Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Series Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Table -- List of Contributors -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction Reading Social Work -- Part I: The Profession of Social Work -- Commentary One -- 1 Black History Month: A Provocation and a Timeline -- 2 But is it Social Work? -- 3 The Politics of Social Work -- 4 Changes in the form of Knowledge in Social Work: From the 'Social' to the 'Informational'? -- 5 The Quest for a Universal Social Work: Some Issues and Implications -- 6 The (R)evolution and Decolonization of Social Work Ethics: The Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles -- 7 Human Rights Practice: Possibilities and Pitfalls for Developing Emancipatory Social Work -- 8 The Impact of Scandal and Inquiries on Social Work and the Personal Social Services -- 9 Social Work in a Risk Society -- 10 Am I my Brother's Keeper? -- 11 Research from the Underside -- 12 What is Professional Social Work? -- 13 The Client Speaks -- 14 Service Users and Practitioners Reunited: The Key Component for Social Work Reform -- Part II: Knowledge and Values for Social Work -- Commentary Two -- 15 The Sociological Imagination -- 16 Reassessing Attachment Theory in Child Welfare -- 17 A Critique of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Framework in Epidemiology and Public Health: Uses and Misuses -- 18 Resilience: Some Conceptual Considerations -- 19 A Critical Understanding of Social Work by Paolo Freire -- 20 There is an Alternative: Homines Curans and the Limits of Neoliberalism -- 21 The Social Model of Disability -- 22 The Relevance of Nancy Fraser for Transformative Social Work Education -- 23 Feminism for the 99% -- 24 Intersectionality's Definitional Dilemmas -- 25 Learning to Deliver LGBT+ Aged Care -- 26 Towards Practising Social Work Law -- 27 What are Values and Ethics?.

CHAPTER 1: Introduction: This Tide is not for Turning (Daniele Albertazzi and Nina Rothenberg) -- Part 1. The Economic and Media Landscapes. CHAPTER 2: Italy in the New Millennium : The Economy and Society (James Newell) ; CHAPTER 3: The Changing Face of the Media: A Catalogue of Anomalies (Christopher Cepernich) ; CHAPTER 4: Electoral Campaigning and the New Media (Roberto Grandi and Cristian Vaccari) -- Part 2. Political Challenges. CHAPTER 5: In Bed with the Enemy - Infighting Among Governing Parties and the Return of the Centre. (Daniele Albertazzi) ; CHAPTER 6: Defeated and Divided? The Left in Opposition (Donatella Campus) ; CHAPTER 7: Challenging from the Grass-roots: the Girotondi and the No Global movement. (Paolo Ceri) -- Part 3. Texts. CHAPTER 8: Silenced Humour on RAI TV: Daniele Luttazzi, Sabina Guzzanti & Co. (Monica Boria) ; CHAPTER 9: The Cinema of Resistance: Nanni Moretti's Il Caimano and the Italian Film Industry (Clodagh Brook) ; CHAPTER 10: Staging Opposition: Il Signor Rossi e la Costituzione (Stefania Taviano) ; CHAPTER 11: Web Challenges to Berlusconi: An Analysis of Oppositional Sites (Cristian Vaccari) ; CHAPTER 12: Mascelloni, Masks and Mascara: Writing, Language and Power in Vincenzo Consolo (Daragh O'Connell) ; CHAPTER 13: Adjusting the Cold Mirror - Berlusconi and the Corriere della Sera (Nina Rothenberg) -- Part 4. Experiences and Personalities. CHAPTER 14: 'Adopt a Domestic Worker?': The Response of Immigrant Associations to the Centre-Right (Wendy Pojmann) ; CHAPTER 15: Feminist Activism and Practice: Asserting Autonomy and Resisting Precarity (Manuela Galetto, Chiara Lasala, Sveva Magaraggia, Chiara Martucci, Elisabetta Onori and Charlotte Ross) ; CHAPTER 16: Collective Association in the LGBT Movement (Charlotte Ross) ; CHAPTER 17: Political Cleansing and Censorship in Public Television - A Case Study of Michele Santoro and Enzo Biagi (Nina Rothenberg) ; CHAPTER 18: Conclusions (Clodagh Brook and Charlotte Ross).

Greece is a country that considers itself to be part of the Western civilization, though still a lot oriental elements exist in its culture and way of thinking. LGBT people are considered to be either invisible or pointed out as metaphorical or literal punch bag. So it was a surprise that a year after the first Athens Gay Pride (2005), two Greek movies appeared with homosexuality as their central theme. The first one 'The Blue Dress', a drama about the journey of a young boy till he turns into a woman, won six national cinema awards. The second one 'Straight Story', a comedy about a world were homosexuality is the normative and heterosexuality is the 'not normal', was the biggest box office success of the year. This paper uses the stereotypes portrayed in these two films in order to explore the spatial dimension of being gay in Greece. Both films place queer subjects in their narrative in a stereotyped even offensive way, but at the same point offer a very accurate image of how 'homosexuality' is perceived in Greece. Issues that become more and more obvious during the rise of the extreme right organizations and their entrance in the Greek parliament and the violence against gay men. The way these two films explore the subject of being gay in Greece, shows the difficulties of placing the 'queer' in public and raise a series of questions of the space available for different sexualities. By analysing these two films the paper shows how space is constructed regarding LGTB people and the limits created by a strong religious and patriarchal tradition reflected in the heteronormative and homonormative systems of this country.

Global trends increasingly appear to be legitimizing same-gender relationships, yet international research shows that despite statutory rights to marry—and by extension, adopt children—same-gender couples continue to experience difficulties when trying to adopt. Primary among these barriers are the persistent heteronormative beliefs, which strongly underpin the unfounded myths about parenting abilities of same-gender couples. Such biased beliefs are perpetuated by some adoption professionals who oppose placing children with lesbian or gay couples. In 2013, New Zealand passed the Marriage Equality Act, making it possible for same-gender couples to legally marry—and by extension, adopt. This provided an opportunity to investigate the perceptions of New Zealand professionals about children being placed with same-gender couples, in a country often perceived to be more tolerant of LGBT people. New Zealand social workers and lawyers (an under-studied group)—the professions most likely involved in adoption—were recruited via professional bodies. Because studying perceptions and beliefs on socially sensitive topics are highly susceptible to social desirability, we designed an instrument utilizing multiple methods to assess and corroborate participants' views about placing children for adoption with couples of the same gender. Administered online and anonymously, the survey included demographic questions, evaluation of negative-meaning and positive-meaning statements, and used a scenario describing a prospective adoptive couple whose gender was ambiguous, in the context of adopting children of varying needs. Overall, the study found that while New Zealand lawyers and social workers (N = 314) had generally favorable views of gay and lesbian adoption, they still reported a preference to see children adopted by heterosexual couples over same-gender couples, within which lesbian and gay couples were preferred equally. Moreover, being religious and politically conservative were characteristics associated with more negative views toward placing children with same-gender couples. We conclude that, despite winning the rights to marry (and adopt as couples), such legislative wins might be merely the first hurdle to be overcome; normalizing same-gender parenting is what needs to happen next. Our study adds to the research focused on adoption professionals in various countries, with the ultimate aim to inform practices and policies supportive of families headed by same-gender couples and formed through adoption.

Global trends increasingly appear to be legitimising same-gender relationships, yet international research shows that despite statutory rights to marry—and by extension, adopt children—same-gender couples continue to experience difficulties when trying to adopt. Primary among these barriers are the persistent heteronormative beliefs, which strongly underpin the unfounded myths about parenting abilities of same-gender couples. Such biased beliefs are perpetuated by some adoption professionals who oppose placing children with lesbian or gay couples. In 2013, New Zealand passed the Marriage Equality Act, making it possible for same-gender couples to legally marry—and by extension, adopt. This provided an opportunity to investigate the perceptions of New Zealand professionals about children being placed with same-gender couples, in a country often perceived to be more tolerant of LGBT people. New Zealand social workers and lawyers (an under-studied group)—the professions most likely involved in adoption—were recruited via professional bodies. Because studying perceptions and beliefs on socially sensitive topics are highly susceptible to social desirability, we designed an instrument utilizing multiple methods to assess and corroborate participants' views about placing children for adoption with couples of the same gender. Administered online and anonymously, the survey included demographic questions, evaluation of negative-meaning and positive-meaning statements, and used a scenario describing a prospective adoptive couple whose gender was ambiguous, in the context of adopting children of varying needs. Overall, the study found that while New Zealand lawyers and social workers (N=314) had generally favourable views of gay and lesbian adoption, they still reported a preference to see children adopted by heterosexual couples over same-gender couples, within which lesbian and gay couples were preferred equally. Moreover, being religious and politically conservative were characteristics associated with more negative views toward placing children with same-gender couples. We conclude that, despite winning the rights to marry (and adopt as couples), such legislative wins might be merely the first hurdle to be overcome; normalising same-gender parenting is what needs to happen next. Our study adds to the research focused on adoption professionals in various countries, with the ultimate aim to inform practices and policies supportive of families headed by same-gender couples and formed through adoption.

The past decade has witnessed dramatic changes in public attitudes about and legal status for same-sex couples who wish to marry. These changes demonstrate that the legal conception of the family is no longer limited to traditional marriage. They also raise the possibility that other relationships -- cohabiting couples and their children, voluntary kin groups, multigenerational groups, and polygamists -- might gain legal recognition as families. This Article probes the challenges faced by aspiring families and the means by which they could attain their goal. It builds on the premise that the state remains committed to social-welfare criteria for granting family status, recognizing as families only those categories of relationships that embody a long-term commitment to mutual care and interdependence and, on that basis, function well to satisfy members' dependency needs. Groups aspiring to legal recognition as families must overcome substantial uncertainties as to whether they meet these criteria if they are to obtain the rights and obligations of legally recognized families. Uncertainty contributes to a lack of confidence in the durability and effectiveness of their relationships on the part of the aspiring family members themselves, the larger social community, and, ultimately, the state. The Article develops an informal model to illustrate the nature of these uncertainties, as well as the solutions to the possible obstacles they create. Using a hypothetical group consisting of two adult men and two adult women in a polyamorous relationship, we show how legal status for family groups can result from an evolutionary process for overcoming uncertainties that uses collaborative techniques to build trust and confidence. Collaborative processes have been shown in other settings to be effective mechanisms for creating trust incrementally and thus appear to offer a way forward for novel families. The Article describes how the successful movement to achieve marriage rights for LGBT couples has roughly conformed to the collaborative processes we propose, and it identifies the absence of meaningful collaboration as one factor explaining the stasis that characterizes the status of unmarried cohabitants. This evidence supports the prediction that the future progress of other aspiring family groups toward attaining legal status may depend on how well they are able to engage the collaborative mechanisms that smooth the path from contract to status.

Introduction / Darren Dochuk and Jerald Podair -- The Progressive Era: a historiographical survey / Elaine Frantz -- The 1920s: a historiographical survey / Jennifer Fronc -- The Great Depression and New Deal: a historiographical survey / Mason B. Williams -- World War II: a historiographical survey/ john mccallum -- The Cold War era: a historiographical survey / Gene Zubovich -- The 1960s: a historiographical survey / Doug Rossinow -- The 1970s: a historiographical survey / Kirsten Swinth -- The 1980s: a historiographical survey / Vincent J. Cannato -- The 1990s: a historiographical survey / Mark Thomas Edwards -- Economics and capitalism: a historiographical survey / Sean Vanatta -- Intellectual: a historiographical survey / Daniel Wickberg -- Politics of liberalism and conservatism: a historiographical survey / Jennifer Delton -- Social and cultural: a historiographical survey / Stephen R. Duncan -- Labor and working-class: a historiographical survey / Jon Shelton -- Foreign relations and U.S. in the world: a historiographical survey / Kelly J. Shannon -- Legal and constitutional: a historiographical survey / Mary Ziegler -- Environmental: a historiographical survey / Bartow J. Elmore -- Women's and gender: a historiographical survey / Abigail Trollinger -- LGBT: a historiographical survey / Cookie Woolner -- African American and civil rights: a historiographical survey / Clarence Taylor -- Latino/a history: a historiographical survey / Felipe Hinojosa -- Native America: a historiographical survey / Sherry L. Smith -- Asian American history: a historiographical survey / Cindy I-Fen Cheng -- Immigration and ethnicity: a historiographical survey / Stephanie Hinnershitz -- Metropolitan: a historiographical survey / Andrew R. Highsmith -- American west: a historiographical survey / John William Nelson -- Border/lands: a historiographical survey / Sheila McManus -- Agricultural and rural: a historiographical survey / Pamela Riney-Kehrberg -- Consumerism and popular culture: a historiographical survey / Emily A. Remus -- Science, medicine, and technology: a historiographical survey / Myrna Perez Sheldon -- Sport and leisure: a historiographical survey / Travis Vogan -- Disability: a historiographical survey / Daniel Wilson -- Religious: a historiographical survey / Sarah Ruble -- Food and health: a historiographical survey / Benjamin E. Zeller

How do the United States and France differ in laws and attitudes concerning discrimination at work? Franco-American scholar Marie Mercat-Bruns interviews prominent legal scholars to demonstrate how these two post-industrial democracies have adopted divergent strategies. Whereas employers in the United States and France rarely discriminate openly, deep systemic discrimination exists in both countries, each with a unique history of dealing with difference. Powerful and incisive, the book examines hot-button issues such as racial and religious bias, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and equality for LGBT individuals, highlighting comparisons that will further discussions on social equality and fundamental human rights across borders. "Mercat-Bruns makes original use of comparative law to shed new light on the issue of discrimination at work. In addition to reviewing the literature, she enters into a rich dialogue with American experts about their core findings. This book makes a fascinating and useful contribution to one of today's most pressing issues." -ANTOINE GARAPON, Secretary General, Director of the Comparative Law Program, Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la Justice (IHEJ) "A very interesting and innovative approach to examining nondiscrimination law." -LISA WADDINGTON, Professor of International and European Law, Maastricht University "A dialogue among America's most prominent contemporary theorists of discrimination, Discrimination at Work comprises a series of pluralistic, audacious, and critically considered reflections on discrimination in the workplace." -ANTOINE LYON-CAEN, President of the International Institute for Comparative Studies (IIPEC), Professor Emeritus of French Labor Law, Paris West University Nanterre La Défense MARIE MERCAT-BRUNS is Affiliated Professor at Sciences Po Law School and Associate Professor in Labor and Employment Law at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers in Paris. She is a member of the Research Institute LISE CNRS (Codirector of the program Gender, Categories and Policy) and also of the scientific committee of PRESAGE (Sciences Po/OFCE Research and Academic Program on Gender Thinking).

Recent world politics has witnessed the rise of a certain style of authoritarianism. It can be roughly characterized with a cult of masculine leadership, a popular rhetoric of foreign investment and development, and a phobia of the illegal immigrant made into an ethical obligation. These contradictory forms of politics – the paean to multinational corporations, free trade, and the 'bloc'-ing of power and the simultaneous mobilization of hyper-nationalism in the form of censoring books and throttling subversive aesthetic practices – characterize the conception and practice of what may be called "authoritarian democracy." Considering the democratically elected basis of this authoritarianism, it becomes all the more important to ask if democracy paves the way for it. In that case, where do we locate democracy today? Is it right to say that the real democratic space unfolds itself in people's movements and not in the electoral process? If this is the case, a radical conception of democracy would have to account for a shift of emphasis from the locus of governance to that of resistance and co-option. Historically speaking, democracy may not always be the means but it has been one of the ends for the various acts of resistance such as the working class, anti-colonial, nationalist, feminist, LGBT, or constitutional multiculturalism. In our sour and hungry times, when state aggression is overpowering the geographical marking (Russia's in Ukraine or Israel's in Palestine), or strangling the voice of internal resistance (North Eastern regions in India), not to mention religious fundamentalism, we need to rethink the old questions of democracy and resistance. With the ISIS, Boko Haram or the Taliban practice, we have seen how resistance itself can produce a dangerous authoritarianism which further complicates the relations between democracy, authoritarianism, and resistance. How do we historicize and ethically theorize resistance in relation to both democracy and an authoritarianism which borders on fascism?

Global trends increasingly appear to be legitimizing same-gender relationships, yet international research shows that despite statutory rights to marry—and by extension, adopt children—same-gender couples continue to experience difficulties when trying to adopt. Primary among these barriers are the persistent heteronormative beliefs, which strongly underpin the unfounded myths about parenting abilities of same-gender couples. Such biased beliefs are perpetuated by some adoption professionals who oppose placing children with lesbian or gay couples. In 2013, New Zealand passed the Marriage Equality Act, making it possible for same-gender couples to legally marry—and by extension, adopt. This provided an opportunity to investigate the perceptions of New Zealand professionals about children being placed with same-gender couples, in a country often perceived to be more tolerant of LGBT people. New Zealand social workers and lawyers (an under-studied group)—the professions most likely involved in adoption—were recruited via professional bodies. Because studying perceptions and beliefs on socially sensitive topics are highly susceptible to social desirability, we designed an instrument utilizing multiple methods to assess and corroborate participants' views about placing children for adoption with couples of the same gender. Administered online and anonymously, the survey included demographic questions, evaluation of negative-meaning and positive-meaning statements, and used a scenario describing a prospective adoptive couple whose gender was ambiguous, in the context of adopting children of varying needs. Overall, the study found that while New Zealand lawyers and social workers (N = 314) had generally favorable views of gay and lesbian adoption, they still reported a preference to see children adopted by heterosexual couples over same-gender couples, within which lesbian and gay couples were preferred equally. Moreover, being religious and politically conservative were characteristics associated with more negative ...

We characterize the Twitter networks of the major presidential candidates, Donald J. Trump and Hillary R. Clinton, with various American hate groups defined by the US Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). We further examined the Twitter networks for Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, and Paul Ryan, for 9 weeks around the 2016 election (4 weeks prior to the election and 4 weeks post-election). We carefully account for the observed heterogeneity in the Twitter activity levels across individuals through the null hypothesis of apathetic retweeting that is formalized as a random network model based on the directed, multi-edged, self-looped, configuration model. Our data revealed via a generalized Fisher's exact test that there were significantly many Twitter accounts linked to SPLC-defined hate groups belonging to seven ideologies (Anti-Government, Anti-Immigrant, Anti-LGBT, Anti-Muslim, Alt-Right, White-Nationalist and Neo-Nazi) and also to @realDonaldTrump relative to the accounts of the other four politicians. The exact hypothesis test uses Apache Spark's distributed sort and join algorithms to produce independent samples in a fully scalable way from the null model. Additionally, by exploring the empirical Twitter network we found that significantly more individuals had the fewest retweet degrees of separation simultaneously from Trump and each one of these seven hateful ideologies relative to the other four politicians. We conduct this exploration via a geometric model of the observed retweet network, distributed vertex programs in Spark's GraphX library and a visual summary through neighbor-joined population retweet ideological trees. Remarkably, less than 5% of individuals had three or fewer retweet degrees of separation simultaneously from Trump and one of several hateful ideologies relative to the other four politicians. Taken together, these findings suggest that Trump may have indeed possessed unique appeal to individuals drawn to hateful ideologies; however, such individuals constituted a small fraction of the sampled population.

Indonesia currently has only one criminal law, Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP), which was enacted and inherited from our colonial government. There has been an effort to amend this law but up until now the amendment of this law is not enacted yet. In this law, there are only two types of sexual violence which have legal protection: rape and sexual molestation (pencabulan), while in the current reality, based on the reported cases to partners of Komnas Perempuan from 2001-2011, there are 15 types of sexual violence; and the number of sexual violence cases has been increasing. As a result, it is difficult for victims of the 15 types of sexual violence to have legal protection. This shows the existing hole in the lex generalis KUHP, which needs to be filled in by lex specialis law which specifically addresses sexual violence. Based on the need for legal protection for victims of various types of sexual violence and to protect women's human rights, Komnas Perempuan and her partners have drafted the Elimination of Sexual Violence Bill since 2014. This Bill has become one of the priorities of the national legislation program since 2016, after the incidence of a gang rape to a school age child in Bengkulu. However, up until the end of September 2019, this Bill was not enacted yet. In addition, there has been currently opposition to this Bill from the conservative group, accusing that this Bill legalizes zina (extra marital sexual relationship) and LGBT. This paper aims at elaborating the background, aims, contents and challenges to the enactment of the Elimination of Sexual Violence Bill. I will argue that this Bill offers both procedural and substantive justice for women and the marginalized groups, the majority victims of sexual violence.

For much of the 20th century, Evangelical churches were a religious sector traditionally resistant to political participation. However, nowadays, they participate inpublic life and are key actors in certain political junctures due to their capacity to convene,mobilize and pressure. Faced with this scenario, this article aims to identify and explain the factors that allow us to understand the reactive politicization of Evangelical churches. For this, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with key actors andscholars, and different secondary sources were reviewed to trace the process and providean explanation for this phenomenon. The general hypothesis that guides the analysis isthat Evangelical churches gave up to their traditional resistance to political participation and dabbled in politics through social mobilization due to the confluence of three factors:the neopentecostalization of Evangelical churches, the influence of the AmericanChristian Right and the Peruvian state's responses to the demands of the feminist andLGBT movements. ; Durante gran parte del siglo XX, las iglesias evangélicas se caracterizaron por serun sector religioso tradicionalmente resistente a la participación política; sin embargo, enla actualidad, incursionan en la vida pública y son actores elevantes en ciertas coyunturaspolíticas por su capacidad para convocar, movilizar y presionar. Frente a ese escenario,este artículo tiene como objetivo identificar y explicar los factores que permitancomprender la politización reactiva de las iglesias evangélicas. Para ello, se realizaronentrevistas semiestructuradas a profundidad a actores clave y académicos especialistas, yse revisaron diferentes fuentes secundarias para reconstruir el proceso en cuestión yofrecer una explicación a este fenómeno. La hipótesis general que orienta el análisis esque las iglesias evangélicas desistieron de su tradicional resistencia a participar en políticae incursionaron en ella a través de la movilización social debido a la confluencia de tresfactores: la neopentecostalización del mundo evangélico, la influencia de la derecha cristiana estadounidense y las respuestas del Estado peruano frente a las demandas de losmovimientos feminista y LGBT.

This paper seeks to draw on the tools of Ernesto Laclau's theory of discourse, hegemony and populism as well as recent Essex School work on populism to examine the discourse of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and, in the process, come closer to a more systematic understanding of nature and limits of 'right-wing' populism as well as the interplay and distinction between populist and non-populist discursive logics more generally. The paper situates itself in the context of existing Essex School work that has distinguished populism from institutionalism - and, more recently, from nationalism - in terms of either the length of the equivalential chain or the centrality of "the people" as nodal point in addition to the degree of antagonistic division between "people" and "power." Building on this latter strand in the recent work of Yannis Stavrakakis and others, this paper proposes a formal distinction between 'populism' and 'reductionism' as internal to Laclau's theory of populism. Reductionism, it is argued, tends to reduce "the people" onto a differential particularity that sets 'a priori' limits on the equivalential chain as opposed to constructing it as a 'tendentially empty signifier' attached to an 'open-ended' chain - producing a tendential 'closure' of the equivalential chain and thus undercutting the primacy of the logic of equivalence that is fundamental to Laclau's understanding of populism and subsequent Essex School applications of it. It is argued that predominantly ethno-, cultural- or nativist-reductionist discourses may nonetheless deploy a populist logic of 'partial openings' in the equivalential chain, especially through the selective equivalential incorporation of sexual or ethno-linguistic minorities against a common (often "Islamic") constitutive outside. This is demonstrated empirically in a discourse analysis of the AfD and its development from a "competition populism" into an ethno-culturally reductionist conception of "the people" coexisting with partial openings in relation to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and Russian-Germans in the Berlin context in particular.

How do the United States and France differ in laws and attitudes concerning discrimination at work? Franco-American scholar Marie Mercat-Bruns interviews prominent legal scholars to demonstrate how these two post-industrial democracies have adopted divergent strategies. Whereas employers in the United States and France rarely discriminate openly, deep systemic discrimination exists in both countries, each with a unique history of dealing with difference. Powerful and incisive, the book examines hot-button issues such as racial and religious bias, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and equality for LGBT individuals, highlighting comparisons that will further discussions on social equality and fundamental human rights across borders. "Mercat-Bruns makes original use of comparative law to shed new light on the issue of discrimination at work. In addition to reviewing the literature, she enters into a rich dialogue with American experts about their core findings. This book makes a fascinating and useful contribution to one of today's most pressing issues." -ANTOINE GARAPON, Secretary General, Director of the Comparative Law Program, Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la Justice (IHEJ) "A very interesting and innovative approach to examining nondiscrimination law." -LISA WADDINGTON, Professor of International and European Law, Maastricht University "A dialogue among America's most prominent contemporary theorists of discrimination, Discrimination at Work comprises a series of pluralistic, audacious, and critically considered reflections on discrimination in the workplace." -ANTOINE LYON-CAEN, President of the International Institute for Comparative Studies (IIPEC), Professor Emeritus of French Labor Law, Paris West University Nanterre La Défense MARIE MERCAT-BRUNS is Affiliated Professor at Sciences Po Law School and Associate Professor in Labor and Employment Law at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers in Paris. She is a member of the Research Institute LISE CNRS (Codirector of the program Gender, Categories and Policy) and also of the scientific committee of PRESAGE (Sciences Po/OFCE Research and Academic Program on Gender Thinking).