Discrimination in Long-Term Care Facilities: Legal Consciousness and Problem-Solving Among Staff

Over half of direct care workers in long-term care facilities are women of color. Building on legal consciousness theory–which explains how individuals invoke legal principles to define everyday experiences–this study examines how staff understand and resolve discrimination between residents and staff and among staff. This study employs a multi-method qualitative extended comparative case approach. Data includes in-depth semi-structured interviews (n=80) and participant and non-participant observation (n=8 months) at two facilities that vary in staff racial composition. Findings reveal rampant unreported instances of race and sex discrimination toward Black staff by white staff and residents. Black staff at all levels did not invoke rights or discrimination rhetoric when they experienced overt race discrimination by residents but engaged in significant emotional labor to respond to race discrimination by residents. Black staff, however, perceived microaggressions and unequal treatment by white staff as discrimination. At both facilities, floor staff and management adopted diverse team approaches across race and staff hierarchy for responding to race discrimination by residents toward Black female staff. These findings suggest the need for new and targeted policy and practice approaches that recognize extensive emotional labor expended by staff of color when addressing discrimination by residents and challenges from white staff when addressing race discrimination by staff. These findings have theoretical implications by extending legal consciousness theory to multi-level staff understandings of discrimination. Findings also provide useful tools and case examples for policymakers and practitioners interested in racial justice, particularly given how COVID has exacerbated racial inequities in long-term care.

RACE DISCRIMINATION IN TONY KUSHNER’S MOVIE SCRIPT LINCOLN

This research is concerned with the race discrimination in Tony Kushner’s movie script Lincoln. A story of four months of struggle of Lincoln and the Republican party and its supporters to pass the 13th amendment which formally abolished slavery in the United States passing the Senate on April 8, 1864, and the House on January 31, 1865 and approved by President Abraham Lincoln on February 1, 1865. The analysis focuses on the types of race discrimination: the direct and the indirect of race discrimination and the negative impacts of race discrimination adopted from Liliweri. This research used descriptive qualitative research. The one adopted in the research is proposed by Khotari and Bogdan Taylor. The finding shows that the direct race discrimination is an act of limiting a job based on race. It comes from black soldiers. There is also a tendency to discriminate between groups and beliefs with human law itself. The negative impacts of race discrimination are slavery and civil war. Furthermore, race discrimination also causes heavy casualties between whites and blacks by taking over place the territories of the minority.

Racial Discrimination and Nationality and Migration Exceptions: Reconciling CERD and the Race Equality Directive

The principles of equality and non-discrimination offer potentially valuable tools to challenge discriminatory practices employed by States against non-citizens. However, nationality and immigration-related exceptions are an established feature of non-discrimination laws. Such exceptions raise fundamental questions about the scope of the protection offered by anti-discrimination laws and have the potential to perpetuate, rather than eliminate, race discrimination. This article addresses this critical but often neglected issue, through a doctrinal analysis of two specific exceptions - Articles 1(2) and 1(3) of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Article 3(2) of the EU's Race Equality Directive - and an examination of their impact in practice at the domestic level. We argue that nationality and migration status exceptions must be interpreted as narrowly as possible, in line with the core purpose of these instruments to eliminate race discrimination. Furthermore, we suggest that the interplay between these legal frameworks at the domestic level of implementation takes on particular importance in defining the scope and limits of nationality and migration-based exceptions.

Introduction

This section introduces the topic by explaining the role that structure plays in protecting liberty and property rights. As illustrations, it explains how federalism offers a role for states and the national government to play in addressing pandemics, race discrimination, and criminal law. It explains how the states and federal government have adopted increasingly different forms of government over time. It then introduces the parts. Part I deals with the judicial branch. The second part of the book looks at current issues facing the executive branch in the state and federal systems. The third part of the book deals with the legislative branch. The fourth part of the book, all in Chapter 9, takes vertical separation of powers one step further: federalism within federalism. The fifth part of the book, all in Chapter 10, addresses the ultimate recourse of liberty: the freedom to change our fifty-one constitutions.

After Brown

This chapter traces the U.S. Supreme Court’s mnemonic jurisprudence from Brown v. Board of Education to the present. It shows how, despite occasional instances of redemptive memory—especially during the Warren Court era (1953–1969)—the parenthetical mode of memory continued to predominate. The chapter shows how debates over the legacy of slavery and segregation gradually shifted into debates over the legacy of Brown. Anti-classification readings of Brown have been underwritten by narratives of parenthetical memory, whereas anti-subordination readings of Brown have relied on narratives of redemptive memory. The debates have been most poignant in the context of affirmative action and other race-conscious remedies for de jure or de facto race discrimination. In recent years, the parenthetical mode has once again gained the upper hand.

Race Discrimination Effaced at the International Court of Justice

This essay examines the interpretation of the core international treaty dedicated to the elimination of racial discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and in particular how the prohibition on race discrimination applies to the treatment of migrants. This essay is timely, as CERD has travelled from the margins of human rights law to the center of the hottest interstate lawfare. At the time of writing, the first ever interstate dispute before any UN treaty body is before the CERD Committee, and CERD has been invoked in several interstate cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Unfortunately, this crucible of adjudication has not marked an increase in principled interpretation. This essay critiques the recent admissibility ruling of the ICJ in Qatar v. U.A.E. for its marginalization of the prohibition of race discrimination, in particular the failure meaningfully to consider how nationality discrimination may constitute prohibited race discrimination.