Mandatory Retirement and Age, Race, and Gender Diversity of University Faculties

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q3 ECONOMICS American Law and Economics Review Pub Date : 2021-05-06 DOI:10.1093/ALER/AHAB002
Daniel E. Ho, Oluchi Mbonu, A. McDonough
{"title":"Mandatory Retirement and Age, Race, and Gender Diversity of University Faculties","authors":"Daniel E. Ho, Oluchi Mbonu, A. McDonough","doi":"10.1093/ALER/AHAB002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While many have documented the changing demographics of universities, understanding the effects of prohibiting mandatory retirement (“uncapping”) has proved challenging. We digitize detailed directories of all American law school faculty from 1971–2017 and show that uncapping in 1994 had dramatic effects. From 1971 to 1993, the percent of faculty above 70—when mandatory retirement would typically have been triggered—remained stable at 1%, but starting in 1994, that proportion increased to 14%. We use a permutation test of moving cohorts to show that these increases are attributable to uncapping. Roughly 39% of faculty members would counterfactually have been subject to mandatory retirement. Effects were less pronounced at public schools, which were more likely to have defined benefits retirement plans. Second, we show that schools with the highest proportion of faculty over 70, and thus most impacted by uncapping, also exhibit the slowest integration of female and minority faculty members. Our study highlights crosscutting effects of civil rights laws: preventing age discrimination can have collateral effects on racial and gender integration.","PeriodicalId":46133,"journal":{"name":"American Law and Economics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ALER/AHAB002","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Law and Economics Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ALER/AHAB002","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While many have documented the changing demographics of universities, understanding the effects of prohibiting mandatory retirement (“uncapping”) has proved challenging. We digitize detailed directories of all American law school faculty from 1971–2017 and show that uncapping in 1994 had dramatic effects. From 1971 to 1993, the percent of faculty above 70—when mandatory retirement would typically have been triggered—remained stable at 1%, but starting in 1994, that proportion increased to 14%. We use a permutation test of moving cohorts to show that these increases are attributable to uncapping. Roughly 39% of faculty members would counterfactually have been subject to mandatory retirement. Effects were less pronounced at public schools, which were more likely to have defined benefits retirement plans. Second, we show that schools with the highest proportion of faculty over 70, and thus most impacted by uncapping, also exhibit the slowest integration of female and minority faculty members. Our study highlights crosscutting effects of civil rights laws: preventing age discrimination can have collateral effects on racial and gender integration.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大学教师的强制退休与年龄、种族和性别多样性
尽管许多人记录了大学人口结构的变化,但事实证明,理解禁止强制退休(“取消上限”)的影响具有挑战性。我们将1971年至2017年所有美国法学院教员的详细目录数字化,并表明1994年取消上限产生了巨大影响。从1971年到1993年,70岁以上的教师比例(通常会触发强制退休)稳定在1%,但从1994年开始,这一比例上升到14%。我们使用移动队列的排列测试来表明这些增加可归因于取消上限。大约39%的教职员工会被强制退休。公立学校的影响不那么明显,因为公立学校更有可能制定固定福利退休计划。其次,我们发现,70岁以上教师比例最高,因此受取消上限影响最大的学校,女性和少数族裔教师的融合也最慢。我们的研究强调了民权法的交叉影响:防止年龄歧视可能对种族和性别融合产生附带影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: The rise of the field of law and economics has been extremely rapid over the last 25 years. Among important developments of the 1990s has been the founding of the American Law and Economics Association. The creation and rapid expansion of the ALEA and the creation of parallel associations in Europe, Latin America, and Canada attest to the growing acceptance of the economic perspective on law by judges, practitioners, and policy-makers.
期刊最新文献
Biased Mediators in Conflict Resolution Present Bias and Debt-Financed Durable Goods Continuances and Uncertainty in the Course of Adjudication More Talk, Less Conflict: Evidence from Requiring Informal Discovery Conferences Does the Fundamental Transformation Deter Trade? An Experiment
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1