About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

12 Int'l J. Discrimination & L. 3 (2012)

handle is hein.journals/ijdisclw12 and id is 1 raw text is: IJDL International Journal of Discrimination and the Law Editorial The )3- © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.ulk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1358229112453986 Susan Easton jdi.sagepub.com *SAGE In this issue the problems of achieving equality and protection from discrimination are considered in three jurisdictions: the UK, the USA and Uganda. Tom Royston considers the position of volunteers, who do not currently receive any protection against discrim- ination in English law. Reviewing existing case law, he examines the arguments that volunteers, who play an important role in UK civil society, should be treated as employ- ees or alternatively as service recipients to achieve protection. However, both strategies, he argues, have problems. As volunteers are unpaid, the courts are reluctant to consider them as employees; but the argument that volunteers should be treated as recipients of services is also unlikely to succeed in domestic or European Union law. Royston there- fore argues that the most promising route to pursue to protect volunteers is to treat them as members of associations, who are now entitled to protection under Part 7 of the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits associations from discriminating against any of their members. So volunteers should be seen as comparable to members of political parties and community organisations. If Part 7 is construed to include volunteers, then they could receive protection, but it would also mean that smaller organisations of fewer than 25 members would not be caught by the provisions. Major Coleman considers the problems raised by relying on diversity standards alone to achieve equality in the USA. He reviews the standards used by the federal courts to adjudicate affirmative action programmes in the context of employment and higher edu- cation. Coleman considers the issues raised by the recent case of Fisher v University of Texas, which will reach the Supreme Court later this year. The issue of university admis- sions raised by Fisher has exercised the court for decades since Sweatt v Painter and subsequently in Regents of the University of California v Bakke, Gratz v Bollinger and Grutter v Bollinger. While the court has stressed that diversity is a compelling interest, measures to pursue that interest in the context of employment or admissions must be narrowly tailored. However, as Coleman observes, while there has been an improvement in access to and attainment in higher education in terms of numbers, the financial stand- ing of black graduates has declined. The author considers the reasons for continuing inequalities and argues for substantive equality, the need for which, it is argued, has become even more pressing in the context of demographic changes. Coleman concludes that, while there have been some improvements, substantial inequalities remain, so much more emphasis should be given to remedial solutions. A focus on diversity alone is insufficient to address these issues..

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most