting relations between adults in private was contrary to the right to respect for private life in Article 8 of the ECHR (Dudgeon v. UK, 1981, Norris v. Ireland, 1988, Modinos v. Cyprus, 1993). The Court was in fact the first international body to find that sexual orientation criminal laws violate human rights and has had the longest and largest jurisprudence in addressing sexual orientation issues. There have also been several cases related to single-parent adoption.

In 2011, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights published his report on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. The report welcomed the advances made in the field of LGBT rights in most member states, stating that "the pathologisation and criminalisation of homosexuality in Europe clearly belong to the past". At the same time the report noted that serious concerns remain in many areas of human rights of LGBT persons, and this is especially true of the rights of transgender persons. 26 The Council of Europe set up a unit on LGBT Issues in order to to streamline work on LGBT matters. This was announced as the first-ever structure of its kind in an international intergovernmental institution and signals the importance of LGBT issues within the framework of human rights in Europe.

Education, both formal and non-formal, play a central role in reducing and eradicating prejudice against LGBT people. It is only through education that prejudices can be addressed and challenged. The programmes of the European Youth Centres and of the European Youth Foundation regularly feature human rights education and training activities for multipliers and activists against homophobia. These include study sessions organised in co-operation with youth organisations such as the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Youth and Student Organization (IGLYO) and the Association of Nordic and Pol-Balt LGBTQ Student Organizations (ANSO).

• Counteracting Discrimination

Gender Matters In 2007 the Council of Europe's youth sector published Gender Matters, a manual to assist educators and youth leaders work on issues of gender and gender-based violence with young people.

There are several approaches to anti-discrimination and anti-racist activities including:

• legal action to enforce the right to non-discrimination
• educational programmes that raise awareness about the mechanisms of prejudice and intolerance and how they contribute to discriminate and oppress people, and on the appreciation of diversity and promoting tolerance
• activism by civil society to denounce discrimination and prejudice, to counteract hate crimes and hate speech, to support victims of discrimination or to promote changes in legislation.

Educators recognise the need to develop in every person a tolerant, non-discriminatory attitude and create a learning environment that acknowledges and benefits from diversity instead of ignoring or excluding it. As part of this development, those who work with children or youth, as well as children and young people themselves, should become aware of their own and others' discriminatory behaviours. For instance, human rights educational activities can help participants to develop awareness and empathy on the one hand, and resilience and assertiveness on the other hand so that people can avoid, prevent or stand up against discrimination.

The Education Pack ‘All Different – All Equal' was developed by the Council of Europe to promote awareness and action against racism, anti-semitism, xenophobia and intolerance. www.coe.int/compass

Intercultural learning is the process of learning about diversity and has been a central approach in European youth work. In the youth field of the Council of Europe, intercultural learning is presented as "a process of social education aimed at promoting a positive relationship between people and groups from different cultural backgrounds" 27 and promotes mutual respect and solidarity.

International human rights framework

United nations.

One of the primary tools of fighting discrimination within the UN system is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which commits the signatory states to the elimination of racial discrimination. The Convention includes an individual complaints' mechanism and is monitored by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), a body of independent experts. All states parties are obliged to submit regular reports to the Committee, which in turn addresses its concerns and recommendations to the state party in the form of "concluding observations". The Committee has three other mechanisms for its monitoring functions: the early-warning procedure, the examination of inter-state complaints and the examination of individual complaints. Other conventions of the UN address discrimination against specific groups, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women or the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)

OSCE is a regional security organisation with 56 member states from three continents (including all the Council of Europe member states). The OSCE also participates in combating all forms of racism, xenophobia and discrimination, including antisemitism, and discrimination against Christians and Muslims. One of its institutions is the Warsaw-based Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) which:

• Collects and distributes information and statistics on hate crimes
• Promotes best practices in the fight against intolerance and discrimination
• Provides assistance to participating states in drafting and reviewing legislation on crimes fuelled by intolerance and discrimination.

The OSCE has a High Commissioner on National Minorities whose mandate includes identifying and seeking the early resolution of tensions involving national minority issues.

The European Union anti-discrimination policies

We … acknowledge that slavery and the slave trade are a crime against humanity … and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. From the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action 28

According to Article 21.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, "any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation, shall be prohibited". The EU has several anti-discrimination Directives. The Racial Equality Directive ensures equal treatment between people, irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. The Employment Equality Framework Directive prohibits discrimination in the workplace on grounds of disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief, and age. The equality of men and women are provided for in two Directives, one in matters of employment and occupation the other in the access to and supply of goods and services 29 . The EU legislation also requires that each member state has a designated national equality body which can be contacted for advice and support.

Questions around the denial of asylum to refugees, deaths of many migrants on the EU borders, Islamophobia, and the deportation of Roma continue to divide the European Union members and tarnish its record of anti-discrimination efforts. A threat to human rights also comes from political parties which in power pass de facto discriminative legislation. These problems can be remedied only by a comprehensive policy, including youth policy in the sphere of non-discrimination, combating racism and intolerance.

The Council of Europe

Combating racism and intolerance was at the heart of the creation of the Council of Europe in 1949, and remains one of its priorities today. In addition to the European Convention of Human Rights and other conventions, the Council has set up specific instruments addressing racism, discrimination and intolerance. In 1993, the ECRI was created as an independent human rights body to monitor the situation with regard to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance in each member state, and to make specific recommendations to their governments and general recommendations addressed to all member states.

While the ECRI is the Council of Europe's principal body in combating racism and intolerance, other bodies and departments of the Organisation such as the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Court on Human Rights also contribute to this objective.

The Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities recognises that "[the]protection of national minorities and of the rights and freedoms of persons belonging to those minorities forms an integral part of the international protection of human rights" (Article 1). State parties to the convention are committed to guarantee to national minorities the right of equality before the law as well as in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life; ensuring their right to freedom of peaceful assembly, association, expression, thought, conscience and religion; and enabling national minority members to maintain, develop and preserve their culture. It also prohibits forced assimilation. 30

Segregation of Roma children the Czech Republic condemned by the ECHR 31 "The applicants were schoolchildren of Roma origin who were placed in "special schools" intended for pupils with learning disabilities. They submitted that they had been treated differently in the education sphere to children who were not of Roma origin in that, by being placed in special schools without justification, they received a substantially inferior education to that provided in ordinary primary schools, with the result that they were denied access to secondary education other than in vocational training centres." The Court found a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education). 32

Question: Which public authorities have the responsibility to combat discrimination in your country?

European youth policies have traditionally included a strong dimension of intercultural learning and combating racism and prejudice. Agenda 2020, the main youth policy document of the Council of Europe, puts a special emphasis on "preventing and counteracting all forms of racism and discrimination on any ground" and recognises intercultural learning as a non-formal educational method "particularly relevant for promoting intercultural dialogue and combating racism and intolerance" 33 . One of major actions of youth work and youth policy against discrimination have been the European youth campaigns All Different – All Equal, which mobilised young people against racism, antisemitism, xenophobia and intolerance and for diversity, human rights and participation. Thousands of young people took part in the various activities of the campaign throughout Europe. The White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue "Living Together as Equals in Dignity" was adopted by the Council of Europe in 2008 and provides guidelines and analytical and methodological tools for the promotion of intercultural dialogue by policymakers and practitioners. It promotes intercultural approaches for managing cultural diversity, based on human dignity and embracing "our common humanity and common destiny".

Despite the wide spectrum of existing instruments and approaches to combat racism, xenophobia and discrimination, hostility against foreigners, violation of the rights of minorities, high levels of aggressive nationalism and banal forms of discrimination are still a daily reality in most societies across Europe. That is why it is so important today to be active and creative in promoting diversity, equality, non-discrimination and human rights.

1 Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 2  Mario Peucker, "Racism, xenophobia and structural  discrimination in sports", Country report, Germany, Bamberg, 2009, p26: www.efms.uni-bamberg.de/pdf/RACISM_in_SPORT_2010.pdf 3 Education Pack "All Different – All Equal"   – "Ideas, resources, methods and activities for informal intercultural education with young people and adults" (revised edition) Council of Europe, 2005 4 For example, see American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race": www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm 5 Racism and the administration of justice, Amnesty International, 2001, AI Index: 40/020/2001: www.amnestymena.org/Documents/ACT%2040/ACT400202001en.pdf 6 Lydia Gall, Coercive Sterilisation – an Example of Multiple Discrimination, 2010: www.errc.org/cikk.php?page=10&cikk=3564 7 www.unitedagainstracism.org 8 Alana Lentin, "Committed to Making a Difference. Racism, antisemitism, xenophobia, and intolerance and their impact on young people in Europe" (symposium report), 2006 9 Webster's Third New International Dictionary 10 ECRI General Policy Recommendation No.9: The fight against antisemitism, June 2004, CRI(2004)37 11 http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta07/eres1563.htm 12 http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/Antisemitism_Update_2010.pdf 13 Valeriu Nicolae, ergonetwork: www.ergonetwork.org/antigypsyism.htm 14 "Positions on the human rights of Roma", Position Paper from the Commissioner for Human Rights https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1631909 15 Dosta! Campaign background information. www.dosta.org/en/node/55   16 Q&A: France Roma expulsions, BBC article www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11027288 17 Resolution CM/ResChS(2011)9 Collective Complaint No. 63/2010 https://wcd.coe.int    18 Ingrid Ramberg, "Committed to Making a Difference. Racism, antisemitism, xenophobia, and intolerance and their impact on young people in Europe" (symposium report), 2006 19 Learn more at www.romadecade.org 20 Learn more at www.typicalroma.eu 21 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/discrimination/docs/com_2011_173_en.pdf 22 Intersex people (variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn't seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male) and the ones who identify themselves as "queer" may associate themselves with the LGBT community, which is then collectively referred as LGBTIQ. 23 European Parliament resolution on homophobia in Europe (P6_TA(2006)0018), January 18, 2006, www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P6-TA-2006-0018&language=EN 24 ILGA "State Sponsored Homophobia", May 2009: www.ilga.org/statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2009.pdf 25 "Social Exclusion of Young Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) People in Europe", ILGA-Europe and IGLYO, April 2006, www.iglyo.com/content/files/2006-Report-SocialExclusion.pdf 26 www.coe.int/t/Commissioner/Source/LGBT/LGBTStudy2011_en.pdf 27 Equipe Claves, quoted in "Intercultural Learning in European Youth Work: Which Ways Forward?", by Ingrig Ramberg (ed.), Council of Europe, 2009. 28 United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance:  www.un.org./WCAR/durban.pdf 29 Directives (2000/43/EC), (2000/78/EC), (2006/54/EC) and (2004/113/EC) respectively. 30 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/157.htm 31 Case of D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic (Application No. 57325/00), Judgment, Strasbourg, 13 November 2007: www.asil.org/pdfs/ilib071214.pdf 32 60 years of the European Convention on Human Rights: Roma Rights, 2010, Council of Europe 33 Final Declaration: The Future of the Council of Europe youth policy: AGENDA 2020, 8th Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for youth, Kyiv, 2008: www.coe.int/t/dg4/youth/ig_coop/8_cemry_declaration_EN.asp

Download Compass  

• 27 January International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust
• 21 March International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
• 8 April World Roma Day
• 17 May International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia
• 20 June World Refugee Day
• 2 August International Remembrance Day of the Roma Holocaust
• 9 November International Day against Fascism and Antisemitism
• 16 November International Day for Tolerance
• 18 December International Migrants’ Day

Trans, Gender Diverse and Intersex Inclusion in Sports is a Human Right

This statement calls for inclusive approaches to ensure that everyone, regardless of gender identity or sex characteristics, can participate safely and equitably in sports.

• Human Rights
• Anti-Gender Movements
• 3 October 2024

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals committed to gender equality, human rights, social justice, and LGBTIQ+ rights, welcome the report on the right to participate in sports by Alexandra Xanthaki, the United Nations Special Rapporteur in the field of Cultural Rights.

From the elite athlete level to the community level, where the majority of participation in sports lies, we affirm that all people, including trans, gender diverse and intersex persons, must be able to realize their human right to participate in sports as an essential element of engaging in cultural life. We call for inclusive approaches that foreground the positive role that sports play in society and ensure that all people, regardless of their gender identity and sex characteristics, can participate in sports safely and equitably.

In a world in which we see increased opposition to the human rights of trans, gender diverse and intersex persons, the realm of sport has become a particular focus for attack. Equal inclusion of all in sports continues to be undermined by the rise of movements that oppose the universality of human rights and advance retrogressive interpretations of norms and standards. We are compelled to write this statement to draw attention to the rampant discrimination against trans, gender diverse and intersex people in sports, including under the guise of protecting cisgender women and girls. We reject the co-option of human rights mechanisms to position the protection and fulfillment of the rights of trans, gender diverse, intersex, and cisgender women and girls in sports as conflicting and incompatible and affirm that these rights and struggles are inextricably interlinked. 

Many human rights bodies have clarified that the prohibition of sex-based discrimination is enshrined in core international human rights treaties and includes gender-based discrimination. As the Special Rapporteur in the field of Cultural Rights has highlighted in her 2024 report to the General Assembly, since 2010, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women clarified that “discrimination against women refers to both sex and gender. International law protects all women, including intersex and trans women; that protection includes their right to participate in sport.” 1 The Special Rapporteur also warns that efforts to exclude trans, gender diverse and intersex women from women’s sports and categorize them as “male” are “unacceptable” and “may be regarded as hate speech.” 2   

However, the misinformation on the participation of trans, gender diverse, and intersex people in sports and the hate directed at trans, gender diverse and intersex athletes are at concerning levels. 

Rhetoric and misinformation about trans, gender diverse and intersex women and girls have real-life consequences. They perpetuate harmful stereotypes and a fixed and binary understanding of gender and sex, increasing the risk of violence against trans, gender diverse and intersex women and girls within and outside sports. The most recent example was observed during the 2024 Paris Olympics, where two athletes who competed in women’s boxing, Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, were heavily scrutinized and relentlessly targeted using hateful rhetoric that speculated about their sex characteristics and mischaracterized their gender. This hate speech was fueled by a highly discriminatory and violent practice in competitive sports: the invasive and harmful practice of “sex testing,” an examination of genitalia, chromosomes, and hormone levels of women and girl athletes to try to “prove” or “verify” their sex. 3  

In general, athletes whose sex characteristics, gender identity or sexual orientation do not comply with normative expectations face severe obstacles to participation in sports, as they routinely experience harassment and abuse, no matter the level of sport they participate in. 4 Surveys of LGBTIQ+ people in sports in Europe have shown that an overwhelming majority believe that homophobia and transphobia are a problem in sports and have witnessed the use of such language in sports settings. 

The violence experienced by trans, gender diverse and intersex athletes can be considered the extreme manifestation of a general pervasive and systemic violence and discrimination against women and girls in sports that require our attention, including both sexual and non-sexual violence and abuse perpetrated by coaches, trainers, sponsors, and others. Ensuring the health, safety, privacy, bodily autonomy and integrity of all women and girls in sports is crucial, including trans, gender diverse and intersex athletes. The misrepresentation of trans, gender diverse and intersex women as a threat to cisgender women’s rights and safety carries the high risk of diverting attention from these critical issues and hinders women who experience this kind of violence from access to justice. This not only undermines the gravity of the violence experienced by women and girls in sports but also reinforces patriarchal and colonial legacies. Historically, colonial patriarchal structures have used the concept of a strict binary sex distinction to assert white supremacy, relegating Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), and especially Black women, to a lesser category of womanhood. The category of ‘woman’ has always been racialized, with white women expected to uphold the boundaries of sex difference to maintain the illusion of binary gender. These boundaries are upheld by violently enforcing them upon the bodies of any person who is seen as ‘non-conforming.’ As a result, athletes who have been disproportionately targeted to undergo sex testing and consequently forbidden to compete in the women’s category often come from the Global South and are women of color. The policing, in particular of intersex women’s bodies and the dismissal of women deemed ‘too masculine’ under the guise of fairness, has a chilling effect on all women’s participation in sports.

Several human rights mechanisms, including various Special Procedures, have emphasized the serious concerns with the exclusion of trans, gender diverse and intersex athletes from sports based on arbitrary classifications and eligibility rules based on testosterone levels, which are overly broadly constructed, and have drawn attention to intrusive and rights-violating practices like sex testing. 5 Simultaneously, they have repeatedly emphasized intersectionality as an essential tool to understand and address complex forms of marginalization, discrimination and inequalities among different groups to avoid false dichotomies between rights. 6 An intersectional analysis makes it evident, as UNESCO and UN Women also note, that “all women and girl athletes are susceptible to violence, but LGBTIQ+ athletes, athletes with disabilities, and athletes from disadvantaged racial, ethnic, migration, and/or socioeconomic backgrounds are at particular risk.” 7 UN Special Rapporteurs have called for the removal of policies that require women athletes, including trans, gender diverse and intersex athletes, from undergoing unnecessary medical procedures to participate in sports and have called for reviewing the rules in relation to the participation of trans, gender diverse and intersex athletes in sports to ensure compliance with human rights standards. 8  

Sport has the power to transform lives, and all women and girls deserve the right to participate in sports free from abuse, violence, and discrimination, and ensuring the respect of their health, safety and dignity. Sports empower trans, gender diverse and intersex people, offer a sense of community, build essential social skills, and help dispel entrenched notions about the capacities and limits of the body. 

We call for inclusive approaches that foreground the positive role that sports play in society and ensure that all people, regardless of their gender identity and sex characteristics, can participate in sports safely and equitably. We caution against implementing one-size-fits-all approaches like open categories that risk segregating trans, gender diverse and intersex athletes over case-by-case approaches that seek to balance fairness and inclusion. Efforts to ensure full inclusion in sports must not risk depriving trans, gender diverse and intersex athletes of the same opportunities that their cisgender peers enjoy, including “the best part of sport — learning from and growing with a diverse group of teammates.” 9

Signatories

• Global Action for Trans Equality (GATE)
• Outright International
• Count Me In Consortium!
• EL*C – EuroCentralAsian Lesbian* Community
• Meriç G. Doğan – Queer Olympix

1 https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/235/12/pdf/n2423512.pdf , par. 74. “Although the Convention only refers to sex-based discrimination, interpreting article 1 together with articles 2 (f) and 5 (a) indicates that the Convention covers gender-based discrimination against women. … The application of the Convention to gender-based discrimination is made clear by the definition of discrimination contained in article 1.” Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General Recommendation No. 28 (2010). Moreover,  in 2017, the CEDAW Committee issued its General recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating General Recommendation No. 19, explaining that “the concept of ‘violence against women’, as defined in general recommendation No. 19 and other international instruments and documents, has places an emphasis on the fact that such violence is gender based. Accordingly, in the present recommendation, the term ‘gender-based violence against women’ is used as a more precise term that makes explicit the gendered causes and impacts of the violence.” CEDAW/C/GC/35 (2017) , para. 9.

2 “The expert reiterated the right of any person to their gender identity and to be respected in their dignity, as enshrined in articles 6 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Denying adult women their right to gender self-identification, including by insisting on calling them “male”, is unacceptable and may be regarded as hate speech.”

3 OII-Europe statement condemning hate speech against two athletes competing in the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris: https://www.oiieurope.org/condemns-hate-speech-against-two-athletes-olympics/

4 Some examples are: Ednanci Silva , an intersex former judo athlete, World Champion medalist, and two-time Pan American champion. In 1995, she was banned from competing after competitors signed a letter requesting her exclusion. To compete in the 1996 Olympic Games, she was forced to remove her testicle and uterus.  Tiffany Abreu , the first trans woman to play in Brazil’s National League, started her gender transition in 2012. Despite following International Volleyball Federation rules, Tiffany has received backlash from the press and other volleyball players; and has been falsely accused of having an unfair advantage. Erika Coimbra , a cisgender former volleyball player, was excluded from competing at the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000 upon discovering that she was born with Morris syndrome, a rare genetic disorder characterized by androgen resistance.

6 In the specific context of sports, the UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights has drawn attention to the perceptions about the sporting abilities of racialized and Indigenous women that are influenced by racial and gender stereotypes about women’s bodies and notions of femininity.

7 https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/3343_unwomen_unesco_vawg_handbook_6a_singlepage.pdf , p. 46.

8 https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/sexualorientation/iesogi/2023-10-31-stm-sogi-policy-en.pdf .

9 For more information, see: Athlete Ally Responds to USAPL’s Harmful “Third Category.”

Related Content

• Publication

2015 Stress in America™

A wealth of psychological research shows that discrimination can exacerbate stress. Moreover, discrimination-related stress is linked to mental health issues, such as anxiety and depression, even in children. 1 , 2 In this year’s examination of the state of Stress in America™, the American Psychological Association (APA) highlights the connection between discrimination and stress, along with the resulting impacts on relationships, employment and overall health.

Regardless of the cause, experiencing discrimination is associated with higher reported stress and poorer reported health. While average reported stress levels in the United States have seen a slight increase in the past two years (5.1 in 2015 and 4.9 in 2014 on a 10-point scale, where 1 is “little or no stress” and 10 is “a great deal of stress”), some segments of the population are more likely to report experiencing higher average stress levels.

• For many adults, dealing with discrimination results in a state of heightened vigilance and changes in behavior, which in itself can trigger stress responses — that is, even the anticipation of discrimination is sufficient to cause people to become stressed. 7 AI/AN adults are most likely (43 percent) to take care about what they say and how they say it, as well as to avoid certain situations, to cope with day-to-day discrimination. Hispanic and Black adults (31 percent and 29 percent, respectively) are most likely to say they feel a need to take care with their appearance to get good service or avoid harassment. Many adults also report trying to prepare for possible insults from other people before leaving home (25 percent of AI/AN, 23 percent of Blacks, 21 percent of Hispanics and 15 percent of Asians and Whites).
• Adults who are LGBT who have experienced discrimination have average stress levels of 6.4, compared to 6.0 for LGBT adults overall. Among adults who are non-LGBT, stress levels are 5.5 for those who have experienced discrimination and 5.0 for non-LGBT adults overall. This also is seen across racial groups: Average stress levels of those reporting discrimination (6.1 on a 10-point scale for Hispanics, 5.5 for Blacks and 5.4 for Whites) were higher than for those not reporting it (5.1 for Hispanics, 3.8 for Blacks and 4.0 for Whites).
• Among generations, the discrimination/stress divide can be seen within the larger population of millennials. 8 More than half of Asian millennials (51 percent) and 47 percent of Black millennials say that discrimination is a very or somewhat significant source of stress, compared to 31 percent of Hispanic and 26 percent of White millennials reporting the same.
• More than one in 10 adults (13 percent) say they have been treated unfairly when receiving health care, and significantly more AI/AN adults (28 percent) report experiencing discrimination when receiving health care treatment.
• Adults with disabilities are more likely than those without a disability to say discrimination is a somewhat or significant source of stress (26 percent vs. 18 percent).
• Almost half of adults who did not report experiencing discrimination (45 percent) report excellent or very good health, compared to 31 percent who report experiencing discrimination. Forty-six percent of Whites who say they have not experienced discrimination report excellent/very good health, while only 34 percent of Whites who have experienced discrimination report excellent/very good health (Hispanics: 37 percent vs. 29 percent; Blacks: 32 percent vs. 28 percent, respectively).

Despite the stress, the majority of adults who report experiencing discrimination (59 percent) feel that they have dealt quite well or very well with it and any resulting changes or problems.

• Younger adults are less likely than older generations to report having dealt well with discrimination. Sixty-one percent of boomers and 86 percent of matures report that they have dealt quite well or very well with having experienced discrimination and any resulting changes or problems, compared to about half of younger adults (51 percent of millennials and 53 percent of Gen Xers) saying the same.
• Forty percent of adults who are LGBT say they have dealt quite well or very well with having experienced discrimination and any resulting changes or problems, while 60 percent of non-LGBT adults say the same.
• Having emotional support appears to improve the way that individuals view their coping abilities with discrimination.  Sixty-five percent of adults overall who say they experienced discrimination and indicate that they had emotional support also say they coped quite or very well, compared to 37 percent of those who report not having emotional support. 
• Differences by racial and ethnic groups also reveal that higher percentages of those who say they experienced discrimination and indicate they had emotional support said they coped quite or very well, compared to those who report not having support. For Whites, 69 percent of those who say they experienced discrimination and indicate that they had emotional support report coping quite or very well, compared to 36 percent of those who report not having emotional support (Blacks: 63 percent vs. 30 percent; Hispanics: 54 percent vs. 38 percent).

All groups appear to do better when they have emotional support. Those who indicate that they did not have emotional support also report higher stress levels (6.3 average level on a 10-point scale compared to 5.0 for people with emotional support). Across population groups, average stress levels of those without support (6.8 for Hispanics, 6.3 for Blacks and 6.2 for Whites) were higher than for those with emotional support (5.7 for Hispanics, 5.1 for Blacks and 4.9 for Whites).

While overall life expectancy at birth in the United States reached a record high in 2012, significant numbers of adults across different subgroups also are experiencing disproportionate rates of health disparities, including mortality rates. 9 The results from this year’s Stress in America™ survey also suggest that stress is a significant health disparity in itself, and stress also may be associated with other health disparities.

Nearly one-quarter of adults (23 percent) report that their health is “fair” or “poor,” and one in five (20 percent) report being diagnosed as overweight. Among certain subgroups, the percentage reporting “fair” or “poor” health is significantly greater than adults overall, and other health disparities emerge among these groups.

• More than one-quarter of AI/AN (39 percent), Blacks (30 percent) and Hispanics (29 percent) report that they are in fair or poor health, compared to 23 percent of adults overall.
• More than two-fifths of those who say they have been diagnosed with a chronic illness (42 percent) report also having a disability, compared with only 17 percent of those who do not have a chronic illness. One-third of adults overall (33 percent) report having a disability, with the highest percentages of AI/AN (44 percent) and Whites (36 percent) reporting this, followed by Blacks (30 percent), Hispanics (28 percent) and Asians (20 percent).
• Rates of having received at least one chronic illness diagnosis are consistent across most sub-group populations, with almost seven in 10 (67 percent) of all adults saying that they have received a chronic illness diagnosis, including mental health-related conditions.
• Rates of health care access, however, differ widely. Hispanics are the most likely to report that they do not have access to a non-emergency doctor when they need it (33 percent), followed by 31 percent of Asians, 29 percent of Blacks, and significantly fewer Whites (23 percent) and AI/AN (21 percent). Rates of health care insurance coverage also differ across groups: 20 percent of Hispanics report having no health insurance, followed by 15 percent of Blacks, 14 percent of AI/AN, 6 percent of Asians and 5 percent of Whites.

Research shows a connection between poor health and chronic stress, and this year’s survey findings seem to corroborate this connection. 10 , 11 Among all adults, those who report experiencing extreme levels of stress (a rating of 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale) are twice as likely to report fair or poor health, compared to those with low stress levels.

• Adults who report being in fair or poor health have higher average stress levels than those who report being in excellent or very good health (5.9 vs. 4.6 on a 10-point scale).
• Nearly half (46 percent) of Black adults who rate their stress as high extreme (46 percent) report fair or poor health, while only 22 percent who report low stress levels say the same. One in three (35 percent) Hispanics who report having extreme high stress (35 percent) also report being in fair or poor health, compared to 19 percent of Hispanics reporting low stress.

About half of adults who are LGBT (49 percent) report that their stress has increased, whereas only 34 percent of adults who are not LGBT say the same. In addition, adults who are LGBT also are less likely than adults who are non-LGBT to report that they are in very good or excellent health (24 percent and 36 percent, respectively).

The Stress in America™ survey finds year after year that money and work are the sources of stress that adults most commonly rate as significant. While overall unemployment rates have been falling since the Great Recession, some groups are faring better than others, particularly White adults. 12 , 13 With lower unemployment rates and reported higher wealth, White adults are significantly less likely than Hispanic and Black adults to say that money is a very or somewhat significant source of stress. 14

There is a growing financial divide among races and ethnicities. According to DEMOS and Brandeis University’s Institute for Assets & Social Policy, a median White household has about 13 times as much wealth as a median Hispanic household and almost 16 times as much wealth as a median Black household. While 78 percent of Black adults, 77 percent of Hispanics and 70 percent of Asians and AI/AN say that money is a very or somewhat significant source of stress, significantly fewer Whites (62 percent) report feeling significantly or somewhat stressed by money.

Similar trends can be seen with regard to employment. The unemployment rate according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for Whites is much lower than for other groups (4.3 percent for Whites, compared to 9.4 for Blacks and 6.4 for Hispanics), with the exception of Asians (3.9 percent). 15 The Stress in America™ survey found that employed White adults are slightly less likely than others, with the exception of AI/AN, to say that work is a very or somewhat significant stressor in their lives (62 percent of Whites say this, compared to 74 percent of Hispanics, 71 percent of Asians, 69 percent of Blacks and 59 percent of AI/AN). Whites also are significantly less likely to rate job stability as a significant source of stress (30 percent of Whites say this, compared to 55 percent of Hispanics, 52 percent of Asians, 50 percent of Blacks and 47 percent of AI/AN).

Family responsibilities vary among population groups as a very or somewhat significant source of stress. Asian adults are the most likely to report stress from family responsibilities (69 percent), followed by 61 percent of Hispanics, 60 percent of AI/AN, 59 percent of Blacks and 50 percent of Whites.

Personal health concerns also seem to cause stress among adults. More than half of Hispanics (58 percent) say personal health concerns are a very or somewhat significant source of stress, along with 57 percent of AI/AN, 56 percent of Blacks and Asians and 48 percent of Whites.

Survey findings show that adults in urban areas have a significantly higher reported stress level on average than those in suburban and rural settings (urban: 5.6 on a 10-point scale, vs. 5.0 for suburban and 4.7 for rural).

• White (43 percent) and Asian (55 percent) adults most commonly live in suburban environments, whereas Hispanic (51 percent) and Black (49 percent) adults most commonly report living in urban areas. AI/AN adults are the most likely to report living in small towns or rural areas (41 percent).
• Forty-six percent of adults living in urban areas rate crime and violence as big problems or somewhat of a problem, compared to 19 percent of rural adults and 17 percent of suburban adults saying the same. Similarly, 34 percent of adults in urban areas consider not enough access to healthy foods as a big problem or somewhat of a problem, compared to 20 percent of adults living in rural areas and 13 percent of those in suburban areas saying the same.
• In addition, adults living in suburban neighborhoods are less likely to rate unemployment as a big or somewhat big problem (22 percent compared to 48 percent of urban and 43 percent of rural neighborhoods saying the same).
• Stress disparities appear across racial groups within the same settings. In urban environments, the average stress level is highest for Hispanics (6.0, compared to 5.5 for Whites, 5.2 for Blacks and 5.1 for Asians).
• Regardless of setting, however, some groups are more likely to rate other neighborhood issues as a big problem or somewhat of a problem, including unemployment, not enough access to healthy foods and poorly maintained community/recreational parks and facilities. In particular, Blacks, AI/AN and Hispanics are more likely (47 percent, 45 percent and 39 percent, respectively) to say unemployment is a big problem or somewhat of a problem, compared to 34 percent of Whites and 30 percent of Asians indicating the same.
• Blacks and Hispanics are more likely (31 percent and 26 percent , respectively ) to say not having enough access to healthy foods is a big or somewhat big problem (compared to 21 percent of AI/AN, 20 percent of Whites and 19 percent of Asians saying the same). Similarly, Blacks and Hispanics are more likely ( 27 percent and 25 percent, respectively) to report poorly maintained community/recreational parks and facilities as a big or somewhat big problem (compared to 20 percent of Asians, 19 percent of AI/AN and 17 percent of Whites saying the same).
• In general, the percentage of non-White groups in poverty is higher than that of Whites, with the exception of Asians. More than four in 10 AI/AN (45 percent), Hispanics (42 percent) and Blacks (41 percent) report being in poverty, as compared to 24 percent of Whites and Asians. Please refer to the Methodology section for this report’s definition of “poverty.” When looking at these groups in total, AI/AN, Hispanics and Blacks also have the highest reported average stress levels (5.4, 5.9 and 5.2, respectively).

1 Anderson, K. F. (2013). Diagnosing discrimination: Stress from perceived racism and the mental and physical health effects. Sociological Inquiry, (83), 55–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2012.00433.x

2 Sirin, S. R., Rogers-Sirin, L., Cressen, J., Gupta, T., Ahmed, S. F., & Novoa, A. D. (2015). Discrimination-related stress effects on the development of internalizing symptoms among Latino adolescents. Child Development . doi: 10.1111/cdev.12343

3 APA’s reference to races and ethnicities are in accordance with the approach taken by the U.S. Census Bureau, which treats race and ethnicity as two separate and distinct categories, examined in two separate questions. This approach is further explained in the Methodology section. The concept of race reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify and that people who report themselves as Hispanic can be of any race. This survey comprises responses from adults living in America, regardless of residency or citizenship status.

4 Please refer to the Methodology section for this report’s definition of “disability.”

5 Per the Methodology section, LGBT was defined as those who indicated they were transgender or other, OR consider themselves to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or other. Non-LGBT was defined as those who identify as male or female exclusively, and heterosexual.

6 Per the Methodology section, millennials are defined as people 18 to 36 years old; Gen Xers are defined as people 37 to 50 years old; Baby Boomers are defined as people 51 to 69 years old; and Matures are defined as people age 70 or older.

7 Sawyer, P. J., Major, B., Casad, B. J., Townsend, S. S. M., & Mendes, W. B. (2012). Discrimination and the stress response: Psychological and physiological consequences of anticipating prejudice in interethnic interactions. American Journal of Public Health, 102 (5), 1020–1026. Retrieved from http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300620

8 Generation: Millennials (18 to 36 years old): n=1190; Gen Xers (37 to 50 years old): n=649; Baby boomers (51 to 69 years old): n=1130; Matures (age 70 or older): n=392.

9 Xu, J. Q., Kochanek, K. D., Murphy, S. L., & Arias, E. (2014). Mortality in the United States, 2012. (NCHS Data Brief No. 168). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs/2014/10/08/2455/

10 Djuric, Z., Bird, C., Furumoto-Dawson, A., Rauscher, G., Ruffin, M., Stowe, R. … Masi, C. (2008). Biomarkers of psychological stress in health disparities research. Open Biomark Journal, (January 1), 7–19.

11 Schneiderman, N., Ironson, G., & Siegel, S. D. (2005). Stress and Health: Psychological, behavioral, and biological determinants.  Annual Review of Clinical Psychology ,  1 , 607–628. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144141

12 United States Department of Labor. (2016). Labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey: Unemployment rate. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

13 United States Department of Labor. (2016). Labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey: E-16. Unemployment rates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm

14 Sullivan, L., Meschede, T., Dietrich, L., Shapiro, T., Traub, A., Ruetschlin, C., & Draut, T. (2015). The racial wealth gap: Why policy matters. Demos and Institute on Assets and Social Policy. Retrieved from https://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/RacialWealthGap_2.pdf

15 Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Employment Situation – November 2015 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Download the full report

• The Impact of Discrimination (PDF, 1MB)

Stress in America 2015

• Stress in America
• Methodology
• The impact of discrimination
• Stress snapshot
• Appendix: Interpreting data
• Definitions

Contact APA Office of Public Affairs