Editorial
| DOI | 10.1177/1358229112453986 |
| Published date | 01 March 2012 |
| Date | 01 March 2012 |
| Author | Susan Easton |
Editorial
Susan Easton
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..
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
12(1) 3–4
ªThe Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1358229112453986
jdi.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial