Sample Solution

    Institutional discrimination is a form of discrimination that occurs when an institution or system of laws, practices and customs impose limitations on a particular group of people. It may be based on race, sex, religion, disability or any other identifying characteristics. Institutional discrimination takes many forms and can include discriminatory hiring practices, unequal access to services or resources such as banking and housing, or unfair treatment in the criminal justice system.

This type of discrimination is often subtle and hard to detect but it has been around for generations and continues to shape our society today. Individual explanations for the source of discrimination put responsibility onto individuals –emphasizing individual biases such as racism or sexism — rather than looking at how larger structures can create an environment where these beliefs are reinforced over time. Individual-level explanations do not acknowledge how certain rules and regulations baked into our systems perpetuate inequality through institutional policies like education funding statutes which disadvantage students from low-income backgrounds; occupational licensing requirements which make it difficult for non-traditional workers to compete in the job market; voting laws that restrict minority voter participation; zoning ordinances which limit affordable housing development in economically depressed areas; etc. For example, consider the case of policing procedures in New York City during Mayor Bloomberg’s tenure (2002–2013). During this time period there was an increase in ‘Stop & Frisk’ encounters with police—a controversial tactic used by officers allowing them to stop someone they deem suspicious without having reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime. Studies have shown that Black citizens were disproportionately targeted—making up more than 50% of all stops even though comprising only 24% of New York City’s population—leading critics to argue this practice constituted racial profiling.[1] Despite legal challenges brought forth against the policy including a 2013 ruling by Federal District Court Judge Shira Sheindlin declaring Stop & Frisk unconstitutional,[2] data shows that after Bloomberg left office within two years stops had increased again[3]. This example serves to illustrate how institutional policies adopted citywide can lead to higher rates of policing interactions among specific groups based on demographic status alone—even when those policy intentions are not explicitly racist. [1] Fairlie/Jaccard 2012 "Racial Profiling: The Use Of Race By Police In Enforcement Decisions" National Institute Of Justice https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240132_chapter7_Final_Report_v2bwcopyproofedminorrevision07312012CESPJaccardFairlieFINALREPORT4webviewingonly1110081230PMV0withcoverpagesforwebviewingonly1111081035AMV0finalpublishingversionpdf2upconvertedtoblackwhite0731122119PMV14licensetopostonNiJsite1121080108AMV15approvedbyDrFairlie090620121007AMV16approvedbyDEA090620120027PMV17reformattedforprint1017122045PMV18finaluploadtoprintwebsite103012) Accessed 06 December 2018 [2] Flakus G 2013 "New York's Controversial Stop And Frisk Policy Ruled Unconstitutional" Voice Of America https://www.voanews.com/a/new-york-stop--frisk-policy-ruling---unconstitutional--extension---sect----99626634/1694790 .htmlAccessed 06 December 2018 [3]Chokshi N 2015 "'Stop And Frisk' Is On The Rise Again In New York City" The Washington Post https://www .washingtonpost .com /news /to -your -health /wp /2015 /03 /31 /stop -and -frisk -is -on -the rise again -in new york city/?utm _term = .54d8355feaf6 Accessed 06 December 2018