内在的教条?审查私人第七章索赔中的宗教偏见

IF 1.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Matthew Dahl, Devan N. Patel, Matthew E. K. Hall
{"title":"内在的教条?审查私人第七章索赔中的宗教偏见","authors":"Matthew Dahl,&nbsp;Devan N. Patel,&nbsp;Matthew E. K. Hall","doi":"10.1111/jels.12298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In recent years, American politicians have become increasingly concerned that judges who identify as Christian are making decisions based on that identity—that Christian judges harbor a certain “dogma” within them that shapes their decision making. In this article, we investigate whether this concern is warranted by examining how such judges handle claims that are brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits private discrimination in employment on the basis of religion. By focusing on decision making in cases of private discrimination—rather than public discrimination—we make progress on a theoretical conundrum that has dogged previous efforts to identify causal effects in religious accommodation cases. However, our tests produce little evidence to support the idea that Christian judges are more likely than their non-Christian colleagues to favor claimants, even in this alternative domain. Our findings therefore suggest that the current political focus on possible bias among Christian judges is empirically unfounded, at least in situations of religious accommodation.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"18 4","pages":"742-764"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Dogma Within? Examining Religious Bias in Private Title VII Claims\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Dahl,&nbsp;Devan N. Patel,&nbsp;Matthew E. K. Hall\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jels.12298\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In recent years, American politicians have become increasingly concerned that judges who identify as Christian are making decisions based on that identity—that Christian judges harbor a certain “dogma” within them that shapes their decision making. In this article, we investigate whether this concern is warranted by examining how such judges handle claims that are brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits private discrimination in employment on the basis of religion. By focusing on decision making in cases of private discrimination—rather than public discrimination—we make progress on a theoretical conundrum that has dogged previous efforts to identify causal effects in religious accommodation cases. However, our tests produce little evidence to support the idea that Christian judges are more likely than their non-Christian colleagues to favor claimants, even in this alternative domain. Our findings therefore suggest that the current political focus on possible bias among Christian judges is empirically unfounded, at least in situations of religious accommodation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"18 4\",\"pages\":\"742-764\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12298\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12298","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,美国的政治家们越来越担心,那些认定自己是基督徒的法官是基于这种身份来做决定的——基督徒法官内心怀有某种“教条”,这种“教条”影响了他们的决定。在本文中,我们通过研究这些法官如何处理根据1964年《民权法案》第七章提出的索赔来调查这种担忧是否有根据。《民权法案》第七章禁止基于宗教的私人就业歧视。通过关注私人歧视案例中的决策,而不是公共歧视,我们在一个理论难题上取得了进展,这个难题一直困扰着之前在宗教和解案例中确定因果关系的努力。然而,我们的测试几乎没有证据支持这样一种观点,即基督徒法官比他们的非基督徒同事更有可能偏袒原告,即使是在这个替代领域。因此,我们的研究结果表明,目前政治上对基督教法官可能存在偏见的关注在经验上是没有根据的,至少在宗教和解的情况下是这样。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Dogma Within? Examining Religious Bias in Private Title VII Claims

In recent years, American politicians have become increasingly concerned that judges who identify as Christian are making decisions based on that identity—that Christian judges harbor a certain “dogma” within them that shapes their decision making. In this article, we investigate whether this concern is warranted by examining how such judges handle claims that are brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits private discrimination in employment on the basis of religion. By focusing on decision making in cases of private discrimination—rather than public discrimination—we make progress on a theoretical conundrum that has dogged previous efforts to identify causal effects in religious accommodation cases. However, our tests produce little evidence to support the idea that Christian judges are more likely than their non-Christian colleagues to favor claimants, even in this alternative domain. Our findings therefore suggest that the current political focus on possible bias among Christian judges is empirically unfounded, at least in situations of religious accommodation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
34
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信