Videri - User contributions [en]

Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal

2015-10-17T23:57:27Z

Raymond:

{{Infobox book
| name = Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal
| author = Paul Burstein
| publisher = The University of Chicago Press
| pub_date = 1998
| pages = 290
| isbn = 9780226081366
| image = [[File:Jobs,_and_Politics-_The_Struggle_for_Equal_Employment_Opportunity_in_the_United_States_since_the_New_Deal.jpeg|200px|alt=Cover]]
}}

“When my father graduated from one of the nation’s best state universities in 1937, as class valedictorian with a degree in the eminently practical field of accounting, he could not find a job. Part of his problem no doubt lay in the fact that the United States was still suffering from the Great Depression and jobs were difficult to find for most people. But my father also faced another problem, as the dean of his college explained in a letter my father kept for many, many years: most accounting firms and many other kinds of businesses would not hire Jews.” (5) Virtually, not only Jews, but also many other minority groups including blacks, women, disabilities and LGBT, suffered serious employment discrimination in American history. However, the transition of American economic and political system after World War II offers these people an opportunity to have equal employment opportunity (EEO), which means that all employees have fair and equal opportunities to work regardless of race, color, gender, age, disability, national origin and sexual orientation. Paul Burstein, the author of the story above, historically and socially explores the federal EEO policy from the 1940s to the 1980s.

His book, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal, focuses on dealing with this question: which factors contribute to the establishment of federal EEO policy and the changes of these policies from New Deal to the 1980s? As a sociologist, Paul Burstein takes Democratic Representation Theory as a tool to analyze the main reasons for Congress concerning EEO in the 1940s. With this theory, he puts forward three hypotheses for developing and demonstrating his argument.

The first one is public opinion hypothesis. Considering democratic representation theory, he points out that the government will be pressured to respond to public concerns and interests. He believes that lawmakers who come from Congress and each state will effectively and strongly respond to public opinion, especially to the serious issues. Based on this hypothesis, the actions that Congress took on the EEO were responses to public concerns. This hypothesis virtually emphasizes the determined role of public opinion on emergency of EEO policy. The interest organization hypothesis is the second hypothesis which means when lawmakers put toward a new popular policy, the more support this policy can win from public, the less influence of interest groups will have on this policy. In other words, the failure of interest groups to achieve their goals almost account for their advocates are not coincidence with most public interests. Paul Burstein argues that public opinion has more impact on the actions of Congress than interest groups. The public opinion once be considered by Congress, both civil rights organizations and other lobby groups would have no energy to directly influence the Congress. However, anti-civil rights movements, to some extent, have some effects on Congress. But these effects are indirect and only shorten the timetable of legislative process of EEO in Congress. Comparing with the impact of public opinion on actions of Congress, this is not suggest that interest groups are powerless in influencing the EEO policy-making. These groups can always have indirect influence on Congress by changing the policy preferences of public and making connection of their advocates with public interests. The third hypothesis, political parties hypothesis, is based on the spatial theory of party competition, which argues that the voters always have central political preferences and advocates in the two-party system, and adjustment of policies promotes partisan candidates who come from different parties propose similar policies. From this perspective, it may not exist correlation between partisan balance and introduction of the policy. In a word, there is a low level of correlation between partisan balance in Congress and the support of this balance for EEO policy. Accordingly, Paul Burstein believes that partisan balance in Congress is powerless in legislative practice of EEO. After analyzing each of the above hypotheses, he concludes that the public opinion has fundamental and immediate impact on EEO legislative practice.

Similar to the perspective of Paul Burstein, Herbert Hill, the author of article: Affirmative Action and the Quest for Job Equality, emphasizes the significance of Congress and civil rights laws for the protection of EEO for minority groups. He believes that it was a turning point in national history when Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Clause in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which slao approved the establishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However, Howard Zinn takes a contrasting position with Paul Burstein. Zinn regards the efforts of the government’s EEO initiatives for improving minority groups as a political strategy. For example, the black civil rights movement in the 1960s forced the government to take actions to pull some blacks into the political system for the purpose of digestion of ethnic conflicts which mainly came from dissatisfaction with the government, and tried to lead black civil rights movement to a moderate electoral direction. EEO was one part of these actions. Obviously, Howard Zinn’s view is a symbolic analysis of class contradiction, which is very different with Paul Burstein's position. Comparing with Paul Burstein and Herbert Hill, Louis Ruchames gives us a new explanation of the origin of EEO policy. From the perspective of human capital theory, he believes that the federal government played an important role in the emergence of anti-discrimination policy. However, President Franklin D. Roosevelt chose to win the war, rather than to achieve equal employment opportunity, because of the negative attitude of South lawmakers towards the Fair Employment Practice Commission (FEPC). Moreover, the supply of human capital was not serious in the New Deal. Consequently, the measurements of EEO were not highly effective. But the FEPC prompted many employers to abandon discrimination and promoted the legislative process of EEO and fair employment practice.

Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal is a thoughtful, comprehensive book for us to understand the American political system and the various elements of this complex institution. In this book, for achieving the goal of testing the American Democracy, the author uses data collected from social surveys, personal interviews, economic reports for the president, Congressional indexes, hearing records, and so forth, which make his argument and conclusion of effective Congress actions on EEO seem clear and strong. However, he ignores some other important factors. Affirmative Action is one of the key factors that should be seriously considered, and Herbert Hill's article may be a good supplementary. But more historical perspectives need to be supplied for solving this problem. Paul D. Moreno’s book, From Direct Action to Affirmative Action, Fair Employment Law and Policy in America, 1933-1972, may be the best supplementary. In this book, Moreno concerns the EEO issue with a broad historical picture which includes not only political racialism, but also religious conservatism and popular consumerism.

Although Burstein’s book focuses on reasons why Congress takes actions on EEO, it also explores the implementations and limitations of this policy. Paul Burstein’s main point is that the EEO had been achieved by the 1980s and the legislative actions of Congress on EEO ended after the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 which gave more rights to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. From my perspective, however, EEO has not achieved its goal to protect every minority groups, though Paul Burstein, a son of Jews, has been a associate professor of Yale University in 1973 after he graduated from Harvard University.
[[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]
[[Category:Urben Studies]]
[[Category:Wikify]]
[[Category:Book Summaries]]
[[Category:Paul Burstein]]

Jobs, and Politics

2015-10-17T23:56:47Z

Raymond: Raymond moved page Jobs, and Politics to Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal

#REDIRECT [[Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal]]

Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal

2015-10-17T23:56:46Z

Raymond: Raymond moved page Jobs, and Politics to Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal

{{Infobox book
| name = Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal
| author = Paul Burstein
| publisher = The University of Chicago Press
| pub_date = 1998
| pages = 290
| isbn = 9780226081366
| image = [[File:Jobs,_and_Politics-_The_Struggle_for_Equal_Employment_Opportunity_in_the_United_States_since_the_New_Deal.jpeg|200px|alt=Cover]]
}}
Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal

“When my father graduated from one of the nation’s best state universities in 1937, as class valedictorian with a degree in the eminently practical field of accounting, he could not find a job. Part of his problem no doubt lay in the fact that the United States was still suffering from the Great Depression and jobs were difficult to find for most people. But my father also faced another problem, as the dean of his college explained in a letter my father kept for many, many years: most accounting firms and many other kinds of businesses would not hire Jews.” (5) Virtually, not only Jews, but also many other minority groups including blacks, women, disabilities and LGBT, suffered serious employment discrimination in American history. However, the transition of American economic and political system after World War II offers these people an opportunity to have equal employment opportunity (EEO), which means that all employees have fair and equal opportunities to work regardless of race, color, gender, age, disability, national origin and sexual orientation. Paul Burstein, the author of the story above, historically and socially explores the federal EEO policy from the 1940s to the 1980s.

His book, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal, focuses on dealing with this question: which factors contribute to the establishment of federal EEO policy and the changes of these policies from New Deal to the 1980s? As a sociologist, Paul Burstein takes Democratic Representation Theory as a tool to analyze the main reasons for Congress concerning EEO in the 1940s. With this theory, he puts forward three hypotheses for developing and demonstrating his argument.

The first one is public opinion hypothesis. Considering democratic representation theory, he points out that the government will be pressured to respond to public concerns and interests. He believes that lawmakers who come from Congress and each state will effectively and strongly respond to public opinion, especially to the serious issues. Based on this hypothesis, the actions that Congress took on the EEO were responses to public concerns. This hypothesis virtually emphasizes the determined role of public opinion on emergency of EEO policy. The interest organization hypothesis is the second hypothesis which means when lawmakers put toward a new popular policy, the more support this policy can win from public, the less influence of interest groups will have on this policy. In other words, the failure of interest groups to achieve their goals almost account for their advocates are not coincidence with most public interests. Paul Burstein argues that public opinion has more impact on the actions of Congress than interest groups. The public opinion once be considered by Congress, both civil rights organizations and other lobby groups would have no energy to directly influence the Congress. However, anti-civil rights movements, to some extent, have some effects on Congress. But these effects are indirect and only shorten the timetable of legislative process of EEO in Congress. Comparing with the impact of public opinion on actions of Congress, this is not suggest that interest groups are powerless in influencing the EEO policy-making. These groups can always have indirect influence on Congress by changing the policy preferences of public and making connection of their advocates with public interests. The third hypothesis, political parties hypothesis, is based on the spatial theory of party competition, which argues that the voters always have central political preferences and advocates in the two-party system, and adjustment of policies promotes partisan candidates who come from different parties propose similar policies. From this perspective, it may not exist correlation between partisan balance and introduction of the policy. In a word, there is a low level of correlation between partisan balance in Congress and the support of this balance for EEO policy. Accordingly, Paul Burstein believes that partisan balance in Congress is powerless in legislative practice of EEO. After analyzing each of the above hypotheses, he concludes that the public opinion has fundamental and immediate impact on EEO legislative practice.

Similar to the perspective of Paul Burstein, Herbert Hill, the author of article: Affirmative Action and the Quest for Job Equality, emphasizes the significance of Congress and civil rights laws for the protection of EEO for minority groups. He believes that it was a turning point in national history when Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Clause in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which slao approved the establishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However, Howard Zinn takes a contrasting position with Paul Burstein. Zinn regards the efforts of the government’s EEO initiatives for improving minority groups as a political strategy. For example, the black civil rights movement in the 1960s forced the government to take actions to pull some blacks into the political system for the purpose of digestion of ethnic conflicts which mainly came from dissatisfaction with the government, and tried to lead black civil rights movement to a moderate electoral direction. EEO was one part of these actions. Obviously, Howard Zinn’s view is a symbolic analysis of class contradiction, which is very different with Paul Burstein's position. Comparing with Paul Burstein and Herbert Hill, Louis Ruchames gives us a new explanation of the origin of EEO policy. From the perspective of human capital theory, he believes that the federal government played an important role in the emergence of anti-discrimination policy. However, President Franklin D. Roosevelt chose to win the war, rather than to achieve equal employment opportunity, because of the negative attitude of South lawmakers towards the Fair Employment Practice Commission (FEPC). Moreover, the supply of human capital was not serious in the New Deal. Consequently, the measurements of EEO were not highly effective. But the FEPC prompted many employers to abandon discrimination and promoted the legislative process of EEO and fair employment practice.

Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal is a thoughtful, comprehensive book for us to understand the American political system and the various elements of this complex institution. In this book, for achieving the goal of testing the American Democracy, the author uses data collected from social surveys, personal interviews, economic reports for the president, Congressional indexes, hearing records, and so forth, which make his argument and conclusion of effective Congress actions on EEO seem clear and strong. However, he ignores some other important factors. Affirmative Action is one of the key factors that should be seriously considered, and Herbert Hill's article may be a good supplementary. But more historical perspectives need to be supplied for solving this problem. Paul D. Moreno’s book, From Direct Action to Affirmative Action, Fair Employment Law and Policy in America, 1933-1972, may be the best supplementary. In this book, Moreno concerns the EEO issue with a broad historical picture which includes not only political racialism, but also religious conservatism and popular consumerism.

Although Burstein’s book focuses on reasons why Congress takes actions on EEO, it also explores the implementations and limitations of this policy. Paul Burstein’s main point is that the EEO had been achieved by the 1980s and the legislative actions of Congress on EEO ended after the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 which gave more rights to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. From my perspective, however, EEO has not achieved its goal to protect every minority groups, though Paul Burstein, a son of Jews, has been a associate professor of Yale University in 1973 after he graduated from Harvard University.
[[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]
[[Category:Urben Studies]]
[[Category:Wikify]]
[[Category:Book Summaries]]
[[Category:Paul Burstein]]

Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal

2015-10-17T23:52:13Z

Raymond:

{{Infobox book
| name = Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal
| author = Paul Burstein
| publisher = The University of Chicago Press
| pub_date = 1998
| pages = 290
| isbn = 9780226081366
| image = [[File:Jobs,_and_Politics-_The_Struggle_for_Equal_Employment_Opportunity_in_the_United_States_since_the_New_Deal.jpeg|200px|alt=Cover]]
}}
Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal

“When my father graduated from one of the nation’s best state universities in 1937, as class valedictorian with a degree in the eminently practical field of accounting, he could not find a job. Part of his problem no doubt lay in the fact that the United States was still suffering from the Great Depression and jobs were difficult to find for most people. But my father also faced another problem, as the dean of his college explained in a letter my father kept for many, many years: most accounting firms and many other kinds of businesses would not hire Jews.” (5) Virtually, not only Jews, but also many other minority groups including blacks, women, disabilities and LGBT, suffered serious employment discrimination in American history. However, the transition of American economic and political system after World War II offers these people an opportunity to have equal employment opportunity (EEO), which means that all employees have fair and equal opportunities to work regardless of race, color, gender, age, disability, national origin and sexual orientation. Paul Burstein, the author of the story above, historically and socially explores the federal EEO policy from the 1940s to the 1980s.

His book, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal, focuses on dealing with this question: which factors contribute to the establishment of federal EEO policy and the changes of these policies from New Deal to the 1980s? As a sociologist, Paul Burstein takes Democratic Representation Theory as a tool to analyze the main reasons for Congress concerning EEO in the 1940s. With this theory, he puts forward three hypotheses for developing and demonstrating his argument.

The first one is public opinion hypothesis. Considering democratic representation theory, he points out that the government will be pressured to respond to public concerns and interests. He believes that lawmakers who come from Congress and each state will effectively and strongly respond to public opinion, especially to the serious issues. Based on this hypothesis, the actions that Congress took on the EEO were responses to public concerns. This hypothesis virtually emphasizes the determined role of public opinion on emergency of EEO policy. The interest organization hypothesis is the second hypothesis which means when lawmakers put toward a new popular policy, the more support this policy can win from public, the less influence of interest groups will have on this policy. In other words, the failure of interest groups to achieve their goals almost account for their advocates are not coincidence with most public interests. Paul Burstein argues that public opinion has more impact on the actions of Congress than interest groups. The public opinion once be considered by Congress, both civil rights organizations and other lobby groups would have no energy to directly influence the Congress. However, anti-civil rights movements, to some extent, have some effects on Congress. But these effects are indirect and only shorten the timetable of legislative process of EEO in Congress. Comparing with the impact of public opinion on actions of Congress, this is not suggest that interest groups are powerless in influencing the EEO policy-making. These groups can always have indirect influence on Congress by changing the policy preferences of public and making connection of their advocates with public interests. The third hypothesis, political parties hypothesis, is based on the spatial theory of party competition, which argues that the voters always have central political preferences and advocates in the two-party system, and adjustment of policies promotes partisan candidates who come from different parties propose similar policies. From this perspective, it may not exist correlation between partisan balance and introduction of the policy. In a word, there is a low level of correlation between partisan balance in Congress and the support of this balance for EEO policy. Accordingly, Paul Burstein believes that partisan balance in Congress is powerless in legislative practice of EEO. After analyzing each of the above hypotheses, he concludes that the public opinion has fundamental and immediate impact on EEO legislative practice.

Similar to the perspective of Paul Burstein, Herbert Hill, the author of article: Affirmative Action and the Quest for Job Equality, emphasizes the significance of Congress and civil rights laws for the protection of EEO for minority groups. He believes that it was a turning point in national history when Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Clause in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which slao approved the establishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However, Howard Zinn takes a contrasting position with Paul Burstein. Zinn regards the efforts of the government’s EEO initiatives for improving minority groups as a political strategy. For example, the black civil rights movement in the 1960s forced the government to take actions to pull some blacks into the political system for the purpose of digestion of ethnic conflicts which mainly came from dissatisfaction with the government, and tried to lead black civil rights movement to a moderate electoral direction. EEO was one part of these actions. Obviously, Howard Zinn’s view is a symbolic analysis of class contradiction, which is very different with Paul Burstein's position. Comparing with Paul Burstein and Herbert Hill, Louis Ruchames gives us a new explanation of the origin of EEO policy. From the perspective of human capital theory, he believes that the federal government played an important role in the emergence of anti-discrimination policy. However, President Franklin D. Roosevelt chose to win the war, rather than to achieve equal employment opportunity, because of the negative attitude of South lawmakers towards the Fair Employment Practice Commission (FEPC). Moreover, the supply of human capital was not serious in the New Deal. Consequently, the measurements of EEO were not highly effective. But the FEPC prompted many employers to abandon discrimination and promoted the legislative process of EEO and fair employment practice.

Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal is a thoughtful, comprehensive book for us to understand the American political system and the various elements of this complex institution. In this book, for achieving the goal of testing the American Democracy, the author uses data collected from social surveys, personal interviews, economic reports for the president, Congressional indexes, hearing records, and so forth, which make his argument and conclusion of effective Congress actions on EEO seem clear and strong. However, he ignores some other important factors. Affirmative Action is one of the key factors that should be seriously considered, and Herbert Hill's article may be a good supplementary. But more historical perspectives need to be supplied for solving this problem. Paul D. Moreno’s book, From Direct Action to Affirmative Action, Fair Employment Law and Policy in America, 1933-1972, may be the best supplementary. In this book, Moreno concerns the EEO issue with a broad historical picture which includes not only political racialism, but also religious conservatism and popular consumerism.

Although Burstein’s book focuses on reasons why Congress takes actions on EEO, it also explores the implementations and limitations of this policy. Paul Burstein’s main point is that the EEO had been achieved by the 1980s and the legislative actions of Congress on EEO ended after the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 which gave more rights to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. From my perspective, however, EEO has not achieved its goal to protect every minority groups, though Paul Burstein, a son of Jews, has been a associate professor of Yale University in 1973 after he graduated from Harvard University.
[[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]
[[Category:Urben Studies]]
[[Category:Wikify]]
[[Category:Book Summaries]]
[[Category:Paul Burstein]]

Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal

2015-10-17T23:49:29Z

Raymond:

{{Infobox book
| name = Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal
| author = Paul Burstein
| publisher = The University of Chicago Press
| pub_date = 1998
| pages = 290
| isbn = 9780226081366
| image = [[File:Jobs,_and_Politics-_The_Struggle_for_Equal_Employment_Opportunity_in_the_United_States_since_the_New_Deal.jpeg|200px|alt=Cover]]
}}
Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal

“When my father graduated from one of the nation’s best state universities in 1937, as class valedictorian with a degree in the eminently practical field of accounting, he could not find a job. Part of his problem no doubt lay in the fact that the United States was still suffering from the Great Depression and jobs were difficult to find for most people. But my father also faced another problem, as the dean of his college explained in a letter my father kept for many, many years: most accounting firms and many other kinds of businesses would not hire Jews.” (5) Virtually, not only Jews, but also many other minority groups including blacks, women, disabilities and LGBT, suffered serious employment discrimination in American history. However, the transition of American economic and political system after World War II offers these people an opportunity to have equal employment opportunity (EEO), which means that all employees have fair and equal opportunities to work regardless of race, color, gender, age, disability, national origin and sexual orientation. Paul Burstein, the author of the story above, historically and socially explores the federal EEO policy from the 1940s to the 1980s.

His book, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal, focuses on dealing with this question: which factors contribute to the establishment of federal EEO policy and the changes of these policies from New Deal to the 1980s? As a sociologist, Paul Burstein takes Democratic Representation Theory as a tool to analyze the main reasons for Congress concerning EEO in the 1940s. With this theory, he puts forward three hypotheses for developing and demonstrating his argument.

The first one is public opinion hypothesis. Considering democratic representation theory, he points out that the government will be pressured to respond to public concerns and interests. He believes that lawmakers who come from Congress and each state will effectively and strongly respond to public opinion, especially to the serious issues. Based on this hypothesis, the actions that Congress took on the EEO were responses to public concerns. This hypothesis virtually emphasizes the determined role of public opinion on emergency of EEO policy. The interest organization hypothesis is the second hypothesis which means when lawmakers put toward a new popular policy, the more support this policy can win from public, the less influence of interest groups will have on this policy. In other words, the failure of interest groups to achieve their goals almost account for their advocates are not coincidence with most public interests. Paul Burstein argues that public opinion has more impact on the actions of Congress than interest groups. The public opinion once be considered by Congress, both civil rights organizations and other lobby groups would have no energy to directly influence the Congress. However, anti-civil rights movements, to some extent, have some effects on Congress. But these effects are indirect and only shorten the timetable of legislative process of EEO in Congress. Comparing with the impact of public opinion on actions of Congress, this is not suggest that interest groups are powerless in influencing the EEO policy-making. These groups can always have indirect influence on Congress by changing the policy preferences of public and making connection of their advocates with public interests. The third hypothesis, political parties hypothesis, is based on the spatial theory of party competition, which argues that the voters always have central political preferences and advocates in the two-party system, and adjustment of policies promotes partisan candidates who come from different parties propose similar policies. From this perspective, it may not exist correlation between partisan balance and introduction of the policy. In a word, there is a low level of correlation between partisan balance in Congress and the support of this balance for EEO policy. Accordingly, Paul Burstein believes that partisan balance in Congress is powerless in legislative practice of EEO. After analyzing each of the above hypotheses, he concludes that the public opinion has fundamental and immediate impact on EEO legislative practice.

Similar to the perspective of Paul Burstein, Herbert Hill, the author of article: Affirmative Action and the Quest for Job Equality, emphasizes the significance of Congress and civil rights laws for the protection of EEO for minority groups. He believes that it was a turning point in national history when Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Clause in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which slao approved the establishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However, Howard Zinn takes a contrasting position with Paul Burstein. Zinn regards the efforts of the government’s EEO initiatives for improving minority groups as a political strategy. For example, the black civil rights movement in the 1960s forced the government to take actions to pull some blacks into the political system for the purpose of digestion of ethnic conflicts which mainly came from dissatisfaction with the government, and tried to lead black civil rights movement to a moderate electoral direction. EEO was one part of these actions. Obviously, Howard Zinn’s view is a symbolic analysis of class contradiction, which is very different with Paul Burstein’s position. Comparing with Paul Burstein and Herbert Hill, Louis Ruchames gives us a new explanation of the origin of EEO policy. From the perspective of human capital theory, he believes that the federal government played an important role in the emergence of anti-discrimination policy. However, President Franklin D. Roosevelt chose to win the war, rather than to achieve equal employment opportunity, because of the negative attitude of South lawmakers towards the Fair Employment Practice Commission (FEPC). Moreover, the supply of human capital was not serious in the New Deal. Consequently, the measurements of EEO were not highly effective. But the FEPC prompted many employers to abandon discrimination and promoted the legislative process of EEO and fair employment practice.

Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal is a thoughtful, comprehensive book for us to understand the American political system and the various elements of this complex institution. In this book, for achieving the goal of testing the American Democracy, the author uses data collected from social surveys, personal interviews, economic reports for the president, Congressional indexes, hearing records, and so forth, which make his argument and conclusion of effective Congress actions on EEO seem clear and strong. However, he ignores some other important factors. Affirmative Action is one of the key factors that should be seriously considered, and Herbert Hill’s article may be a good supplementary. But more historical perspectives need to be supplied for solving this problem. Paul D. Moreno’s book, From Direct Action to Affirmative Action, Fair Employment Law and Policy in America, 1933-1972, may be the best supplementary. In this book, Moreno concerns the EEO issue with a broad historical picture which includes not only political racialism, but also religious conservatism and popular consumerism.

Although Burstein’s book focuses on reasons why Congress takes actions on EEO, it also explores the implementations and limitations of this policy. Paul Burstein’s main point is that the EEO had been achieved by the 1980s and the legislative actions of Congress on EEO ended after the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 which gave more rights to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. From my perspective, however, EEO has not achieved its goal to protect every minority groups, though Paul Burstein, a son of Jews, has been a associate professor of Yale University in 1973 after he graduated from Harvard University.
[[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]
[[Category:Urben Studies]]
[[Category:Wikify]]
[[Category:Book Summaries]]
[[Category:Paul Burstein]]

Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal

2015-09-28T05:43:08Z

Raymond:

{{Infobox book
| name = Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal
| author = Paul Burstein
| publisher = The University of Chicago Press
| pub_date = 1998
| pages = 290
| isbn = 9780226081366
| image = [[File:Jobs,_and_Politics-_The_Struggle_for_Equal_Employment_Opportunity_in_the_United_States_since_the_New_Deal.jpeg|200px|alt=Cover]]
}}
“When my father graduated from one of the nation’s best state university in 1937, as class valedictorian with a degree in the eminently practical field of accounting, he could not find a job. Part of his problem no doubt lay in the fact that the United States was still suffering from the Great Depression and jobs were difficult to find for most people. But my father also faces another problem, as the dean of his college explained in a letter my father kept for many, many years: most accounting firms and many other kinds of businesses would not hire Jews.” (5) Virtually, not only Jews, but also many other minority groups including blacks, women, disabilities, LGBT, etc., suffers serious employment discrimination in American history. However, the transition of economic and political after World War II offers these people an opportunity to have equal employment opportunity (EEO) which is all about ensuring that all employees have fair and equal opportunities to work regardless of race, color, gender, age, disability, national origin, sex or sexual orientation. Paul Burstein, the author of the story above, historically and socially explores the federal EEO policy from the 1940s to the 1980s and gives us a new perspective to deeply continue this issue.

His book, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal, focuses on dealing with this question: which factors make contribution to the establishment of federal EEO policy and the changes of these policies from New Deal to the 1980s. As a sociologist, Paul Burstein takes Democratic Representation Theory as a tool to analyses main reason for Congress concerning EEO in the 1940s. With this theory, he put forward three hypothesis for developing and demonstrating his argument.

First, Public Opinion Hypothesis. Considering Democratic Representation Theory, he points out that the government will be pressured to respond to public concerns and interests. He believes that the law makers who come from Congress and each state will effectively and strongly respond to public opinion especially to the serious issues. Based on this hypothesis, the actions of Congress takes on the EEO is an respond to public concerns. This hypothesis virtually emphasizes the role of public opinion on emergency of EEO policy. Interest Organization Hypothesis is the second hypothesis which means when law makers put up with a new popular policy, the more support this policy can win from public, the less influence of interest groups will have on this policy. In other words, the failure of interest group for achieving their goal almost account for their advocates are not coincidence with most public’s interests. Paul Burstein argues that public opinion have more impact on the actions of Congress than interest groups and the public opinion once be considered by Congress whether the civil rights organizations or other lobby groups would have no energy to influence the Congress directly. However, anti-civil rights movements, at some extents, have some effects on Congress. But these effects is indirect and only shorten the timetable of Congress action on passing of Equal Employment Opportunity legislation. Comparing with the impact of public opinion on Congress actions, it is not suggest that interest groups are powerless in influencing the EEO policy-making. These groups can always have indirect influence on Congress by changing the policy preferences of public and making connection of their advocates with public interests. The third hypothesis, Political Parties Hypothesis, is based on the theory of Spatial Theory of Party Competition, which argues that the voters always have central political preferences and advocates in the two-party system, and adjustment of policies promotes partisan candidates who come from different parties propose similar policies. From this perspective, it does not exist or little correlation between partisan balance and introduction of the policy. In a word, there is a low level of correlation between partisan balance in Congress and the support of this balance for EEO policy. Accordingly, Paul Burstein believes that partisan balance in Congress is powerless in influencing fair employment legislation practices. After analyzing each of the above hypotheses, he concluded that the public opinion has proposed fundamental and immediate impact on EEO legislative practices , and interest groups have an indirect effect on policy-making in interaction with the public opinion.

Similar to the perspective of Paul Burstein, Herbert Hill, the author of article: Affirmative Action and the Quest for Job Equality, emphasizes the significance of Congress and civil rights laws for the protection of EEO for minority groups. He believes that it is a turning point in national history when Congress passes the Equal Employment Opportunity Clause in the 1964 Civil Rights Act which approves the establishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However, Howard Zinn takes a contrast position with Paul Burstein, he regards the efforts of the government’s EEO initiatives for improving minority groups as a fraud, differentiation and draw strategies. For example, he thinks that the black civil rights movement of the 1960s forces the government to take actions to pull some blacks into the system, in order to digestion of ethnic conflicts which mainly come from dissatisfaction with the government, and try to lead black civil rights movement to a moderate electoral direction. Obviously, Howard Zinn’s views is a symbol analysis of class contradictions which is very different with Paul Burstein’s position. Comparing with Paul Burstein and Herbert Hill, Louis Ruchames gives us a new explanation of the origin of EEO policy. From the perspective of human capital theory, he argues that the federal employment and manpower training policies since the New Deal promote the concerns of Federal Government on EEO.

Jobs, and Politics is a thoughtful book for us to understand the American political system and the various elements of this huge and complex institution. In this book, for achieving the goal of testing the efficient of American Democracy, the author uses many data which collect from social surveys, personal interviews, economic report for president, Congressional record, Hearing record, and so forth, which make his argument and conclusion of effective Congress actions on EEO seems clear and strong. However, he ignores some other important factors which may be more effective to understand EEO policy. Affirmative Action is one of the key factors that we should seriously consider and Herbert Hill’s article may be a good supplementary. But we need more historical perspectives on this issue, so Paul D. Moreno’s book, From Direct Action to Affirmative Action, Fair Employment Law and Policy in America, 1933-1972, may be the best supplementary. In this book, Paul D. Moreno interact the EEO issue with a broad historical picture which include not only political racialism, but also religious conservatism and popular consumerism.

Although, Jobs, and Politics focuses on reasons why Congress takes actions on EEO, this book also explores the implementation and limitations of the policy. Paul Burstein’s main point is that the EEO had been achieved in 1980s and the legal actions of Congress on EEO ended after the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 which authority more rights to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Form my perspective, however, EEO is still on the way. EEO which is all about ensuring that all employees have fair and equal opportunities to work regardless of race, color, gender, age, disability, national origin, sex or sexual orientation is not achieve its whole goals to protect every minority groups, though Paul Burstein, a son of Jews, had been a associate professor of Yale University in 1973.
[[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]
[[Category:Urben Studies]]
[[Category:Wikify]]
[[Category:Book Summaries]]
[[Category:Paul Burstein]]

File:Jobs, and Politics- The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal.jpeg

2015-09-28T05:38:58Z

Raymond:

Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal

2015-09-28T05:35:46Z

Raymond: Created page with "{{Infobox book | name = Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal | author = Paul Burstein |..."

{{Infobox book
| name = Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal
| author = Paul Burstein
| publisher = The University of Chicago Press
| pub_date = 1998
| pages = 290
| isbn = 9780226081366
| image = [[File:Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal.jpg|200px|alt=Cover]]
}}
“When my father graduated from one of the nation’s best state university in 1937, as class valedictorian with a degree in the eminently practical field of accounting, he could not find a job. Part of his problem no doubt lay in the fact that the United States was still suffering from the Great Depression and jobs were difficult to find for most people. But my father also faces another problem, as the dean of his college explained in a letter my father kept for many, many years: most accounting firms and many other kinds of businesses would not hire Jews.” (5) Virtually, not only Jews, but also many other minority groups including blacks, women, disabilities, LGBT, etc., suffers serious employment discrimination in American history. However, the transition of economic and political after World War II offers these people an opportunity to have equal employment opportunity (EEO) which is all about ensuring that all employees have fair and equal opportunities to work regardless of race, color, gender, age, disability, national origin, sex or sexual orientation. Paul Burstein, the author of the story above, historically and socially explores the federal EEO policy from the 1940s to the 1980s and gives us a new perspective to deeply continue this issue.

His book, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal, focuses on dealing with this question: which factors make contribution to the establishment of federal EEO policy and the changes of these policies from New Deal to the 1980s. As a sociologist, Paul Burstein takes Democratic Representation Theory as a tool to analyses main reason for Congress concerning EEO in the 1940s. With this theory, he put forward three hypothesis for developing and demonstrating his argument.

First, Public Opinion Hypothesis. Considering Democratic Representation Theory, he points out that the government will be pressured to respond to public concerns and interests. He believes that the law makers who come from Congress and each state will effectively and strongly respond to public opinion especially to the serious issues. Based on this hypothesis, the actions of Congress takes on the EEO is an respond to public concerns. This hypothesis virtually emphasizes the role of public opinion on emergency of EEO policy. Interest Organization Hypothesis is the second hypothesis which means when law makers put up with a new popular policy, the more support this policy can win from public, the less influence of interest groups will have on this policy. In other words, the failure of interest group for achieving their goal almost account for their advocates are not coincidence with most public’s interests. Paul Burstein argues that public opinion have more impact on the actions of Congress than interest groups and the public opinion once be considered by Congress whether the civil rights organizations or other lobby groups would have no energy to influence the Congress directly. However, anti-civil rights movements, at some extents, have some effects on Congress. But these effects is indirect and only shorten the timetable of Congress action on passing of Equal Employment Opportunity legislation. Comparing with the impact of public opinion on Congress actions, it is not suggest that interest groups are powerless in influencing the EEO policy-making. These groups can always have indirect influence on Congress by changing the policy preferences of public and making connection of their advocates with public interests. The third hypothesis, Political Parties Hypothesis, is based on the theory of Spatial Theory of Party Competition, which argues that the voters always have central political preferences and advocates in the two-party system, and adjustment of policies promotes partisan candidates who come from different parties propose similar policies. From this perspective, it does not exist or little correlation between partisan balance and introduction of the policy. In a word, there is a low level of correlation between partisan balance in Congress and the support of this balance for EEO policy. Accordingly, Paul Burstein believes that partisan balance in Congress is powerless in influencing fair employment legislation practices. After analyzing each of the above hypotheses, he concluded that the public opinion has proposed fundamental and immediate impact on EEO legislative practices , and interest groups have an indirect effect on policy-making in interaction with the public opinion.

Similar to the perspective of Paul Burstein, Herbert Hill, the author of article: Affirmative Action and the Quest for Job Equality, emphasizes the significance of Congress and civil rights laws for the protection of EEO for minority groups. He believes that it is a turning point in national history when Congress passes the Equal Employment Opportunity Clause in the 1964 Civil Rights Act which approves the establishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However, Howard Zinn takes a contrast position with Paul Burstein, he regards the efforts of the government’s EEO initiatives for improving minority groups as a fraud, differentiation and draw strategies. For example, he thinks that the black civil rights movement of the 1960s forces the government to take actions to pull some blacks into the system, in order to digestion of ethnic conflicts which mainly come from dissatisfaction with the government, and try to lead black civil rights movement to a moderate electoral direction. Obviously, Howard Zinn’s views is a symbol analysis of class contradictions which is very different with Paul Burstein’s position. Comparing with Paul Burstein and Herbert Hill, Louis Ruchames gives us a new explanation of the origin of EEO policy. From the perspective of human capital theory, he argues that the federal employment and manpower training policies since the New Deal promote the concerns of Federal Government on EEO.

Jobs, and Politics is a thoughtful book for us to understand the American political system and the various elements of this huge and complex institution. In this book, for achieving the goal of testing the efficient of American Democracy, the author uses many data which collect from social surveys, personal interviews, economic report for president, Congressional record, Hearing record, and so forth, which make his argument and conclusion of effective Congress actions on EEO seems clear and strong. However, he ignores some other important factors which may be more effective to understand EEO policy. Affirmative Action is one of the key factors that we should seriously consider and Herbert Hill’s article may be a good supplementary. But we need more historical perspectives on this issue, so Paul D. Moreno’s book, From Direct Action to Affirmative Action, Fair Employment Law and Policy in America, 1933-1972, may be the best supplementary. In this book, Paul D. Moreno interact the EEO issue with a broad historical picture which include not only political racialism, but also religious conservatism and popular consumerism.

Although, Jobs, and Politics focuses on reasons why Congress takes actions on EEO, this book also explores the implementation and limitations of the policy. Paul Burstein’s main point is that the EEO had been achieved in 1980s and the legal actions of Congress on EEO ended after the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 which authority more rights to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Form my perspective, however, EEO is still on the way. EEO which is all about ensuring that all employees have fair and equal opportunities to work regardless of race, color, gender, age, disability, national origin, sex or sexual orientation is not achieve its whole goals to protect every minority groups, though Paul Burstein, a son of Jews, had been a associate professor of Yale University in 1973.
[[Category:Twentieth Century United States]]
[[Category:Urben Studies]]
[[Category:Wikify]]
[[Category:Book Summaries]]
[[Category:Paul Burstein]]