On fuzzy non-discrimination

We show that the incompatibility between the Pareto principle and the notion of non-discrimination as presented in Xu (2000) continues to hold when the individuals have exact preferences and the social preference relation is allowed to be a reflexive and transitive fuzzy binary relation. Our result can be seen as a strengthening of the result of Xu in two directions: (1) the range of the aggregation rule is enlarged and (2) a weaker condition on non-discrimination is used.fuzzy preferences

Achieving non-discrimination in prediction

Discrimination-aware classification is receiving an increasing attention in data science fields. The pre-process methods for constructing a discrimination-free classifier first remove discrimination from the training data, and then learn the classifier from the cleaned data. However, they lack a theoretical guarantee for the potential discrimination when the classifier is deployed for prediction. In this paper, we fill this gap by mathematically bounding the probability of the discrimination in prediction being within a given interval in terms of the training data and classifier. We adopt the causal model for modeling the data generation mechanism, and formally defining discrimination in population, in a dataset, and in prediction. We obtain two important theoretical results: (1) the discrimination in prediction can still exist even if the discrimination in the training data is completely removed; and (2) not all pre-process methods can ensure non-discrimination in prediction even though they can achieve non-discrimination in the modified training data. Based on the results, we develop a two-phase framework for constructing a discrimination-free classifier with a theoretical guarantee. The experiments demonstrate the theoretical results and show the effectiveness of our two-phase framework

International Action on Discrimination

Timeline of action in support of fundamental right to non discrimination in the workplace, taken by international organizations such as the ILO and the United Nations between 1919 and 2001

Equality and Non-discrimination (EQND) in Sanitation Programmes at Scale (Part 1)

A well-facilitated Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) programme that pro-actively considers and involves people who might be disadvantaged has been shown to have many benefits. A lack of this can and will often have negative impacts and make programmes and ODF unsustainable.This issue of Frontiers of CLTS looks at who should be considered potentially disadvantaged, how they can effectively participate and what may be needed to address diverse needs in order to make processes and outcomes sustainable and inclusive. Using a range of examples from GSF programmes that were part of a recent study on Equality and Non-Discrimination, it explores the challenges that may occur and concludes with suggested good practices that will strengthen the processes to the benefit of all

Global Market Integration and National Sovereignty

In this paper, we first trace the evolution of the global trading system from the 19th century to the present-day GATT/WTO arrangements, calling attention to the key roles of reciprocity and nondiscrimination, and we note how the system is now challenged by the new paradigm of global market integration. We then consider the recent plethora of free trade agreements (FTAs), including those between industrial and developing countries, and their uneasy relationship with a multilateral system based on non-discrimination.. Thereafter, we seek to identify the boundaries of the WTO and examine how the potential expansion of these boundaries extension and weakening of the effectiveness and influence of the WTO.Reciprocity, Non-Discrimination; Boundaries of WTO Regime

Still on the Sidelines: Developing the Non-Discrimination Paradigm under Title IX

I. Introduction Despite the promises of equal opportunity for women signalled by the passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 1 little progress in the creditable realization of this goal occurred in intercollegiate or interscholastic athletics between 1972 and 1992. 2 This lack of progress was unfortunate. 3 In many ways, most women were still on the sidelines. However, recent judicial decisions have allowed many, but certainly not all, women to leave the sidelines and enter the playing fields as equals. By virtue of three landmark cases, Cohen v. Brown, 4 Roberts v. Colorado State Board of Agriculture, 5 and Favia v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 6 women who are blessed with great athletic ability have earned a mandate for nu- merical parity with men in intercollegiate athletic programs. In these three cases, federal district courts issued injunctions to prevent post-secondary institutions from eliminating certain women\u27s intercollegiate athletic teams, 7 or reducing them to a lower level status. 8 Every decision was affirmed on appeal. 9 The various courts held that the defendant institutions in each of the three cases had engaged in gender discrimination, prohibited by Title IX, 10 by failing to meet any one of three alternative measures established in the Policy Interpretation. 11 These three measures, which are designed to be considered consecutively, attempt to provide for assessment of the opportu- nity for individuals of both genders to compete in athletic programs by de- termining: 1. Whether intercollegiate [or interscholastic ..

The international trading order at the crossroads

As economic theory shows and experience underlines, international trade and the specialization associated herewith is one important source of economic growth, employment creation and technological innovation in participating countries. In awareness of this potential for increasing economic prosperity throughout the world, the architects of the international trading system, which was to emerge from the ashes of World War II, envisaged a framework of rules leading to, and securing, open markets. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which came into being in 1948, laid down such trade rules, basically the principles of non-discrimination and multilateralism in world trade. The aim was not to establish free trade, without any government intervention. What was meant is liberal trade, in which governments may interfere, but using price measures which are transparent and do not rule out competition (i.e. non-prohibitive tariffs rather than quantitative restrictions or subsidies). Adherence by the member countries to the principles of multilateralism and non-discrimination was expected to give rise to the production of an international public good: stability and predictability of trade rules.