This article reviews social psychological theory and empirical research on perceiving and reporting discrimination. The article begins with an examination of factors that affect whether individuals perceive themselves as targets of discrimination. We then turn toward addressing whether individuals who perceive discrimination are willing to report their perceptions, as well as the interpersonal consequences they might face for so doing. Throughout this article, we examine how endorsement of the meritocratic worldview shapes these discrimination-related processes. Finally, we conclude by noting the potential for important theoretical, empirical, and applied advances on discrimination scholarship that can arise from interdisciplinary collaboration among legal scholars and social scientists.

This article reports on what an interview study of the legal profession has revealed about diversity in private law firms. The study can be fairly described as an accidental research project—more specifically, a professional responsibility course that turned into an empirical study of the legal profession. After ten years of teaching this course, I have accumulated, almost as a byproduct, a significant corpus of qualitative data about lawyers’ lives, the organizations in which they practice, and the legal profession as a whole. The late Rodney Dangerfield said, “I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out.” An apt description of this study might be, “I went to class and a research project broke out.”

Has federal antidiscrimination law been effective in moving women and minorities into management? Early studies show that government affirmative action reviews improved the numbers, and rank, of blacks, but evidence of what has happened since 1980 is sparse. There is little evidence that civil rights lawsuits improved the employment status of women or African Americans. We examine establishment-level effects of compliance reviews and lawsuits on the percentage of women and blacks in management. We find that compliance reviews, which alter organizational routines, had stronger and more lasting effects than lawsuits, which create disincentives to discriminate. We also find that deregulation was more consequential for compliance reviews than for lawsuits: Compliance reviews initiated in the 1980s were less effective than those initiated in the 1970s. Not so for lawsuits. Compared to lawsuits, compliance reviews appear to have a greater capacity to elicit lasting organizational change, but their effects are mediated by the regulatory environment.

We analyze the timing and extent to which major newspapers in the United States ceased publishing sex-segregated help wanted columns. We situate our study within a specific scholarly literature in organizational sociology and the sociology of law interested in patterns of organizational compliance with U.S. employment law. More specifically, this article is conceptually and theoretically organized around the concept of the “legal field,” defined as the dynamic and emergent interactions among formal law and legal rules, legal officials, self-interested organizations, and the broader political and cultural environment. Content analysis of major U.S. newspapers between 1966 and 1975 indicates that, for nearly five years (1966–70), newspapers collectively refused to desegregate their help wanted columns, despite clear legal rules prohibiting their use. Then, in a comparatively condensed period between 1971 and 1973, virtually all newspapers abruptly abandoned the traditional practice of sorting job ads explicitly by sex.

New legal realism focuses on the complexity of individual action and the view of law from the “bottom-up.” Neoinstitutionalism also suggests that rational-actor models are too simplistic, but spotlights enduring historical effects on individual action and thus tends to view the world from the “top-down.” In this article, we seek to marry the two disparate approaches by centering on moments of institutional vulnerability and opportunity when a system can change or be redefined. The terrorist attacks on September 11 provided a unique opportunity for institutional change. Policymakers seized this opportunity to introduce reforms into American immigration law that fundamentally altered how that law is administered. The implications of these legal reforms were to group many migrants into the category of potential “terrorist” and to make it increasingly difficult for any migrant to claim “victim” status. Immigrants responded to these reforms by refraining from public criticism of the United States and by becoming American citizens. We discuss the potential implications of those actions on the institution of citizenship.

The new legal realism builds on the strengths of the legal realism of the early twentieth century, viewing law as a set of social processes embedded in historical and political contexts. As it addresses sociolegal phenomena of the early twenty-first century, however, the new legal realism is more attentive to the effects of transnationalism, legal culture, and legal consciousness, and the way ideas and norms travel and are adopted around the world. Asking questions of this kind requires new, more multi-sited or deterritorialized methods of scholarship. This article explores these new perspectives and their methodologies through an examination of the use of human rights in the international movement against violence against women.