Inventing equal opportunity
Abstract
Acknowledgments ix CHAPTER 1: Regulating Discrimination The Paradox of a Weak State 1 CHAPTER 2: Washington Outlaws Discrimination with a Broad Brush 22 CHAPTER 3: The End of Jim Crow The Personnel Arsenal Put to New Purposes 41 CHAPTER 4: Washington Means Business Personnel Experts Fashion a System of Compliance 75 CHAPTER 5: Fighting Bias with Bureaucracy 101 CHAPTER 6: The Reagan Revolution and the Rise of Diversity Management 133 CHAPTER 7: The Feminization of HR and Work-Family Programs 161 CHAPTER 8: Sexual Harassment as Employment Discrimination 190 CHAPTER 9: How Personnel Defined Equal Opportunity 220 Notes 235 Bibliography 261 Index 289
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The consensus revolves around a set of employer policies and programs that are widespread among leading firms, inscribed in federal 'best practices' lists, and required by discrimination suit settlements.
“That consensus revolves around a set of employer policies and programs that are widespread among leading firms (Dobbin, 2009), inscribed in federal 'best practices' lists (Kalev et al., 2006), and required by discrimination suit settlements negotiated by federal litigators and approved by federal judges (Schlanger and Kim, 2014).”
From Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization (2017) · cites this paper as Dobbin, 2009
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Mijs, J. J. B. (2016) · Social Justice Research · doi:10.1007/s11211-014-0228-0 · Cited by 290 · see citing works
Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2017) · The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism · doi:10.4135/9781446280669.n32 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Dobbin, F.
- Corresponding author
- Frank Dobbin
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2009-12-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 47-2093-47-2093
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1524636231
- Cited by
- 356
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 28
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Choice Reviews Online (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- University of Michigan Library Repository (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Race, History, and American Society
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
- Keywords
- equal opportunities, employment discrimination, personnel management, civil rights, Jim Crow, compliance, bureaucracy, diversity management, Reagan administration, human resource management, work-family programs, sexual harassment
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