The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Inventing Equal Opportunity
Abstract
Equal opportunity in the workplace is thought to be the direct legacy of the civil rights and feminist movements and the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet, as Frank Dobbin demonstrates, corporate personnel experts--not Congress or the courts--were the ones who determined what equal opportunity meant in practice, designing changes in how employers hire, promote, and fire workers, and ultimately defining what discrimination is, and is not, in the American imagination. Dobbin shows how Congress and the courts merely endorsed programs devised by corporate personnel. He traces how the first measures were adopted by military contractors worried that the Kennedy administration would cancel their contracts if they didn't take "affirmative action" to end discrimination. These measures built on existing personnel programs, many designed to prevent bias against unionists. Dobbin follows the changes in the law as personnel experts invented one wave after another of equal opportunity programs. He examines how corporate personnel formalized hiring and promotion practices in the 1970s to eradicate bias by managers; how in the 1980s they answered Ronald Reagan's threat to end affirmative action by recasting their efforts as diversity-management programs; and how the growing presence of women in the newly named human resources profession has contributed to a focus on sexual harassment and work/life issues. Inventing Equal Opportunity reveals how the personnel profession devised--and ultimately transformed--our understanding of discrimination.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world
Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2012.684462 · Cited by 1,656
Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time
Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1706255114 · Cited by 887
Rage against the Iron Cage: The Varied Effects of Bureaucratic Personnel Reforms on Diversity
Dobbin, F., Schrage, D., & Kalev, A. (2015) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122415596416 · Cited by 385
Self-citationYou Can’t Always Get What You Need: Organizational Determinants of Diversity Programs
Dobbin, F., Kim, S., & Kalev, A. (2011) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122411409704 · Cited by 310
Self-citationOrganizational Approaches to Inequality: Inertia, Relative Power, and Environments
Stainback, K., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Skaggs, S. (2010) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120014 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Dobbin, F.
- Venue
- Princeton University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Princeton University Press
- Published
- 2009-12-31
- OpenAlex
- W4210646360
- Cited by
- 582
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 47.44
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Inventing Equal Opportunity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1515/9781400830893
- The paper
- Dobbin, F. (2009). Inventing Equal Opportunity. Princeton University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400830893
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.