It’s a common complaint: the United States is overrun by rules and procedures that shackle professional judgment, have no valid purpose, and serve only to appease courts and lawyers. Charles R. Epp argues, ...

Buy Now From Amazon

It’s a common complaint: the United States is overrun by rules and procedures that shackle professional judgment, have no valid purpose, and serve only to appease courts and lawyers. Charles R. Epp argues, however, that few Americans would want to return to an era without these legalistic policies, which in the 1970s helped bring recalcitrant bureaucracies into line with a growing national commitment to civil rights and individual dignity.

Focusing on three disparate policy areas—workplace sexual harassment, playground safety, and police brutality in both the United States and the United Kingdom—Epp explains how activists and professionals used legal liability, lawsuit-generated publicity, and innovative managerial ideas to pursue the implementation of new rights. Together, these strategies resulted in frameworks designed to make institutions accountable through intricate rules, employee training, and managerial oversight. Explaining how these practices became ubiquitous across bureaucratic organizations, Epp casts today’s legalistic state in an entirely new light.



Similar Products

The New Jim Crow:  Mass Incarceration in the Age of ColorblindnessRights on Trial: How Workplace Discrimination Law Perpetuates InequalityCause Lawyers and Social Movements (Stanford Law Books)The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Second Edition (American Politics and Political Economy Series)How Policy Shapes Politics: Rights, Courts, Litigation, and the Struggle Over Injury Compensation (Studies in Postwar American Political Development)Looking for Rights in All the Wrong Places: Why State Constitutions Contain America's Positive Rights (Princeton Studies in American Politics: Historical, International, and Comparative Perspectives)Beyond the Burning Cross: A Landmark Case of Race, Censorship, and the First Amendment