| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
178889
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
While China's Constitution says everyone is treated equally before the law, employment discrimination continues to exist. This paper breaks new ground by analysing a quantitative survey of more than 10,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people, the largest dataset of its kind to date in China. Only 5.1 per cent of respondents were completely open about their gender and sexuality at work. More than one-fifth reported experiencing negative treatment in the workplace. Transgender and intersex people reported higher rates of negative treatment, as did respondents with lower educational levels and lower incomes and those residing in towns. Employer policies against discrimination were rare, but when in place, they were significantly associated with less negative treatment. These findings highlight an almost completely neglected segment of the workforce and document discriminatory experiences that could be addressed by changes in discrimination law and by employer policies and practices related to diversity and inclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
184524
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Undergraduate research labs have long been recognized as having educational and professional benefits, but much less attention has been given to how they can promote diversity and inclusion. Without a conscientious effort to promote these goals, labs are likely to replicate and perpetuate existing inequalities. This article discusses our experiences and lessons from launching an undergraduate research lab in a political science department at a research-oriented state university. It concludes with suggestions for other departments interested in starting undergraduate research labs. Promoting diversity and inclusion by working with undergraduates is unlikely if faculty are recruiting students individually outside of a lab, if the burden is on students to approach faculty, or if labs do not take practical steps to make this happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
148029
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A growing body of literature highlights moral reasons for embracing global democracy. This literature justifies democracy on the grounds of its intrinsic value. But democracy also has instrumental value: the rule of the many is epistemically superior to the rule of one or the rule of the few. I draw on the tradition of epistemic democracy to develop an instrumentalist justification for democratizing global governance. I develop an epistemic-democratic framework for evaluating political institutions—one composed of three principles. The likelihood of making correct decisions within institutions of global governance increases when those institutions maximize (1) human development and capacity for participation; (2) their internal cognitive diversity; and (3) public opportunities for sharing objective and subjective knowledge. Applying this framework to global governance produces a better understanding of the nature and extent of its “democratic deficit,” as well as the actions required to address this deficit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|