Reverse discrimination

Last updated

Reverse discrimination is a term used to describe discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.

Contents

Affirmative action

Affirmative action is a set of practices that attempts to promote diversity in areas such as employment, education, and leadership, typically by reserving some positions for people of traditionally disadvantaged groups. This may result in discrimination towards successful majority groups who have greater technical qualifications than minority applicants. [1]

Philosopher James Rachels posited that reverse discrimination as a factor in affirmative action in the United States may disadvantage some Whites, but without it, African Americans would likewise be disadvantaged by pervasive racial discrimination in society. [1] Critics of racial preferences in affirmative action such as William Bennett and Carl Cohen have argued that explicitly using race for the purpose of ending racial discrimination is illogical and contrary to the principle of non-discrimination. Conversely, Alan H. Goldman argued that short-term violations of such a principle could be justified for the sake of equalizing social opportunities in the longer term. [1] Philosopher Richard Arneson argues that while a program of reverse discrimination favoring non-White candidates over White ones may violate equality of opportunity in a formal sense, it may more effectively promote substantive equality of opportunity, meaning that those with equal talent and ambition will have the same chances of success regardless of their previous (unequal) opportunities to achieve the relevant qualifications. [2]

It is often argued by majority groups that they are being discriminated against for hiring and advancement because of affirmative action policies. However, critics[ who? ] of this argument often cite the "symbolic" significance of a job has to be taken into consideration as well as qualifications. [3]

China

The affirmative action of the Chinese government has been called into question, especially from the ethnic group of Han Chinese. Unfair policies on Chinese college entrance exams (Gaokao) as well as human rights considered to be favoring the national minority have both been believed to be causing reverse discrimination in the mainland. Han chauvinism has been becoming more popular in mainland China since the 2000s, the cause of which has been attributed to the discontent towards Chinese affirmative action. [4] [5] The one-child policy was only introduced for Han Chinese, with minorities being allowed two or more babies. [6]

European Union

In European Union law, reverse discrimination occurs where a Member State's national law provides for worse treatment of its own citizens or domestic products than other EU citizens/goods under EU law. This is permitted in the EU because of the legal principle of subsidiarity, that EU law is not applicable in situations purely internal to one Member State. [7]

India

In India, in higher education institutions and in employment by Government, 60% seats are reserved for members of socially disadvantaged castes and Economically weaker section of Forward communities. [8] Reserved category candidates can select a position from the Open 40% also.

The poorer sections of Open/General Category has access to EWS Quota Economically Weaker Section in higher education institutions and in employment by government accounting for 10 percent of the seats. Lower Caste have 50% reservation in all government aided colleges and jobs.

In India, the term is often used by citizens protesting against reservation and quotas. [9] [10] [11] In later years a "creamy layer" exception forbade reserved status to those whose parents held relatively high governmental posts.

United States

Opponents of affirmative action in the United States use the term reverse discrimination to say that such programs discriminate against White Americans in favor of African Americans. [12] In the U.S., affirmative action has focused on the under-representation of ethnic minority groups and women, and attempted to remedy the effects of past discrimination in both government and the business world. [13] Historian Nancy MacLean writes that during the 1980s and 1990s, "so-called reverse discrimination occurred on an inconsequential scale". [14] The number of reverse discrimination cases filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) doubled in the 1990s [15] and continued to reflect a growing percentage of all discrimination cases as of 2003. [16]

A study by S. K. Camara & M. P. Orbe collected narratives of individuals describing situations where they were discriminated against based on their majority-group status (cases of reverse discrimination). Many White respondents described discrimination based on their race, a smaller portion reported gender discrimination. A small number of heterosexuals reported experiencing discrimination based on their sexual orientation. [17] [ non-primary source needed ]

Colleges

White college applicants who have felt passed over in favor of less-qualified Black students as a result of affirmative action in college admissions have described such programs as "reverse discrimination". Elizabeth Purdy argues that this conception of reverse discrimination came close to overturning affirmative action during the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and '90s after being granted legitimacy by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke , which ruled that Alan Bakke had been discriminated against by the school's admissions program. [18]

In 1996, the University of Texas had to defer the use of racial preferences in their college admissions after the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit barred the school from considering race in admitting students. The ruling determined that diversity in education could not justify making race-based distinctions. Hopwood v. Texas in 1996 was a lawsuit brought by four white applicants to the Texas Law School who were denied admission even though their grade point averages were greater than minority applications that were accepted. The four white students also had greater Law School Admission Test scores. [19]

However, in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, the Supreme Court allowed the University of Michigan Law School to continue to consider race among other relevant diversity factors. The decision was the only legally challenged affirmative-action policy to survive the courts. However, this ruling has led to confusion among universities and lower courts alike regarding the status of affirmative action across the nation.

In 2012, Fisher v. University of Texas reached the Supreme Court. [20] The University of Texas allegedly used race as a factor in denying Abigail Fisher's application, denying her a fair review. The lower courts upheld the program, but the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the lower courts and sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit for review.

Complaints

A draft report on claims of reverse discrimination was prepared for the United States Department of Labor in 1995. [lower-alpha 1] Its analysis of employment discrimination cases in federal courts between 1990 and 1994 concluded that between 1 and 3 percent involved claims of reverse discrimination; and that a "high proportion" of the claims were found to be without merit. [22]

Newer reports by the EEOC have found that less than 10% of race-related complaints were filed by whites, 18% of gender-related complaints and 4% of the court cases were filed by men. When national samples of whites were asked if they personally have experienced the loss of job, promotion, or college admission because of their race, 2%–13% say yes. [23]

See also

Gender

Race

Social

Notes

  1. ↑ The report, by Rutgers University law professor Alfred W. Blumrosen, stated there were at most 100 reverse-discrimination cases among at least 3,000 discrimination opinions by Federal district and appeals courts from 1990 to 1994. National surveys showed only a few[ vague ] whites had experienced reverse discrimination, and 5 to 12 percent of whites believed that they had been denied a job or promotion because of it. 2% of cases were of white men charging sexual, racial or national origin discrimination and 1.8% were of white women charging racial discrimination. [21]

Related Research Articles

Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to benefit marginalized groups. Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has been justified by the idea that it may help with bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, and promoting diversity, social equity and redressing alleged wrongs, harms, or hindrances, also called substantive equality.

Racial quotas in employment and education are numerical requirements or quotas for hiring, promoting, admitting and/or graduating members of a particular racial group. Racial quotas are often established as means of diminishing racial discrimination, addressing under-representation and evident racism against those racial groups or, the opposite, against the disadvantaged majority group. Conversely, quotas have also been used historically to promote discrimination against minority groups by limiting access to influential institutions in employment and education.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a dispute of whether preferential treatment for minorities could reduce educational opportunities for whites without violating the Constitution. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, were impermissible.

Racial discrimination is any discrimination against any individual on the basis of their race, ancestry, ethnicity, and/or skin color and hair texture. Individuals can discriminate by refusing to do business with, socialize with, or share resources with people of a certain group. Governments can discriminate explicitly in law, for example through policies of racial segregation, disparate enforcement of laws, or disproportionate allocation of resources. Some jurisdictions have anti-discrimination laws which prohibit the government or individuals from being discriminated based on race in various circumstances. Some institutions and laws use affirmative action to attempt to overcome or compensate for the effects of racial discrimination. In some cases, this is simply enhanced recruitment of members of underrepresented groups; in other cases, there are firm racial quotas. Opponents of strong remedies like quotas characterize them as reverse discrimination, where members of a dominant or majority group are discriminated against.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant. The decision largely upheld the Court's decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy but held racial quotas to be unconstitutional. In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), a separate case decided on the same day as Grutter, the Court struck down a points-based admissions system that awarded an automatic bonus to the admissions scores of minority applicants.

Racial color blindness refers to the belief that a person's race or ethnicity should not influence their legal or social treatment in society.

Racial equality is when people of all races and ethnicities are treated in an egalitarian/equal manner. Racial equality occurs when institutions give individuals legal, moral, and political rights. In present-day Western society, equality among races continues to become normative. Prior to the early 1960s, attaining equality was difficult for African, Asian, and Indigenous people. However, in more recent years, legislation is being passed ensuring that all individuals receive equal opportunities in treatment, education, employment, and other areas of life. Racial equality can refer to equal opportunities or formal equality based on race or refer to equal representation or equality of outcomes for races, also called substantive equality.

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the case had become moot and so declined to render a decision on the merits. American student Marco DeFunis, who had been denied admission to the University of Washington School of Law in the state of Washington before he was provisionally admitted during the pendency of the case, was slated to graduate within a few months of the decision being rendered.

Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are forms of anti-white racism. The concept is often associated with conservative social movements, and reflects a belief that social and economic gains by Black people and other people of color cause disadvantages for white people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affirmative action in the United States</span>

In the United States, affirmative action consists of government-mandated, government-approved, and voluntary private programs granting special consideration to groups considered or classified as historically excluded, specifically racial minorities and women. These programs tend to focus on access to education and employment in order to redress the disadvantages associated with past and present discrimination. Another goal of affirmative action policies is to ensure that public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.

United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979), was a case regarding affirmative action in which the United States Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial discrimination by private employers, does not condemn all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action plans. The Court's decision reversed lower courts' rulings in favor of Brian Weber whose lawsuit beginning in 1974 challenged his employer's hiring practices.

Constitutional colorblindness is an aspect of United States Supreme Court case evaluation that began with Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. Prior to this, the Supreme Court considered skin color as a determining factor in many landmark cases. Constitutional colorblindness holds that skin color or race is virtually never a legitimate ground for legal or political distinctions, and thus, any law that is "color-conscious" is presumptively unconstitutional regardless of whether its intent is to subordinate a group, or remedy racial discrimination. The concept, therefore, has been brought to bear both against vestiges of Jim Crow oppression, as well as remedial efforts aimed at overcoming such discrimination, such as affirmative action.

Laissez-faire racism is closely related to color blindness and covert racism, and is theorised to encompass an ideology that blames minorities for their poorer economic situations, viewing it as the result of cultural inferiority. The term is used largely by scholars of whiteness studies, who argue that laissez-faire racism has tangible consequences even though few would openly claim to be, or even believe they are, laissez-faire racists.

Racial diversity in United States schools is the representation of different racial or ethnic groups in American schools. The institutional practice of slavery, and later segregation, in the United States prevented certain racial groups from entering the school system until midway through the 20th century, when Brown v. Board of Education forbade racially segregated education. Globalization and migrations of peoples to the United States have increasingly led to a multicultural American population, which has in turn increased classroom diversity. Nevertheless, racial separation in schools still exists today, presenting challenges for racial diversification of public education in the United States.

Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action and race- and sex-based discrimination in public university admissions. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not prevent states from enacting bans on affirmative action in education.

Libertarian perspectives on affirmative action consistently coincide with the way that libertarians view the state as a coercive power. Many libertarians believe that the state should not be used as an instrument of power in enforcing what they call positive discrimination.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With its companion case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which validated some affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions.

Affirmative action refers to activities or policies that seek to help groups that are often affected by discrimination obtain equal access to opportunities, particularly in areas such as employment and education. In the United States, in the early 2000s, the use of race, gender, and other factors in college and university admissions decisions came under attack.

Fred L. Pincus is an American sociologist and emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Maryland—Baltimore County, where he taught for 44 years. He is known for researching claims of reverse discrimination by whites and males in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 16</span> Measure to undo the states ban on affirmative action

Proposition 16 is a California ballot proposition that appeared on the November 3, 2020, general election ballot, asking California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal Proposition 209 (1996). Proposition 209 amended the state constitution to prohibit government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of race- and gender-based affirmative action in California's public sector.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Fullinwider, Robert. "Affirmative Action". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 ed.).
  2. ↑ Arneson, Richard. "Equality of Opportunity". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 ed.).
  3. ↑ Baer, Judith (1982). "Reverse Discrimination: The Dangers of Hardened Categories". Law & Policy Quarterly. 4 (1): 71–94. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9930.1982.tb00266.x. ISSN   0265-8240.
  4. ↑ 《凭栏观史》第34期：中国到底有没有大汉族主义 [The 34th issue of "Viewing History by Leaning on the Railings": Is there any Han nationalism in China?][ full citation needed ]
  5. ↑ "皇汉史观：今天我们如何定义中国？" [The History of Emperor Han: How do we define China today?]. DW News (in Chinese). 26 April 2017. Archived from the original on 10 December 2019.
  6. ↑ Whyte, Martin King; Feng, Wang; Cai, Yong (2015). "Challenging Myths About China's One-Child Policy". The China Journal. 74: 144–159. doi:10.1086/681664. ISSN   1324-9347. PMC   6701844 . PMID   31431804.
  7. ↑ Ritter, Cyril (2006). "Purely Internal Situations, Reverse Discrimination, Guimont, Dzodzi and Article 234". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.954242. SSRN   954242.
  8. ↑ Neelakantan, Shailaja (16 July 2009). "India's Education Minister Says Foreign Universities Will Have to Observe Quota Law" . The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on 13 February 2010.
  9. ↑ Nesiah, Devanesan (1997). Discrimination with reason? : the policy of reservations in the United States, India, and Malaysia. Delhi: Oxford University Press. ISBN   0-1956-3983-9.[ page needed ]
  10. ↑ "Excess reservation will cause reverse discrimination, cautions Supreme Court". The Hindu . 24 October 2006. Archived from the original on 9 November 2006.
  11. ↑ Greenawalt, Kent (1983). Discrimination and reverse discrimination (1st ed.). New York: Knopf. ISBN   0-394-33577-5.[ page needed ]
  12. ↑ Carlisle, Rodney P., ed. (2005). "Appendix: Glossary". Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and The Right. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. p. 1009. doi:10.4135/9781412952408. ISBN   978-1-41-290409-4.
  13. ↑ Embrick, David G. (2008). "Affirmative Action in Education" . In Schaefer, Richard T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, Volume 1. Thousands Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. pp. 12–19. doi:10.4135/9781412963879.n6. ISBN   978-1-41-292694-2.
  14. ↑ MacLean, Nancy (2006). Freedom is Not Enough: The Opening of the American Work Place. Harvard University Press. p. 232. ISBN   978-0-674-02749-7.
  15. ↑ Evans, W.D (2004). "Reverse Discrimination claims: Growing like kudzu". Maryland Bar Journal. 37 (1): 48–51. ISSN   0025-4177.
  16. ↑ Pincus, Fred L. (2003). Reverse discrimination: Dismantling the myth . Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN   978-1-58-826203-5.[ page needed ]
  17. ↑ Camara, Sakile K.; Orbe, Mark P. (2011). "Understanding Interpersonal Manifestations of 'Reverse Discrimination' Through Phenomenological Inquiry". Journal of Intercultural Communication Research. 40 (2): 111–134. doi:10.1080/17475759.2011.581032. ISSN   1747-5759. S2CID   144238807.
  18. ↑ Purdy, Elizabeth (2005). "Desegregation". In Carlisle, Rodney P. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and The Right, Volume 1: The Left. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. p. 133. doi:10.4135/9781412952408.n60. ISBN   978-1-41-290409-4.
  19. ↑ Menache, Robert; Kleiner, Brian H. (1999). "New Developments in Reverse Discrimination". Equal Opportunities International. 18 (2/3/4): 41–42. doi:10.1108/02610159910785790. ISSN   0261-0159.
  20. ↑ "Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 132 S. Ct. 1536". Supreme Court of the United States. 21 February 2012. Archived from the original on 14 May 2015. Retrieved 26 October 2015– via Google Scholar.
  21. ↑ Blumrosen, Alfred (1995). "How the Courts are Handling Reverse Discrimination Claims (Draft Report on Reverse Discrimination)". Daily Labor Report. 147. Arlington, Va.: Bureau of National Affairs: D-43. ISSN   1522-5968.
  22. ↑ Bendick, Marc (2000). "Social policy: affirmative action" . International Journal of Economic Development. 2 (2): 256–275. ISSN   1523-9748. Archived from the original on 22 April 2021. Retrieved 22 April 2021.
  23. ↑ Pincus, Fred L. (2008). "Reverse discrimination". In Schaefer, Richard T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and society, Volume 3. Thousands Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. pp. 1159–1161. doi:10.4135/9781412963879.n480. ISBN   978-1-41-292694-2.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.