Search results

Research on racial inequality in organizations typically (1) assumes constraining effects of bureaucratic structure on the capacity of powerful actors to discriminate or (2) reverts to individualistic interpretations emphasizing implicit biases or self-expressed motivations of gatekeepers. Such orientations are theoretically problematic because they ignore how bureaucratic structures and practices are immersed within and permeated by culturally normative racial meanings and hierarchies. This decoupling ultimately provides a protective, legitimating umbrella for organizational practices and gatekeeping actors – an umbrella under which differential treatment is enabled and discursively portrayed as meritocratic or even organizationally good. In this chapter, we develop a race-centered conception of organizational practices by drawing from a sample of over 100 content-coded workplace discrimination cases and analyzing both discriminatory encounters and employer justifications for inequality-generating conduct. Results show three non-mutually exclusive patterns that highlight the fundamentally racial character of organizations: (1) the racialization of bureaucracies themselves via the organizational valuation and pursuit of “ideal workers,” (2) the ostensibly bureaucratic and neutral, yet inequitable, policing of minority worker performance, and; (3) the everyday enforcement of racial status boundaries through harassment on the job, protection afforded to perpetrators, and bureaucratically enforced retaliation aimed at victims. The permeation of race-laden presumptions into organizations, their activation relative to oversight and bureaucratic policing, and the invoking of colorblind bureaucratic discourses and policies to legitimate discriminatory conduct are crucial to understanding the organizational dimensions of racial inequality production. We end by discussing the implications of our argument and results for future theory and research.

The South Texas University this study examined is a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) that has a 73.3% Hispanic (primarily Mexican American) population (Tallant, 2018 ). The logical consequence of education is the provision or guarantee of an equitable opportunity for all students to have equal access to learning and the achievement of academic success (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988 ). The basic definition of bilingual education in the United States is the use of two languages for instruction of the home language and English. Unfortunately, this basic principle is not accepted by postsecondary institutions as predispositions of university preparedness (Blanchard & Muller, 2014; García, Kleifgen, & Falchi, 2008; Kanno & Cromley, 2013; Lee et al., 2011; Menken, Hudson, & Leung, 2014). Mexican American students are potentially being left out of the opportunities afforded by the attainment of a postsecondary education because they are a language minority (Lucas, Henze, & Donato, 1990; Moll, 1990; Trueba, 2002; Trueba & Wright, 1981; Washington & Craig, 1998). Students are already examined for postsecondary credentials or college readiness, in the eighth grade (Paredes, 2013). Through this testing, 11 out of every 100 Hispanic children in the state of Texas are deemed as having attained postsecondary credentials (Paredes, 2013). As part of the fastest growing demographic group in Texas and the United States, the Mexican American population holds the lowest rate of graduation from postsecondary institutions and the highest high school dropout rate of any ethnic minority in the nation. In a 12-year study, Kanno and Cromley (2013) found that one out of eight English as a second language (ESL) or English language learners (ELLs) attain a bachelor’s degree from postsecondary institutions across the United States while the success rate for their English, monolingual counterparts is one out of three. Various researchers (García et al., 2008; García, Pujol-Ferran, & Reddy, 2012) argue that the inequity of education in the United States can be measured by how few minority students educated under the principles of education attend a postsecondary institution because it is the diploma from such institutions that leads to higher paying wages for the individual (García, 1991; García et al., 2008, García et al., 2012).

The purpose of this research is to reveal the behaviour of the main Mexican exporting companies during the 2018-2020 period, which covers part of the COVID-19 pandemic phase. The results indicate that it is not viable to invest in this type of companies for the time being, and this is shown empirically through the traditional Markowitz investment portfolio selection methodology and its extension through the Sharpe model.

With only a few exceptions, economic sociology scholarship remains almost silent about illegality and crime in the economy. The implicit premise in the literature on market sociology is that institutional structures and exchanges taking place in markets are law abiding in nature. As a consequence of this legality bias the study of morality in markets has so far only addressed commodities – like human organs, gambling, drugs, alcohol, or tobacco – whose legal status depends on broad social agreements and has excluded markets whose workings are dependent on formally legitimized institutions like property rights, trademark laws, or copyrights. Drawing on seven months of ethnographic research, this chapter addresses the phenomenon of emerging moral justifications in the context of a marketplace for counterfeit and sweatshop-produced garments. In line with Anteby’s proposal on a “practice-based view of moral markets,” it argues that despite the broad moral consensus around trademark laws and the absence of professionals who advocate for legalization, moral justifications views arise from rising aspirations in such illegal markets. The case expands existing understandings of morality and contestation in economic sociology literature and shows its relevance in the context of recent academic scholarship on perceptions of the future as a source of moral justification of market exchanges.