Your search for: subjects:"Sex Discrimination United States"

In Don't Janet E. Halley explains how the military's new anti-gay policy is fundamentally misdescribed by its common nickname, "Don't Ask/Don't Tell." This ubiquitous phrase, she points out, implies that it discharges service members not for who they are, but for what they do. It insinuates that, as ...

In Don't Janet E. Halley explains how the military's new anti-gay policy is fundamentally misdescribed by its common nickname, "Don't Ask/Don't Tell." This ubiquitous phrase, she points out, implies that it discharges service members not for who they are, but for what they do. It insinuates that, as long as military personnel keep quiet about their homosexual orientation & desist from "homosexual conduct," no one will try to pry them out of their closets & all will be well. Not so, reveals Halley. In order to work through the steps by which the new law was ultimately drafted, she opens with a close reading of the 1986 Supreme Court sodomy case which served as the legal & rhetorical model for the policy revisions made in 1993. Halley also describes how the Clinton administration's attempts to offer Congress an opportunity to regulate conduct-& not status-were flatly rejected & not included in the final statute. Using cultural & critical theory seldom applied to explain the law, Halley argues that, far from providing privacy & an assurance that service members' careers will be ruined only if they engage in illegal conduct, the rule activates a culture of minute surveillance in which every member must strictly avoid using any gesture in an ever-evolving lexicon of "conduct that manifests a propensity." In other words, not only homosexuals but all military personnel are placed in danger by the new policy. After challenging previous pro-gay arguments against the policy that have failed to expose its most devious & dangerous elements, Halley ends with a persuasive argument that the policy is both unconstitutional &, politically, an act of sustained bad faith. This knowledgeable & eye-opening analysis of one of the most important public policy debates of the 1990s will interest legal scholars, policymakers, activists, military historians & personnel, as well as citizens concerned about issues of discrimination.

This is an interdiscplinary study that rigorously examines the role of campaign contributions in the election of blacks and women to the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1980s. It is an interdisciplinary work that provides an historical overview of discrimination and campaign financing, a ...

This is an interdiscplinary study that rigorously examines the role of campaign contributions in the election of blacks and women to the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1980s. It is an interdisciplinary work that provides an historical overview of discrimination and campaign financing, a model of campaign contributions based on a rent-seeking paradigm from public choice, and statistical testing of this model. Other books have treated aspects of campaign financing and racial/sexual discrimination, but this work is unique in its combination of campaign financing with racial and sexual discrimination.