Equality and affirmative actions: The case of priority access to the Child Care and Attention Centers of Mexico City (CACI)
This comment criticizes the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation decision, taken in the “acción de inconstitucionalidad” 215/2020, of rejecting a formal argument of equality, which implies the inclusion of men, in an affirmative action in favor only of women. Except for the ponent, the justices co...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2021 |
| País: | México |
| Recursos: | UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO |
| Repositorio: | Cuestiones Constitucionales. Revista Mexicana de Derecho Constitucional |
| Idioma: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/16169 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://revistas.juridicas.unam.mx/index.php/cuestiones-constitucionales/article/view/16169 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | affirmative actions women constitutionality formal equality structural equality infrainclusive-ness overinclusiveness equality test acciones afirmativas mujeres constitucionalidad igualdad formal igualdad estructural infrain-clusividad suprainclusividad test de igualdad |
| Resumo: | This comment criticizes the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation decision, taken in the “acción de inconstitucionalidad” 215/2020, of rejecting a formal argument of equality, which implies the inclusion of men, in an affirmative action in favor only of women. Except for the ponent, the justices considered that this approach even made the problem of women invisible and strengthened the “macho” culture. Two visions of equality seem to conflict: one formal and the other structural. From a conciliatory point of view, the author tries to expose the reasonableness of the formal equality approach, arguing why it does not compromise women, as a socially excluded group, in this case. |
|---|