Ethnic Diversity Management in Europe
Autumn semester
5 credits
Instructor – Oxana Karnaukhova, ass. prof.,
Department of the World History and International Relations
oskarnauhova@sfedu.ru
Aims of the course
The main aim of the course is to familiarize students with how the abstract legal principle of
equality is turned into policy and practice in Europe and beyond. Starting from what equality
means as a basic legal principle and right in modern democratic systems, the course will move
on to critically analyze the policy visions, policy approaches and policy tools used to put equality
into practice.
Students will be encouraged to analyze documents and other texts; to develop
communicative skills and to provide their ability to apply new knowledge to the concrete cases
and practices of interaction.
Role of the course in the overall degree curriculum
The course is geared for the first year graduate students. This course stands among special
disciplines, aiming to apply theoretical knowledge on European affairs to practical skills.
Learning outcomes
Students will be asked to reach conclusions about what diversity and conflict are, what behavior
patterns and strategies of conflict resolution are called for in a local and international
environment. In the course of doing so, they will have to become aware of the different trends in
diversity study, conflict resolution approaches applicable. In conclusion students will be
expected to get a solid knowledge about diversity management and be ready to apply it in
practical situations.
Course description
1. Diversity and Equal Rights: Basic concepts (Week 1)
The overall claim of the class will be to introduce and define basic concepts of diversity and
equality theory and policy.
Reading:
Sandra Friedman (2002). Equality: Concepts and Controversies”// Discrimination Law. Oxford
UP, pp 1-26
Recommended:
M. Rosenfeld (1991). Definition of key concepts // Affirmative Action and Justice: Yale UP. Pp
11-42
II. Visions of Equality.
This section of the class will discuss the three different general approaches to diversity and
equality and policy tools related to them. The three approaches are: equal treatment, positive
action and equal opportunities for disadvantaged groups and, third, transformation through
mainstreaming equality.
2. Equal treatment – Antidiscrimination (Week 2)
This class will discuss formal, procedural equality, and the principle of non-discrimination.
Legal concepts of direct and indirect discrimination will also be introduced. The discussion will
be geared towards understanding how formal procedural approaches to inequality prove to be
insufficient in addressing the deeply rooted social problem of inequality.
Readings:
Sandra Friedman (2002). Legal concepts: Direst, Indirect Discrimination, and Beyond//
Discrimination Law. Oxford UP, pp 92-116
Recommended:
Paul Brest (1976). The Supreme Court 1975 Term. Forward: In Defence of the
Antidiscrimination Principle, 90. Harvard Law Review 1-55.
Presentation:
Andrew Kopellman (1996). Process Based Theories // Antidiscrimination Law and Social
Equality. Yale UP New Haven, London, pp 13-57
3. Positive Action (Week 3)
This week’s class will introduce and debate substantive, result-based approaches to equality and
the way they relate to procedural approaches to equality, discussed in the previous class. The
distinction between individual models of justice and group models of justice will be introduced.
Policy tools that come under this approach, ranging from positive action to affirmative action
programs, will be discussed together with debates revolving around them.
Readings:
Ronald Dworkin (2005). Affirmative Action: Does it work?; Affirmative Action: Is it Fair?//
Sovereign Virtue. The Theory and Practice of Equality. Harvard UP. Pp 386-427
Recommended:
Sandra Friedman (2002). Beyond Indirect Discrimination; Symmetry and Substance: Reverse
Discrimination // Discrimination Law, Oxford UP, pp 121-160
Andrew Kopellman (1996). Process Based Theories // Antidiscrimination Law and Social
Equality. Yale UP New Haven, London, pp 57-115
Thomas Nagel (1977). Introduction // Cohen, Nigel, Scanlon eds. Equality and Preferential
Treatment. Princeton UP, New Jersey, pp VII-XIV
Christopher McCrudden (1982). Institutional Discrimination. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies,
V. 2, No. 3. Pp 303-367
Presentations:
Colm O’Cinneide (2006). Positive Action and the Limits of the Law // Maastricht Journal of
European and Comparative Law. Vol. 13/3, pp 351-365
4. From Equal Opportunity and Mainstreaming equality (Week 4)
This class The Concept of equal opportunities will be discussed together with the transformative
approach of mainstreaming equality. Equal opportunity means making the terms of completion
equal for everybody. Practical implications may range from narrow procedural approaches to
approaches that bring about wide scale social transformation. Mainstreaming is the most novel
approach to equality, which purports to transgress both the logic of the equal treatment and of the
positive action approach, by suggesting a thorough cultural transformation of the society.
Discussion in the class will address both concepts in relation to each other and tackle dilemmas
and tensions rising from their application.
Readings:
Teresa Rees (1998). Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union: Education, Training and
Labour Market Policies. London: Routledge, Chapter 3 “Conceptualising Equal Opportunities (p.
26-49), Chapter 10 “Mainstreaming Equality” (p. 188-194)
Recommended:
Council of Europe. Gender mainstreaming. Conceptual Framework, methodology and
presentation of good practices. Final Report of Activities of the Group of Specialists on
Mainstreaming (EG-S-MS). Strasbourg, May 1998
Presentation:
Booth, C., Bennett, C. (2002). Gender mainstreaming in the European Union: Towards a new
conception and practice of equal opportunities? // European Journal of Women’s Studies, 9 (4),
pp 430-446
5. Equality of What? Groups and categories. (Week 5)
Having seen the possible theoretical and policy approaches to equality, this class will discuss a
crosscutting theme: what is the scope of equality policy, what do the categories used in equality
policy have in common? Is equality policy aimed at individuals and groups whose members
should be protected? What criteria define such groups and their members? Can we justify
protection for traditional equality grounds such as ethnicity or gender, while neglecting poverty
or class?
Readings:
Iris Marion Young (1990). Five faces of oppression // Justice and the Politics of Difference. Pp
39-66
Recommended:
Owen Fiss (1976). Groups and the Equal Protection Clause, 5 Philosophy and Public Affairs 107
Nancy Fraser (2003). Rethinking recognition: overcoming displacement and reification in
Cultural Politics // Recognition Struggles and Social Movements: Contested Identities, Agency
and Power, ed. By B. Hobson. Cambridge UP.
Presentation:
Sandra Friedman (2002). The scope of Discrimination Law: Grounds of Discrimination //
Discrimination Law. Oxford UP, pp. 66-82
III. Specific grounds of equality
Having discussed the general approaches to equality, the class will turn to discuss the specifics
of the different grounds of inequality. The main question addressed in this part of the course will
be: Can different inequality grounds be handled together theoretically and by policy? Are there
any specifics of the different inequality grounds that merit special attention? Should the holders
of multiple intersecting inequalities be treated as worth of specific consideration?
6. Ethnicity and Race (Week 6-7)
Specifics of inequality on grounds of race or ethnicity will be discussed as structural forms of
discrimination typical for this ground, such as segregation in different social fields, and the idea
of multiculturalism which constructs the concept of equality along the diversity of ethnic groups.
The issue of segregation will be discussed through two groundbreaking United States Supreme
Court cases on segregation, pro- and contra, with references to the European and Russian cases
of segregations. For multiculturalism we will discuss Kymlicka’s arguments on how cultural
diversity is an integral part of individual freedom and autonomy.
Reading:
Kymlicka W. (1995) Freedom and Culture // Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford UP: 75-106
Recommended:
Charles Taylor (1992) Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition, Princeton UP
7. Intersectionality, Competing Inequalities (Week 8-9)
Having seen the commonalities of equality policy on different grounds and than the specifics of
each ground, this class we will move on to understand what happens if inequality grounds
intersect: what are the consequences of intersectionality for categories and for group boundaries
and how does the concept impact on policy answers? Both structural and political
intersectionality will be discussed.
Reading:
Kimberly Crenshaw (1991) Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and
Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, Vol. 43, No 6: 1241-1299
Recommended:
Mieke Verloo (2006) Multiple Inequalities, Intersectionality and the European Union. European
Journal of Women Studies. Vol. 13(3): 211-228
Presentation:
Laurel Weldon (2009) Intersectionality // Politics, Gender and Concepts eds. Goertz and Mazur.
CUP. Pp 194-218
IV. Equality policy-making
This part of the course will look into equality policy processes investigating specifically the three
main levels where equality policy is made, contested and implemented, and the way in which
these three levels interact.
8. Introduction to Minority Rights Law: Historical Issues (Week 10&11)
Pre-Westphalia system. Post-Westphalia system of Minority Protection. League of Nations.
United Nations.
Reading:
Ramaga P.(1992) The bases of Minority Identity // 14 (2) Human Rights Quarterly pp. 409-428
Macklem P. (2008) Minority Rights in International Law // 6 (3/4) International Journal of
Constitutional Law pp 531-553
Recommended:
Kymlicka W. (2008) The Internationalisation of Minority Rights // 6(1) International Journal of
Constitutional Law pp 1-32
Rodley N.S. (1995) Conceptual Problems in the Protection of Minorities: International Legal
Developments // 17(1) Human Rights Quarterly pp48-71
9. Regional Protection of Minority Rights: Europe (Week 12)
Historical background (historical treatment of national minorities, growth of human rights
norms). Council of Europe (Charter on Regional and Minorities Languages, Framework
Convention for protection of national minorities). European Union (Equal opportunities,
justice& home affairs, Charter of Fundamental Rights-2000).
Reading:
Ahmed T. (2009) Demanding Minority (Linguistic) rights from the EU: Exploiting Existing Law
// 15(3) European Public Law pp 379-402
McGodrick D. (2005) Multiculturalism and its discontents // 5(1) Human Rights Law Review
pp27-56
Recommended:
Arnull A. (2003) From Charter to Constitution and Beyond: Fundamental Rights in the New
European Union // Public Law Winter pp 774-793
Keller P. (1998) Rethinking Ethnic and Cultural Rights in Europe 18(1) Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies pp.29-59
Mode of Study
As soon the course has interdisciplinary and applied character it will be presented once a week in
a seminar format. After discussions on the readings assigned students are expected to take part in
discussions on the topics announced. These discussions are to reveal the gap between theories
and practices of diversity and communication in cultural context. To make diversity and conflict
issues visible and discussable we will use visual resources, such as movies, assimilators and
case-studies. Training will be made at the final stage of the course.
Due to the course nature students will be invited to demonstrate their skills of critical and
analytical thinking and writing skills through essays (after the topics 1.1, 2.3, 3.2) and article
analysis (after the topic 1.2), to develop their oral argumentation skills through presentation
(after the topic 2.3). Final paper is an important element in the course, aimed to demonstrate the
student’s ability to synthesize different pieces of knowledge, critically assess theories,
hypotheses and arguments, analyze different cases, academic writing skills.
Assessment
Attendance of all classes is required, because of their interactive character. Students can be
absent no more than three class periods.
Participation in Class (10%) is required. Active participation in all class disputes means
understanding of the problems discussed.
Essays (3*15%): After each set of the problems discussed students will be required to write 3-4
pages essay in order to demonstrate an understanding of the topic, ability to explain the basic
theories and their applications to the historical and cultural reality as well as analytical thinking
beyond the required readings.
Article analysis (10%): during the classes students will be asked to find, locate and analize an
article of regional media production concerning problems discussed (diversity, multicultural
policy, conflict resolution styles etc.)
Presentation (15%): In small groups, students will prepare a short presentation of a conflict
resolution process to illustrate the basic concepts and theories at work.
Final paper (20%): by the end of the classes students will be asked to write 12-15 pages essay in
order to summarize the key points of the classes sets, analyze the strengths and weaknesses of
the basic theoretical constructions and their applications to the different cultural models.
Recommended literature
1.
Kirton, G & Greene, A-M. (2005) The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical
Approach, Butterworth Heinemann, 2nd Edition.
2.
Joan Acker (2006) Class Questions: Feminist Answers. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield.;
3.
Woodward,K. (1997) Identity and Difference. Sage.;
4.
Emma Bell (2008) Reading Management and Organization in Film, Palgrave
Macmillan.; Ratcliffe, P. (2004) ‘Race’, Ethnicity and Difference: Imagining the Inclusive
Society, Open University Press.;
5.
Danieli, A and Wheeler, P (2006) ‘Employment policy and disabled people: old wine in
new glasses?’ Disability and Society, 21 (5), 485-498).;
6.
Dean, D (2008) No human resource is an island: gendered racialized access to work as a
performer. Gender, Work and Organization 15, 2:1-21.;
7.
Liff, S (1997) ‘Two Routes to Managing Diversity, individual differences or social group
characteristics’ Employee Relations, 19 (1).

Further reading:
 Sandra Friedman (2002). Equality: Concepts and Controversies”// Discrimination Law.
Oxford UP, pp 1-26
 Andrew Kopellman (1996). Process Based Theories // Antidiscrimination Law and Social
Equality. Yale UP New Haven, London, pp 13-57
 Andrew Kopellman (1996). Process Based Theories // Antidiscrimination Law and Social
Equality. Yale UP New Haven, London, pp 57-115
 Thomas Nagel (1977). Introduction // Cohen, Nigel, Scanlon eds. Equality and
Preferential Treatment. Princeton UP, New Jersey, pp VII-XIV
 Christopher McCrudden (1982). Institutional Discrimination. Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies, V. 2, No. 3. Pp 303-367
 Council of Europe. Gender mainstreaming. Conceptual Framework, methodology and
presentation of good practices. Final Report of Activities of the Group of Specialists on
Mainstreaming (EG-S-MS). Strasbourg, May 1998
 Iris Marion Young (1990). Five faces of oppression // Justice and the Politics of
Difference. Pp 39-66
 Owen Fiss (1976). Groups and the Equal Protection Clause, 5 Philosophy and Public
Affairs 107
 Nancy Fraser (2003). Rethinking recognition: overcoming displacement and reification in
Cultural Politics // Recognition Struggles and Social Movements: Contested Identities, Agency
and Power, ed. By B. Hobson. Cambridge UP.
 Lisa Waddington (2001) Evolving Disability Policies: From Social Welfare to Human
Rights. An International Trend from a European Perspective, 19/2 NQHR
 UN
Convention
on
the
Rights
of
Persons
with
Disabilities
//
http://www.un.org/disabilities/
 Ahmed T. (2009) Demanding Minority (Linguistic) rights from the EU: Exploiting
Existing Law // 15(3) European Public Law pp 379-402
 McGodrick D. (2005) Multiculturalism and its discontents // 5(1) Human Rights Law
Review pp27-56