Taking Voting Rights Seriously: Race and the Integrity of Democracy in America
This article demonstrates that secure and reliable elections are easily achievable in the United States - if those with economic and political power so desired. Given the costs implicit in continued clouds of legitimacy over those currently governing this nation, one would therefore expect strong and decisive action to remedy once and for all race-based electioneering games and faulty voting machinery. The thesis of this article, however, is that this is very unlikely to occur; rather, those with power seem to be exercising an option to use race instrumentally to foil the democratic process and to enhance their electoral interests. Of course, if this thesis is correct, not only does it mean that prospectively no effective voting reform will occur, it also means that there is additional reason to question the legitimacy of these past, tainted elections. Part I of this article will review the problems with the elections of 2000 and 2004 with a view towards highlighting the primary barriers inherent in the current matrix of election regulation and law that prevents the will of the people from being manifest in election outcomes. Part II will review the major reform - Help America Vote Act - that has occurred thus far as a result of these controversies, and will show that this reform is not effective to address the root problems plaguing our democracy. Part Ill of this article seeks to explain why effective reform did not occur in the wake of the elections of 2000 and 2004, through the use of interest convergence theory and its emphasis on the power of race in America to serve the needs of those with political and economic power. The article concludes that real election reform is not likely to occur because elites find it in their interest to retain the status quo - including the ability to use race instrumentally to manipulate elections.
The New Cultural Diversity and Title VII
INTRODUCTION Diversity has long been thought of as a potential justification for racial classifications.' This Article proceeds upon the premise that individuals contribute to productive cultural diversity within a properly managed diverse workforce in a facially neutral and merit-driven manner. each provided valuable insights that served to improve this Article. Robert Coulthard provided excellent research assistance. Dean James Concannon, as always, provided institutional support for my efforts in writing on the topic of diversity. My sister, Deborah Ramirez, was instrumental in helping me develop the race-neutral approach to diversity embodied in this Article, first by questioning it, then by critiquing it, and ultimately by embracing it. (stating that educational institution's interest in a diverse student body may justify racial classifications). 2. (providing in-depth analysis of cultural diversity initiatives within "leading HeinOnline-6 Mich. or even race-based decision making. 3 Instead, this paper analyzes a culture-conscious decision making that is taking root in the business world as a means of increasing workforce productivity. 4 Specifically, this paper assesses the diversity initiatives of the leading edge of corporate America under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.5 The leading elements of the American business community, faced with a more culturally diverse business environment, are moving quickly to embrace diversity. 6 American business is rationalizing its response to elements" of corporate America and positing that such initiatives are facially neutral, merit-driven, and culture-conscious initiatives). 3. The differences between affirmative action and diversity management are quite significant. First, affirmative action is essentially remedial in nature, while diversity, as practiced in the mainstream business community, is essentially merit-driven, in that an individual's contributions to a well-managed diverse workforce leads to profitable insights. ("[W]here diversity is desirable, it is because it makes the institution better."). Second, affirmative action, rightly or wrongly, was generally believed to entail lowering standards for persons of a given background, while diversity emphasizes that competitiveness imposes rigorous standards of performance and merit-namely productivity contribution. Third, affirmative action had a primary focus on hiring decisions, while diversity recognizes that the hiring date is only the beginning of creating an environment that unleashes the potential of all employees. Fourth, diversity is inclusive of all group identities-including White males. ("Managing diversity ... means enabling every member of your workforce to perform to his or her potential. It means getting from your employees everything they have to give."). Since Bakke, the Court has not heard …
The Diminishing Role of Social Work Administrators in Social Service Agencies
ABSTRACT The social service industry in the United States has experienced tremendous growth and change since the early 1970s. Unfortunately, the social work profession has not kept up with this growth and change. This article explores several issues that have emerged in social work administration that may contribute to the seemingly diminished role of social workers in administrative positions in social service agencies. They include the role that schools of social work play in educating social workers for administration, competition for administrative positions in social service agencies, and the differences which exist between administration in social service agencies and other types of organizations.