Discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicialdistinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong,[1] such asrace,gender,age,class,religion, orsexual orientation.[2] Discrimination typically leads to groups being unfairly treated on the basis of perceived statuses based on ethnic, racial, gender or religious categories.[2][3] It involves depriving members of one group of opportunities or privileges that are available to members of another group.[4]
Discriminatory traditions, policies, ideas, practices and laws exist in many countries andinstitutions in all parts of the world, including some, where such discrimination is generally decried. In some places, countervailing measures such as quotas have been used to redress the balance in favor of those who are believed to be current or past victims of discrimination. These attempts have often been met with controversy, and sometimes been calledreverse discrimination.
The termdiscriminate appeared in the early 17th century in the English language. It is from theLatindiscriminat- 'distinguished between', from the verbdiscriminare, fromdiscrimen 'distinction', from the verbdiscernere (corresponding to "to discern").[5] Since theAmerican Civil War the term "discrimination" generally evolved inAmerican English usage as an understanding of prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their race, later generalized as membership in a certain socially undesirablegroup or social category.[6] Before this sense of the word became almost universal, it was a synonym for discernment, tact and culture as in "taste and discrimination", generally a laudable attribute; to "discriminate against" being commonly disparaged.[7][8][page needed]
Moral philosophers[who?] have defined[when?] discrimination using amoralized definition. Under this approach, discrimination is defined as acts, practices, or policies that wrongfully impose a relative disadvantage or deprivation on persons based on their membership in a salient social group.[9] This is a comparative definition. An individual need not be actually harmed in order to be discriminated against. They just needs to be treatedworse than others for some arbitrary reason. If someone decides to donate to help orphan children, but decides to donate less, say, to children of a particular race out of a racist attitude, they will be acting in a discriminatory way even if they actually benefit the people they discriminate against by donating some money to them.[10] Discrimination also develops into a source ofoppression, the action of recognizing someone as 'different' so much that they are treated inhumanly and degraded.[11]
This moralized definition of discrimination is distinct from a non-moralized definition—in the former, discrimination is wrong by definition, whereas in the latter, this is not the case.[12]
TheUnited Nations stance on discrimination includes the statement: "Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection."[13] TheUnited Nations Human Rights Council and other international bodies work towards helping ending discrimination around the world.
Ageism or age discrimination is discrimination and stereotyping based on the grounds of someone's age.[14] It is a set of beliefs, norms, and values which used to justify discrimination or subordination based on a person's age.[15] Ageism is most often directed toward elderly people, or adolescents and children.[16][17]
Age discrimination in hiring has been shown to exist in the United States. Joanna Lahey, professor at TheBush School of Government and Public Service atTexas A&M, found that firms are more than 40% more likely to interview a young adult job applicant than an older job applicant.[18] In Europe, Stijn Baert, Jennifer Norga, Yannick Thuy and Marieke Van Hecke, researchers atGhent University, measured comparable ratios in Belgium. They found that age discrimination is heterogeneous by the activity older candidates undertook during their additional post-educational years. In Belgium, they are only discriminated if they have more years of inactivity or irrelevant employment.[19]
In a survey for theUniversity of Kent, England, 29% of respondents stated that they had suffered from age discrimination. This is a higher proportion than forgender orracial discrimination.Dominic Abrams, social psychology professor at the university, concluded that ageism is the most pervasive form ofprejudice experienced in the UK population.[20]
According toUNICEF andHuman Rights Watch,caste discrimination affects an estimated 250 million people worldwide and is mainly prevalent in parts of Asia (India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Japan) and Africa.[21][22] As of 2011[update], there were 200 millionDalits orScheduled Castes (formerly known as "untouchables") in India.[23]
Discrimination against people withdisabilities in favor of people who are not is calledableism ordisablism. Disability discrimination, which treats non-disabled individuals as the standard of 'normal living', results in public and private places and services, educational settings, and social services that are built to serve 'standard' people, thereby excluding those with various disabilities. Studies have shown that disabled people not only need employment in order to be provided with the opportunity to earn a living but they also need employment in order to sustain their mental health and well-being. Work fulfils a number of basic needs for an individual such as collective purpose, social contact, status, and activity.[25] A person with a disability is often found to be socially isolated and work is one way to reduce his or her isolation. In the United States, theAmericans with Disabilities Act mandates the provision of equality of access to both buildings and services and is paralleled by similar acts in other countries, such as theEquality Act 2010 in the UK.
Linguistic discrimination was at first considered an act ofracism. In the mid-1980s,linguistTove Skutnabb-Kangas captured the idea of language-based discrimination aslinguicism, which was defined as "ideologies and structures used to legitimize, effectuate, and reproduce unequal divisions of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups which are defined on the basis of language".[34] Although different names have been given to this form of discrimination, they all hold the same definition. Linguistic discrimination is culturally and socially determined due to preference for one use of language over others.
Scholars have analyzed the role oflinguistic imperialism in linguicism, with some asserting that speakers of dominant languages gravitate toward discrimination against speakers of other, less dominant languages, while disadvantaging themselves linguistically by remaining monolingual.[35]
According to Carolyn McKinley, this phenomenon is most present inAfrica, where the majority of the population speaksEuropean languages introduced during thecolonial era; African states are also noted as instituting European languages as the main medium of instruction, instead ofindigenous languages.[35]UNESCO reports have noted that this has historically benefitted only the Africanupper class, conversely disadvantaging the majority of Africa's population who hold varying level of fluency in the European languages spoken across the continent.[35]
Scholars have also noted the influence of the linguistic dominance of English onacademic disciplines;Anna Wierzbicka, professor of linguistics at theAustralian National University, has described disciplines such as thesocial sciences andhumanities as being "locked in a conceptual framework grounded in English", preventingacademia as a whole from reaching a "more universal, culture-independent perspective."[36]
Discrimination based on a person's name may also occur, with researchers suggesting that this form of discrimination is present based on a name's meaning, its pronunciation, its uniqueness, its gender affiliation, and its racial affiliation.[37][38][39][40][41] Research has further shown that real world recruiters spend an average of just six seconds reviewing each résumé before making their initial "fit/no fit" screen-out decision and that a person's name is one of the six things they focus on most.[42] France has made it illegal to view a person's name on a résumé when screening for the initial list of most qualified candidates. Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands have also experimented with name-blind summary processes.[43] Some apparent discrimination may be explained by other factors such as name frequency.[44] The effects of name discrimination based on a name's fluency is subtle, small and subject to significantly changing norms.[45]
The Anti-discrimination laws of most countries allow and make exceptions for discrimination based on nationality and immigration status.[46] TheInternational Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) does not prohibit discrimination by nationality, citizenship or naturalization but forbids discrimination "against any particular nationality".[47]
Discrimination on the basis ofnationality is usually included inemployment laws[48] (see abovesection for employment discrimination specifically). It is sometimes referred to as bound together with racial discrimination[49] although it can be separate. It may vary from laws that stop refusals of hiring based on nationality, asking questions regarding origin, to prohibitions of firing, forced retirement, compensation and pay, etc., based on nationality.
Discrimination on the basis of nationality may show as a "level of acceptance" in a sport or work team regarding new team members and employees who differ from the nationality of the majority of team members.[50]
In theGCC states, in the workplace, preferential treatment is given to full citizens, even though many of them lack experience or motivation to do the job. State benefits are also generally available for citizens only.[51] Westerners might also get paid more than other expatriates.[52]
Racial and ethnic discrimination differentiates individuals on the basis of real and perceived racial and ethnic differences and leads to various forms of theethnic penalty.[53][54] It can also refer to the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on thesuperiority of onerace over another.[55][56][57][58] It may also meanprejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race orethnicity.[56][57]
Modern variants ofracism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form ofsocial actions, practices or beliefs, orpolitical systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities.[56][57][59] It has been official government policy in several countries, such asSouth Africa during theapartheid era. Discriminatory policies towards ethnic minorities include the race-based discrimination against ethnicIndians and Chinese in Malaysia[60] The concept of multiracism has been used to explain the varieties of race discrimination.[61] After theVietnam War, manyVietnamese refugees moved to Australia and the United States, where they faced discrimination.[62]
Regional or geographic discrimination is a form of discrimination that is based on the region in which a person lives or the region in which a person was born. It differs from national discrimination because it may not be based on national borders or the country in which the victim lives, instead, it is based on prejudices against a specific region of one or more countries. Examples include discrimination against Chinese people who were born in regions of the countryside that are far away from cities that are located within China, and discrimination againstAmericans who are from thesouthern ornorthern regions of the United States. It is often accompanied by discrimination that is based on accent, dialect, or cultural differences.[63]
Religious discrimination is valuing or treating people or groups differently because of what they do or do not believe in or because of their feelings towards a givenreligion. For instance, the Jewish population of Germany, and indeed a large portion of Europe, was subjected to discrimination underAdolf Hitler and his Nazi party between 1933 and 1945. They were forced to live in ghettos, wear an identifying star of David on their clothes, and sent to concentration and death camps in rural Germany and Poland, where they were to be tortured and killed, all because of their Jewish religion. Many laws (most prominently the Nuremberg Laws of 1935) separated those of Jewish faith as supposedly inferior to the Christian population.
Restrictions on the types of occupations thatJewish people could hold were imposed by Christian authorities. Local rulers and church officials closed many professions to religious Jews, pushing them into marginal roles that were considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting andmoneylending, occupations that were only tolerated as a "necessary evil".[64] The number of Jews who were permitted to reside in different places was limited; they were concentrated inghettos and banned from owning land. In Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims are not allowed to publicly practice their religions and they cannot enterMecca andMedina.[65][66] Furthermore, private non-Muslim religious gatherings might be raided by thereligious police.[66] In Maldives, non-Muslims living and visiting the country are prohibited from openly expressing their religious beliefs, holding public congregations to conduct religious activities, or involving Maldivians in such activities. Those expressing religious beliefs other than Islam may face imprisonment of up to five years or house arrest, fines ranging from 5,000 to 20,000 rufiyaa ($320 to $1,300), and deportation.[67]
In a 1979 consultation on the issue, the United States commission on civil rights defined religious discrimination in relation to thecivil rights which are guaranteed by theFourteenth Amendment. Whereas religious civil liberties, such as the right to hold or not to hold a religious belief, are essential forFreedom of Religion (in the United States as secured by theFirst Amendment), religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied "equal protection under the law, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom".[68]
Sex, sex characteristics, gender, and gender identity
Sexism is a form of discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. It has been linked tostereotypes andgender roles,[69][70] and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another.[71] Extreme sexism may fostersexual harassment,rape, and other forms ofsexual violence.[72] Gender discrimination may encompass sexism and is discrimination toward people based on theirgender identity[73] or their gender or sex differences.[74] Gender discrimination is especially defined in terms ofworkplace inequality.[74] It may arise from social or cultural customs and norms.[75]
Intersex persons experiencediscrimination due to innate, atypicalsex characteristics. Multiple jurisdictions now protect individuals on grounds ofintersex status orsex characteristics. South Africa was the first country to explicitly add intersex to legislation, as part of the attribute of 'sex'.[76] Australia was the first country to add an independent attribute, of 'intersex status'.[77][78] Malta was the first to adopt a broader framework of 'sex characteristics', through legislation that also ended modifications to the sex characteristics of minors undertaken for social and cultural reasons.[79][80] Global efforts such as the United NationsSustainable Development Goal 5 is also aimed at ending all forms of discrimination on the basis of gender and sex.[81]
One'ssexual orientation is a "predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality".[82] Like most minority groups, homosexuals and bisexuals are vulnerable to prejudice and discrimination from the majority group. They may experience hatred from others because of their sexuality; a term for such hatred based upon one's sexual orientation is often calledhomophobia. Many continue to hold negative feelings towards those with non-heterosexual orientations and will discriminate against people who have them or are thought to have them. People of other uncommon sexual orientations also experience discrimination. One study found its sample of heterosexuals to be more prejudiced againstasexual people than against homosexual or bisexual people.[83]
Employment discrimination based on sexual orientation varies by country. Revealing a lesbian sexual orientation (by means of mentioning an engagement in a rainbow organisation or by mentioning one's partner name) lowers employment opportunities inCyprus and Greece but overall, it has no negative effect in Sweden and Belgium.[84][85][86][87] In the latter country, even a positive effect of revealing a lesbian sexual orientation is found for women at their fertile ages.
Besides these academic studies, in 2009,ILGA published a report based on research carried out by Daniel Ottosson at Södertörn University College inStockholm, Sweden. This research found that of the 80 countries around the world that continue to considerhomosexuality illegal, five carry thedeath penalty for homosexual activity, and two do in some regions of the country.[88] In the report, this is described as "State sponsored homophobia".[89] This happens inIslamic states, or in two cases regions under Islamic authority.[90][91] On February 5, 2005, theIRIN issued a reported titled "Iraq: Male homosexuality still a taboo". The article stated, among other things thathonor killings by Iraqis against a gay family member are common and given some legal protection.[92] In August 2009, Human Rights Watch published an extensive report detailing torture of men accused of beinggay in Iraq, including the blocking of men's anuses with glue and then giving the men laxatives.[93] Although gay marriage has been legal inSouth Africa since 2006, same-sex unions are often condemned as "un-African".[94] Research conducted in 2009 shows 86% of black lesbians from theWestern Cape live in fear of sexual assault.[95]
A number of countries, especially those in theWestern world, have passed measures to alleviate discrimination against sexual minorities, including laws against anti-gayhate crimes and workplace discrimination. Some have also legalized same-sex marriage or civil unions in order to grant same-sex couples the same protections and benefits as opposite-sex couples. In 2011, theUnited Nations passed its first resolution recognizing LGBT rights.
Students protesting againstracial quotas in Brazil: "Quer uma vaga? Passe no vestibular!" ("Do you want a spot? Pass the entrance exam!")
Reverse discrimination is discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.[96]
This discrimination may seek to redresssocial inequalities under which minority groups have had less access to privileges enjoyed by the majority group. In such cases it is intended to remove discrimination that minority groups may already face. Reverse discrimination can be defined as the unequal treatment of members of the majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities.[97]
Conceptualizingaffirmative action as reverse discrimination became popular in the early- to mid-1970s, a time period that focused on under-representation and action policies intended to remedy the effects of past discrimination in both government and the business world.[98]
Article 15 of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds of caste, religion, sex, race or place of birth etc.[100] Similarly, theConstitution of India guarantees several rights to all citizens irrespective of gender, such asright to equality under Article 14, right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.[101]
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 153 A) – Criminalises the use of language that promotes discrimination or violence against people on the basis of race, caste, sex, place of birth, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other category.[102]
Article 137c, part 1 ofWetboek van Strafrecht prohibits insults towards a group because of its race, religion, sexual orientation (straight or gay), handicap (somatically, mental or psychiatric) in public or by speech, by writing or by a picture. Maximum imprisonment one year of imprisonment or a fine of the third category.[103][104]
Part 2 increases the maximum imprisonment to two years and the maximum fine category to 4,[105] when the crime is committed as a habit or is committed by two or more persons.
Article 137d prohibits provoking to discrimination or hate against the group described above. Same penalties apply as in article 137c.[106]
Article 137e part 1 prohibits publishing a discriminatory statement, other than in formal message, or hands over an object (that contains discriminatory information) otherwise than on his request. Maximum imprisonment is 6 months or a fine of the third category.[103][107]
Part 2 increases the maximum imprisonment to one year and the maximum fine category to 4,[105] when the crime is committed as a habit or committed by two or more persons.
Article 137f prohibits supporting discriminatory activities by giving money or goods. Maximum imprisonment is 3 months or a fine of the second category.[108][109]
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 – makes discrimination against women or men, including discrimination on the grounds of marital status, illegal in the workplace.
Human Rights Act 1998 – provides more scope for redressing all forms of discriminatory imbalances.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 – many provisions, including broadly prohibiting discrimination in the workplace including hiring, firing, workforce reduction, benefits, and sexually harassing conduct.[114]
Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibited discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability. TheOffice of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is charged with administering and enforcing the Act.
Important UN documents addressing discrimination include:
TheUniversal Declaration of Human Rights is a declaration adopted by theUnited Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. It states that:"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."[117]
TheConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an international human rights instrument treaty of the United Nations. Parties to the convention are required to promote, protect, and ensure the full enjoyment of human rights by persons with disabilities and ensure that they enjoy full equality under the law. The text was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 13, 2006, and opened for signature on March 30, 2007. Following ratification by the 20th party, it came into force on May 3, 2008.
Social theories such asegalitarianism assert thatsocial equality should prevail. In some societies, including most developed countries, each individual's civil rights include the right to be free from government sponsored social discrimination.[120] Due to a belief in the capacity to perceive pain or suffering shared by all animals,abolitionist orvegan egalitarianism maintains that the interests of every individual (regardless of their species), warrantequal consideration with the interests of humans, and that not doing so isspeciesist.[121]
Philosophers have debated as to how inclusive the definition of discrimination should be. Some philosophers have argued that discrimination should only refer to wrongful or disadvantageous treatment in the context of a socially salient group (such as race, gender, sexuality etc.) within a given context. Under this view, failure to limit the concept of discrimination would lead to it being overinclusive; for example, since most murders occur because of some perceived difference between the perpetrator and the victim, many murders would constitute discrimination if the social salience requirement is not included. Thus this view argues that making the definition of discrimination overinclusive renders it meaningless. Conversely, other philosophers argue that discrimination should simply refer to wrongful disadvantageous treatment regardless of the social salience of the group, arguing that limiting the concept only to socially salient groups is arbitrary, as well as raising issues of determining which groups would count as socially salient. The issue of which groups should count has caused many political and social debates.[12]
Based on realistic-conflict theory[122] and social-identity theory,[123] Rubin and Hewstone[124] have highlighted a distinction among three types of discrimination:
Realistic competition is driven by self-interest and is aimed at obtaining material resources (e.g., food, territory, customers) for the in-group (e.g., favoring an in-group in order to obtain more resources for its members, including the self).
Social competition is driven by the need for self-esteem and is aimed at achieving a positive social status for the in-group relative to comparable out-groups (e.g., favoring an in-group in order to make it better than an out-group).
Consensual discrimination is driven by the need for accuracy[125] and reflects stable and legitimate intergroup status hierarchies (e.g., favoring a high-status in-group because it is high status).
Discrimination, inlabeling theory, takes form as mental categorization of minorities and the use ofstereotype. This theory describes difference as deviance from the norm, which results in internal devaluation andsocial stigma[126] that may be seen as discrimination. It is started by describing a "natural" social order. It is distinguished between the fundamental principle of fascism and social democracy.[127][clarification needed] TheNazis in 1930s-era Germany and the pre-1990Apartheid government of South Africa used racially discriminatory agendas for their political ends. This practice continues with some present day governments.[128]
EconomistYanis Varoufakis (2013) argues that "discrimination based on utterly arbitrary characteristics evolves quickly and systematically in the experimental laboratory", and that neither classicalgame theory norneoclassical economics can explain this.[129]
In 2002, Varoufakis and Shaun Hargreaves-Heap ran an experiment where volunteers played a computer-mediated, multiroundhawk-dove game. At the start of each session, each participant was assigned a color at random, either red or blue. At each round, each player learned the color assigned to his or her opponent, but nothing else about the opponent. Hargreaves-Heap and Varoufakis found that the players' behavior within a session frequently developed a discriminatory convention, giving aNash equilibrium where players of one color (the "advantaged" color)consistently played the aggressive "hawk" strategy against players of the other, "disadvantaged" color, who played the acquiescent "dove" strategy against the advantaged color. Players of both colors used amixed strategy when playing against players assigned the same color as their own. The experimenters then added acooperation option to the game, and found that disadvantaged players usually cooperated with each other, while advantaged players usually did not. They state that while the equilibria reached in the original hawk-dove game are predicted byevolutionary game theory, game theory does not explain the emergence of cooperation in the disadvantaged group. Citing earlier psychological work ofMatthew Rabin, they hypothesize that a norm of differing entitlements emerges across the two groups, and that this norm could define a "fairness" equilibrium within the disadvantaged group.[130]
Thepsychological impact of discrimination on health refers to the cognitive pathways through which discrimination impacts mental and physical health inmarginalized, and lower-status groups (e.g. racial and sexual minorities).[131] Research on the relationship between discrimination and health became grew in the 1990s, when researchers proposed that persisting racial/ethnic disparities in health outcomes could be explained by racial or ethnic differences in experiences with discrimination.[132] While much research focuses on the interactions betweeninterpersonal discrimination and health, researchers studying discrimination and health in the United States have proposed thatinstitutional discrimination andcultural racism also create conditions that contribute to persisting racial and economic health disparities.[133][134]
A stress and coping framework[135] is applied to investigate how discrimination influences health outcomes in racial, gender, and sexual minorities, as well as on immigrant and indigenous populations.[136][137] The research indicates that experiences of discrimination are associated with worse physical and mental health conditions and lead to increased participation in unhealthy behaviors.[138] Evidence of the inverse link between discrimination and health has been observed consistently across multiple population groups and various cultural and national contexts.[139]
^"What drives discrimination and how do we stop it?".www.amnesty.org.Amnesty International. RetrievedOctober 13, 2020.Discrimination occurs when a person is unable to enjoy his or her human rights or other legal rights on an equal basis with others because of an unjustified distinction made in policy, law or treatment.
^Introduction to sociology (Print) (7th ed.). New York:W. W. Norton & Company Inc. 2009. p. 324.
^Simpson, J.A., ed. (1989).The Oxford Dictionary. Vol. IV (2nd ed.). Clarendon Press. p. 758.ISBN0-19861216-8.
^Richard Tardif, ed. (1985).The Macquarie Concise Thesaurus — Australia's National Thesaurus. The Macquarie Library.ISBN0-94975797-7.
^Altman, Andrew (2020),"Discrimination", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.),Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrievedOctober 13, 2020,[A]s a reasonable first approximation, we can say that discrimination consists of acts, practices, or policies that impose a relative disadvantage on persons based on their membership in a salient social group. [...] [W]e can refine the first-approximation account of discrimination and say that the moralized concept of discrimination is properly applied to acts, practices or policies that meet two conditions: a) they wrongfully impose a relative disadvantage or deprivation on persons based on their membership in some salient social group, and b) the wrongfulness rests (in part) on the fact that the imposition of the disadvantage is on account of the group membership of the victims.
^Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, "Private Discrimination: A Prioritarian, Desert-Accommodating Account",San Diego Law Review, 43, 817–856 (2006); Oscar Horta, "Discrimination in Terms of Moral Exclusion",Theoria: Swedish Journal of Philosophy, 76, 346–364 (2010).
^Wilkinson J and Ferraro K, "Thirty Years of Ageism Research". In Nelson T (ed).Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002
^Hurwitz, Michael (2011). "The impact of legacy status on undergraduate admissions at elite colleges and universities".Economics of Education Review.30 (3):480–492.doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.002.
^Clayton, Thomas (1998). "Building the New Cambodia: Educational Destruction and Construction under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-1979".History of Education Quarterly.38 (1):1–16.doi:10.2307/369662.JSTOR369662.
^Quoted in Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, and Phillipson, Robert,"'Mother Tongue': The Theoretical and Sociopolitical Construction of a Concept". In Ammon, Ulrich (ed.) (1989).Status and Function of Languages and Language Varieties, p. 455. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co.ISBN3-11-011299-X.
^Anna Wierzbicka, Professor of Linguistics, Australian National University and author of 'Imprisoned by English, The Hazards of English as a Default Language, written inNatural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM), the universally convertible currency of communication, which can serve as a commonauxiliaryinter-language for speakers of different languages and a global means for clarifying, elucidating, storing, and comparing ideas" (194) (book review)
^Laham, Simon (December 9, 2011). "The name-pronunciation effect: Why people like Mr. Smith more than Mr. Colquhoun".Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.48 (2012):752–756.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.002.S2CID6757690.
^Carmichael, F.; Woods, R. (2000). "Ethnic Penalties in Unemployment and Occupational Attainment: Evidence for Britain".International Review of Applied Economics.14 (1):71–98.doi:10.1080/026921700101498.S2CID154020583.
^Dennis, Rutledge M. (1995). "Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and the metaphysics of race".Journal of Negro Education.64 (3):243–52.doi:10.2307/2967206.JSTOR2967206.
^abcGhani, Navid (2008)."Racism". In Schaefer, Richard T. (ed.).Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society. SAGE. pp. 1113–1115.ISBN978-1-4129-2694-2.
^Newman, D. M. (2012).Sociology : exploring the architecture of everyday life (9th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. p. 405.ISBN978-1-4129-8729-5.racism: Belief that humans are subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as superior or inferior.
^Newman, D.M. (2012).Sociology: exploring the architecture of everyday life (9th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. p. 405.ISBN978-1-4129-8729-5.racism: Belief that humans are subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as superior or inferior.
^Sandra Mackey's account of her attempt to enter Mecca inMackey, Sandra (1987).The Saudis: Inside the Desert Kingdom. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 63–64.ISBN978-0-393-32417-4.
^abDepartment Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs (September 19, 2008)."Saudi Arabia".2001-2009.state.gov. RetrievedJuly 24, 2019.
^"Maldives".United States Department of State. RetrievedMarch 30, 2022.
^U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1979:Religious discrimination. A neglected issue. A consultation sponsored by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Washington. D.C., April 9–10, 1979
^Forcible Rape Institutionalized Sexism in the Criminal Justice System| Gerald D. Robin Division of Criminal Justice, University of New Haven
^Macklem, Tony (2003).Beyond Comparison: Sex and Discrimination. New York: Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0-521-82682-2.
^abSharyn Ann Lenhart (2004).Clinical Aspects of Sexual Harassment and Gender Discrimination: Psychological Consequences and Treatment Interventions.Routledge. p. 6.ISBN978-1135941314. RetrievedApril 20, 2018.GENDER OR SEX DISCRIMINATION: This term refers to the types of gender bias that have a negative impact. The term has legal, as well as theoretical and psychological, definitions. Psychological consequences can be more readily inferred from the latter, but both definitions are of significance. Theoretically, gender discrimination has been described as (1) the unequal rewards that men and women receive in the workplace or academic environment because of their gender or sex difference (DiThomaso, 1989); (2) a process occurring in work or educational settings in which an individual is overtly or covertly limited access to an opportunity or a resource because of a sex or is given the opportunity or the resource reluctantly and may face harassment for picking it (Roeske & Pleck, 1983); or (3) both.
^MacInnis, Cara C.; Hodson, Gordon (2012). "Intergroup bias toward "Group X": Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals".Group Processes & Intergroup Relations.15 (6):725–743.doi:10.1177/1368430212442419.S2CID3056711.
^Singer, Peter (1999) [1993]. "Equality for Animals?".Practical Ethics (Second ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 57–58.ISBN978-0-521-43971-8.If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. ... This is why the limit of sentience ... is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. ... Similarly those I would call 'speciesists' give greater weight to their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species.
^Sherif, M. (1967).Group conflict and co-operation. London: Routledge.
^Tajfel, H.; Turner, J. C. (1979). "An integrative theory of intergroup conflict". In Austin, W.G.; Worchel, S. (eds.).The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. pp. 33–47.
^Rubin, M.; Hewstone, M.; et al. (2004). "Social identity, system justification, and social dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al".Political Psychology.25 (6):823–844.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00400.x.hdl:1959.13/27347.
^Adam, Heribert (July 1, 1996). "Anti-Semitism and Anti-Black Racism: Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa".Telos.1996 (108):25–46.doi:10.3817/0696108025.S2CID145360794.
^Yanis Varoufakis (2013). "Chapter 11: Evolving domination in the laboratory".Economic Indeterminacy: A personal encounter with the economists' peculiar nemesis. Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy. Routledge. p. 13.ISBN978-0-415-66849-1.
^Shaun Hargreaves-Heap; Yanis Varoufakis (July 2002), "Some experimental evidence on the evolution of discrimination, co-operation and perceptions of fairness",The Economic Journal,112 (481):679–703,doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00735,S2CID59133304
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg)
