Search results

Public schools should be educational havens free of religious affiliation. Students and educators are encouraged to think critically, racial injustices and institutional bigotry promote civic understanding and participation, and value diversity of thought and experience. Unfortunately, and especially in the past three years, Nebraska public schools have endured a spate of racist, xenophobic, and Islamophobic incidents. Some districts have banned children’s books about racial injustice. Others have failed to diversify their curriculum to include LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer) representation or have asked their teachers not to mention “controversial” topics such as immigration. These responses have exacerbated the problem rather than mitigating it, which has harmed marginalized students, families, educators, teacher educators, and librarians in the area. Teacher educators work hard to train teacher candidates and future librarians to advocate for their students and their communities. However, when they become teachers and librarians in our local schools, this work is blocked, and they face traumatic consequences that cause them to burn out and leave the profession early. This is especially true of our Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) teacher candidates, librarians, and teachers. This chapter will describe how educational leaders have failed in their leadership and how some BIPOC teacher educators advocated publicly and got into “good trouble” for themselves and their students who teach in their communities. Teacher educators should not stay in the ivory tower; they have a responsibility to be public intellectuals who have an active role in the community where students teach to model what they teach students to do.

Many African Americans cheered the election of President Obama in 2008 with the hope he would cause an easing of the pain of economic and political barriers to collective black progress in America. This chapter assesses the role of President Obama in addressing these issues.

The Presidential Bully Pulpit is presented as a framework for addressing racial inequities. Properly used it can bring keen attention to issues a president deems important for consideration by the American public. Socio-historical texts and secondary data are used.

Data are presented to show how racial discrimination continues to affect African Americans during the age of Obama. These include housing discrimination, employment discrimination, and racial profiling. This chapter shows Mr. Obama has not used the office of the presidency as a bully pulpit for addressing these racial inequities. Rather he has tended to use the bully pulpit to chastise blacks, especially black males.

Also discussed are some promising developments challenging racism that have emerged from his administration, primarily from the Department of Justice, and how President Obama could use the bully pulpit more productively.

This chapter presents a contradiction in the actions of President Obama. While he seldom uses the bully pulpit to push his own legislative agendas or to push toward solutions to relieve racial inequities in society, he does use the bully pulpit to criticize black males.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the distinctive challenges faced by female travellers (Roma, Sinti and Gypsy) in starting their own business.

The paper details a pilot “start your own business” programme that was delivered in Ireland to 12 women from the traveller community.

Four distinct categories of entrepreneurship barriers faced by female travellers were recognised: self‐esteem, traveller identity, welfare trap and family responsibilities.

The findings are based on just one programme and so no general conclusions can be drawn.

The paper identifies the successes and failures of the programme, plus it highlights the future steps that need to be taken to bring appropriate entrepreneurship support to traveller women who experience triple discrimination – discrimination as women, as travellers and as traveller women.

Very little is known about female travellers in terms of entrepreneurship activity and so this is a significant addition to a very small body of knowledge.

This paper aims to call on accounting academics to conduct oral histories with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) members of the industry.

The paper includes a review of the limited work in the field and recommends an oral history approach to understand current conditions as well as how they arose. Moreover, the paper recommends widening the scope of the research into countries with varying LGBTQ+ rights.

There is surprisingly limited research in this area and more needs to be undertaken, especially with regard to LGBTQ+ persons of color and LGBTQ+ accountants in under-researched localities.

The paper makes specific recommendations for future research.

Currently there is very little understanding of the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ members of our industry. The recommended research could – by increasing awareness – lead to better working conditions.

This paper addresses the dearth of research on LGBTQ+ issues in accounting.

Does the classical liberal emphasis on freedom of association provide an intellectual cover for bigotry? We formulate this question in economic terms using James Buchanan’s economic approach to ethics, according to which moral values can be understood as preferences about other people’s behaviors. We discuss two possible market failures associated with freedom of association: inter-group externalities and Schelling-type emergent segregation. We show that the classical liberal position about freedom of association, as elaborated in Buchanan and Tullock’s Calculus of Consent, is fully equipped to deal with the first one, but not with the second. The progressive view that some preferences are so offensive that they should be dismissed rather than engaged or negotiated with can be reframed as an attempt to solve the emergent segregation problem, but it is vulnerable to political economy problems of its own, in particular to an inherent tendency to over-expand the meaning of “bigotry.”

This project examines how queer and trans zines have complicated the notion of traditional patient narratives and provides insight into the issues that LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning) populations face when accessing healthcare information and resources. Historically, information about queer and trans identities has been suppressed in the United States, reflecting dominant social values that pathologize queer identities. Using health-related zines housed at the Queer Zine Archive Project as a case study, this project investigates how queer and trans zines about healthcare have resisted these homophobic and transphobic ideologies. The analysis reveals that queer and trans zinesters use their feelings of impatience with the medical industry to fuel communal solutions to accessing and providing health care information.

This paper aims to inform the discussion on why and how non-profit organizations can experience a hybridization process to address the criticism that would assume hybridity as an intrinsic characteristic of all organizations. Specifically, by referring to the academies of intellectuals as the non-profit setting in which investigating the emergence of hybridity takes place, this paper aims at exploring, first, to what extent this emergence could be induced by institutional conditions, and, second, which structural innovations could sustain the academies’ “motion” towards hybridity.

This paper relies on the institutional logics perspective and adopts the case study method applied to a historical context. The case under analysis is the Academy of “the Immobili”, which, in spite of its name, experienced a hybridization process in 1720 because of the decision to involve an impresario in the management of its theatre.

The findings highlight the significant role played by institutional conditions in inducing the emergence of hybridity, even in presence of internal resistance to any “motion” from the non-profit setting. Moreover, the analysis of the innovations associated with this emergence detects the intertwined action of the different decision makers involved in the hybridization process, in spite of their formal separation. These findings strengthen the conceptualization of hybridity within non-profit organizations.

Besides referring to a historical period that is still little explored in terms of hybridity within organizations, the paper focuses on an original context, i.e. academies, representing an ancient typology of cultural organizations. Therefore, the paper also provides the first insights into the hybridization process of cultural organizations from a historical perspective.

The monograph argues that American racism has two colours (white and black), not one; and that each racism dresses itself not in one clothing, but in four: (1) “Minimal” negative, when one race considers another race inferior to itself in degree, but not in nature; (2) “Maximal” negative, when one race regards another as inherently inferior; (3) “Minimal” positive, when one race elevates another race to a superior status in degree, but not in nature; and (4) “Maximal” positive, when one race believes that the other race is genetically superior. The monograph maintains that the needs of capitalism created black slavery; that black slavery produced white racism as a justification for black slavery; and that black racism is a backlash of white racism. The monograph concludes that the abolition of black slavery and the civil rights movement destroyed the social and political ground for white and black racism, while the modern development of capitalism is demolishing their economic and intellectual ground.

Goffman (1963) provided us with an explanation of the operation of stigma in microinteractional contexts. However, his definition and explication of the experiences and processes of stigmatization predate what many consider to be the most major shift in discourse and categorization to develop in the twentieth century – the rise of the language of risk. In this chapter, I discuss the intersections of risk discourse and stigma. Drawing on my empirical research with families affected by incarceration, I illustrate the shift toward structural stigma as an exercise of power and governance. I argue that contemporary “common-sense” understandings and usage of the term stigma emphasize negative individual interactions while ignoring the ways that risk categorizations, even in seemingly benign contexts, create structural disadvantage and serve to “other” stigmatized individuals. Singular focus on stigma at the microinteractional level, particularly in destigmatization campaigns, obscures the pervasive structural stigma couched in the language of risk management that permits systematic marginalization.