Editorial
| Date | 01 September 2012 |
| Author | Susan Easton |
| Published date | 01 September 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1358229112470551 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Editorial
Susan Easton
In this issue Richard Pate discusses the problems generated by social network sites,
including Facebook, for relationships between employers and employees and for
employment law. As he observes, traditional employment law finds it difficult to nego-
tiate the implications of employers’ use of social network communications. Issues may
arise in relation to the recruitment and selection of applicants, and unlawful discrimina-
tion may result from employers using social media in the course of their recruitment,
information-gathering and selection processes. Currently there is no effective regulation
of employers’ use of social networks for hiring and firing in US employment law. Pate
also considers relevant federal and state anti-discrimination law. As he notes, scrutiny of
social network sites gives employers information on applicants’ age, religion, military
status, sexual orientation and other factors, which would not otherwise emerge until after
interview, if at all, and may allow employers to unlawfully discriminate. Moreover, this
discrimination may be invisible, with applicants unaware that data on their sites has been
considered. Employers are therefore given an unfair advantage, and ways of redressing
this inequality are explored.
Erica Howard considers the contentious issue of banning Islamic veils, reviewing the
arguments for and against the ban from the standpoint of gender equality. Bans have
been justified on the grounds that they uphold women’s rights and dignity. The veil has
been viewed as a physical symbol of women’s oppression, as a mobile prison imposed by
men, which also conveys the message that unveiled women are responsible for sexual
offences against women. There is also concern that women may be forced into wearing
them and that allowing young women to wear religious clothing will pressure others into
doing so. These bans have been widely supported within Europe and, although a ban is
not in place in the UK, the majority of the population support such a measure. Howard
addresses these points by considering the meaning of veils and headscarves for the
women themselves, whose voices, she argues, have been ignored in favour of stereoty-
pical ideas about Muslim women. While acknowledging that women may be forced into
wearing them in some cases, Howard identifies a range of additional reasons why women
wear headscarves and veils and argues that such dress codes can themselves be seen as a
form of discrimination. Moreover, in those cases where they are forced into wearing
them, she argues, the ban will not necessarily remove this pressure but may simply
prevent women from participating in work or education, yet their participation is a
necessary precondition of genuine gender equality.
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
12(3) 131–132
ªThe Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1358229112470551
jdi.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial