Category Archives: Inequality

News Article: NYT’s Kristof Blames Poverty on Too Many TVs, Not Too Little Money

News Article: Neil DeMause, NYT’s Kristof Blames Poverty on Too Many TVs, Not Too Little Money, FAIR (Oct. 31, 2016).

Article: Class-Based Affirmative Action, or the Lies That We Tell About the Insignificance of Race

Article: Khiara M. Bridges, Class-Based Affirmative Action, or the Lies That We Tell About the Insignificance of Race, 96 Boston L. Rev. 55 (2016).

This Article conducts a critique of class-based affirmative action, identifying and problematizing the narrative that it tells about racial progress. The Article argues that class-based affirmative action denies that race is a significant feature of American life. It denies that individuals—and groups—continue to be advantaged and disadvantaged on account of race. It denies that there is such a thing called race privilege that materially impacts people’s worlds. Moreover, this Article suggests that at least part of the reason why class-based affirmative action has been embraced by those who oppose race-based affirmative action is precisely because it denies that race matters, has mattered, and probably will continue to matter unless we make conscious efforts to make race matter less.

The Article proceeds in two Parts. Part I locates class-based affirmative action doctrinally. Specifically, this Part identifies class-based affirmative action as the heir of the “suspect class” to “suspect classification” shift—a shift that tells its own lie about race. The substance of this lie is that those who exist at the top of racial hierarchies are as vulnerable to denigration, stigmatization, and subordination on account of race as are those who exist at the bottom of racial hierarchies. Part II goes on to demonstrate that class-based affirmative action suffers from the same infirmities from which race-based affirmative action is charged to suffer. It argues that the reason why proponents of class-based affirmative action are sanguine about these infirmities when they are present in class-based programs, but loathe them when they are present in race-based programs, is because their opposition to race-based affirmative action is not due to these infirmities. Rather, it is due to their disdain of the work that race-based affirmative action performs. That is, race-based programs function to assert, loudly, that race still matters and does so in powerful ways. Many proponents of class-based affirmative action resist this function.

Moreover, class-based affirmative action functions to assert that we, as a society, have entered a post-racial future. That is, class-based affirmative action tells a lie about the insignificance of race. Many proponents of class-based programs likely find these programs attractive and comforting for that very reason. The importance of this Article is that it uncovers the narrative work that class-based affirmative action performs, and it argues that those who are interested in racial justice ought to resist these programs because of their dangerous discursive effects.

News Article: Median Family Income for Harvard Undergrads Triple National Average, Study Finds

News Article: William S. Flanagan & Michael E. Xie, Median Family Income for Harvard Undergrads Triple National Average, Study Finds, Harvard Crimson (Jan. 25, 2017).

Article: Poverty and the Hidden Effects of Sex Discrimination: An Empirical Study of Inequality

Article: Gregory R. Day & Salvatore J. Russo, Poverty and the Hidden Effects of Sex Discrimination: An Empirical Study of Inequality, 37 Penn. J. Int’l L. 1183 (2016).

Sexist laws are more prevalent in regions where poverty is endemic. The corollary is true as well: the places where women tend to experience better treatment are typically more highly developed. The legal academy has drawn several inferences from this observation, including the observations that poverty and the development process appear to be detrimental to women’s rights. But despite the strength of this relationship, few legal studies seek to understand precisely why gender inequality seems to be inextricably linked to poverty.

Our research finds the opposite of what is generally assumed: the act of depriving women of fundamental rights is the very cause of underdevelopment. First, using a law and economic approach, sexist laws appear to create perverse behavioral incentives whereby actors rationally engage in inefficient behaviors. This is because sexist laws, in contrast to other forms of discrimination, burden society’s basic economic unit—the family. For instance, regions that prohibit women from earning a wage depress the rate of investment since single-income families must approach the market overcautiously. These deductions are then supported by an original empirical analysis, which indicates that gender inequality and poverty are significantly and powerfully connected. Sexist laws are thus less the result of underdevelopment as much as its very cause.

Podcast: Busted: America’s Poverty Myths

Podcast: Busted: America’s Poverty Myths, from On the Media

#1: The Poverty Tour

#2: Who Deserves to Be Poor?

#3: Rags to Riches

#4: When the Safety Net Doesn’t Catch You

#5: Breaking News Consumer’s Handbook: Poverty in American Edition

 

 

News Article: America’s Great Divergence

News Article: Alana Semeuls, America’s Great Divergence, The Atlantic (Jan. 30, 2017).

News Article: The Travelers Trapped in Horrific Limbo by Trump’s Immigration Order

News Article: Dahlia Lithwick, The Travelers Trapped in Horrific Limbo by Trump’s Immigration Order, Slate (Jan. 29, 2017).

Commentary: “The President’s Role in Advancing Criminal Justice Reform”

Commentary: Barack Obama, The President’s Role in Advancing Criminal Justice Reform, 130 Harv. L. Rev. 811 (2017).

News Article: “After a Crime, the Price of a Second Chance”

News Article: Shaila Dewan & Andrew W. Lehren, “After a Crime, the Price of a Second Chance,” N.Y. Times, Dec. 12,2016.

News Article: “Life in Obamacare’s Dead Zone”

News Article:Life in Obamacare’s Dead Zone,” N.Y. Times, Dec. 6, 2016.