Should a liberal constitution constrain the racially discriminatory actions of state as well as nonstate employers? This essay answers in the affirmative, arguing that once we take seriously the right to nondiscrimination on the basis of race in terms of employment, we realize that such a constitution must constrain the actions of both. In doing so, this essay draws from John Rawls’s four-stage sequence, a sequence that suggests one way philosophical principles translate into constitutional design. A Theory of Justice is (...) the go-to theory for a wide range of political issues from a perspective of liberal theory, but scholars have paid less attention to it and comparative constitutional law. I take up this neglected inquiry by focusing on the distinction between the horizontal and vertical effect of a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race in matters of employment. My analysis draws from the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. A vertical effect constrains state power: a right to nondiscrimination is violated only when a state or public body discriminates on the basis of race. A horizontal effect constrains nonstate actors: a private employer may violate rights by discriminating on the basis of race. I argue that, in line with the South African Constitution, Rawls importantly adopts a horizontal effect of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race by ensuring formal equality of opportunity. His theory of justice suggests that a liberal constitution ought to constrain the racially discriminatory actions of both state and nonstate (private) employers. This, in turn, represents an important response to racism that occurs in the private sphere. (shrink)

In legal, political, and philosophical discourse, and indeed in everyday life, equality often plays the role of a normatively significant prescriptive principle, a principle that provides reasons for action. Professor Peters, however, joins Peter Westen and others who argue that the traditional statement of prescriptive equality - equals are entitled to equal treatment - is normatively empty because it is a tautology. Like Professor Westen, Professor Peters notes that this traditional principle translates into a statement of simple redundancy: people entitled (...) to equal treatment are entitled to equal treatment. Unlike Professor Westen, however, Professor Peters discerns a nontautological principle of equality, which claims that one person's treatment in a particular way is a reason in itself for treating another, identically situated person in that way. Nevertheless, Professor Peters argues that this principle, although nontautological, has no more normative content than the traditional expression; either it provides no independent reasons for action, or it is self-contradictory and incoherent. This Article examines the nontautological principle of equality, analyzes its supposed application in a variety of circumstances, and assesses some consequences of the conclusion that prescriptive equality has no normative content for Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence and John Rawls's "egalitarian" political philosophy. (shrink)