Volume 2, No. 2, Spring 1998

Language and Social Policy: An Analysis of Forces That Drive Official Language Politics in the United States
Rodney K. Hopson, Paul E. Green, Carol Camp Yeakey, Jeanita W. Richardson, and Tracey A. Reed

This essay examines the current language politics in the United States amidst significant educational, social, political, and economic change. The discussion suggests that explaining the larger, brooder forces and ideologies that drive official language politics is a prerequisite for understanding the history and context of language tensions and debates in this country. Within a framework that presumes that language politics, in school's and the public sector, function as part of a more general process of social reproduction and cultural hegemony, we argue that social inequalities and disparities have been camouflaged in much of the recent language policy debates and decisions. Historical patterns in America reveal that race/ethnicity, class, privilege, and identity issues have always played a role in language politics. By juxtaposing the birth of the recent official language movement with the influence of the Reagan administration, we reveal that contemporary language politics are not in fact enigmatic, but a predictable result of the impending socioeconomic and political cleavage between the "haves" and the "have nots" in the United States.

Rodney K. Hopson is an assistant professor of Education at Duquesne University. Paul E. Green is an assistant professor of Urban Policy and Politics at the University of California at Riverside. Carol Camp Yeakey is a Professor of Urban Policy and Chair of the Graduate Programs in Policy Studies at the University of Virginia. Jeanita W. Richardson is a doctoral candidate in the same department. Tracey A. Reed is an assistant professor of Educational Policy at Ohio University.

Is There Wage Discrimination Against People with Disabilities? Implications for Public Policy
Thomas DeLeire

People with disabilities earn wages that are substantially lower than those earned by people without disabilities. Knowing whether these low wages are primarily the result of the adverse effects of health or the effects of labor market discrimination is of crucial importance to policy makers. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), for example, is based on the assumption that people with disabilities face significant barriers in the labor market due to discrimination by employers. Federal disability insurance programs, on the other hand, are based on the assumption that the health impairments suffered by people with disabilities preclude them from working. This paper discusses the importance of distinguishing between the effects of health and the effects of discrimination and highlights recent empirical efforts in this direction. While the recent evidence is mixed, it appears that wage discrimination can account for half of the difference in wages offered to people with disabilities and to people without disabilities despite the recent passage of the ADA, which banned wage discrimination on the basis of disability.

Thomas DeLeire is an assistant professor at the Harris School of Public Policy. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University in 1997 and has been a member of the faculty at the Harris School since September 19997. His dissertation comprised a study of wage and employment effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

American Indians in the Twilight of Affirmative Action
Steve Russell

So called "reverse discrimination" lawsuits attacking affirmative action based upon equal protection of the law have been successful in three federal circuit courts and unsuccessful in two. When the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear one of these cases in the current term, civil rights organizations raised the money to settle with the white plaintiff, Citizen ballot initiatives also continue to raise the "reverse discrimination" issue in several states. Given these events, it seems that affirmative action, never intended to be permanent as a present remedy for past discrimination, is unlikely to survive on the theory that diversity is a value of constitutional dimensions. The group at the statistical bottom of all the scales thought to measure lock of opportunity is American Indians. A line of viable Supreme Court authority holds that equal protection of the law does not require strict scrutiny of laws singling out Indians for advantage or disadvantage, when "Indians" is understood to mean members of federally recognized tribes rather than Indians by ethnicity. This state of the low poses difficult policy issues for tribal leaders. Standing aside from other minorities is risky, as is litigation against formal equality as a maximum when the law does not guarantee Indians formal equality as a minimum.

Steve Russell is an Assistant Professor of Social and Policy Sciences at the University of Texas at San Antonio and President of the Texas Indian Bar Association.

Proxy for Discrimination: Vouchers in the Section 8 Housing Program
Stacie Young

This article critically assesses the Section 8 program in terms of its provision that allows landlords to refuse Section 8 recipients, thereby preventing low-income minority Section recipients from escaping poverty. After examining housing market constraints, housing discrimination, and how mobility counseling efforts are hampered by discrimination against Section 8 recipients, the article suggests that many landlords legally refuse Section 8 holders as a proxy for refusing poor, African-American, female-headed households. In conclusion, to open up housing opportunities for Section 8 tenant-based subsidy holders, the Section 8 program must examine many of its provisions, including making discrimination against the Section 8 subsidy illegal.

Stacie Young is a master's candidate at the Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies. She works with the Housing Coalition of the Southwestern Suburbs (Cook County, Illinois).

An Economic Consideration of Same-Gender Marriage and Fertility
Adam A. Doty

Same-gender marriages and homosexuality have been pushed into the national spotlight by recent legislation and court rulings. Opinions on this issue are based on widely varying criteria, yet few are based upon objective arguments. Economics offers a rational framework in which behavior and consequences from such behavior may be measured and analyzed. This paper is an extension of Gary Becker's economic theory on families and marriage with particular attention to same-gender marriage and family formation. Summary discussion of several concepts central to the economics of the family as they relate to some-gender family formation are considered throughout this article. First, this article will present a general discussion of marriage markets and decisions and rationales for cohabiting or marrying. Second, the economic gains to marriage for both homosexual and heterosexual couples will be examined. Third, fertility alternatives and demand for children by same-gender couples will be considered. The article concludes with a discussion of future outcomes and policy implications relating to gay and lesbian marriage and fertility. Given legal marriage, access to reproductive technologies, and legal adoption laws, homosexuals can enjoy the some benefits to family formation and fertility as heterosexuals. In addition, there are no economic externalities to provide a basis for discrimination.

Adam A. Doty is a master's candidate at the Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies. His interests include child and family policy.

The Rent/Commuting Tradeoffs of Black Middle-Class Households in Large Metropolitan Housing Markets
Mark Shroder

Researchers in this decade have documented widespread discrimination against minority home seekers in the United States. The persistence of housing discrimination is a fact, but the effects of housing discrimination are uncertain. This paper investigates whether there is a causal relationship between discrimination and the racial segregation displayed by most large metropolitan areas. If members of the black middle class who could afford the rents in white neighborhoods tend to reside in segregated neighborhoods, is this behavior largely voluntary-given the significant premiums white consumers pay to avoid black neighborhoods-or largely imposed on them? Economic theory predicts that a consumer facing only normal market constraints will trade off the time value of commuting against locational rents based on commuting distance. The violation of the marginal condition predicted by the theory should be a marker for the presence of an abnormal constraint. I look at rents and commutes of middle-class renters, both white and black, in nine major metropolitan areas and find clear evidence of constraint in only one (Boston).

Mark Shroder is an economist with the Office of Policy Development and Research at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. He received master's and doctoral degrees in economics from the University of Wisconsin at Madison.