Reverse discrimination

Template:Short description Template:Use dmy dates Template:Multiple issues Template:Discrimination sidebar

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. Reverse discrimination based on race or ethnicity is also called reverse racism.<ref name="Yee 2008">Template:Cite book</ref>

Equality of opportunity and substantive equalityEdit

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.<ref name="Arneson 2015">Template:Cite SEP</ref> The Dilemma of difference refers to the difference between the two equality concepts.<ref>Minow, Martha. "Learning to live with the dilemma of difference: Bilingual and special education." Law and Contemporary Problems 48.2 (1985): 157–211.</ref>

Affirmative actionEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}} 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.Template:R

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.<ref name="Fullinwider 2018">Template:Cite SEP</ref> 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.Template:R It is often argued by majority groups that they are being discriminated against for hiring and advancement because of affirmative action policies. However, criticsTemplate:Who of this argument often cite the "symbolic" significance of a job has to be taken into consideration as well as qualifications.<ref name="Baer 1982">Template:Cite journal</ref>

By race, ethnicity or casteEdit

Template:See also

ChinaEdit

Template:See also 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.<ref name="凭栏观史">《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?]Template:Full citation needed</ref><ref name="皇汉史观">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The one-child policy was only introduced for Han Chinese, with minorities being allowed two or more babies.<ref name="Whyte 2015">Template:Cite journal</ref>

IndiaEdit

In India, in higher education institutions and in employment by Government, around 49.5% seats are reserved for members of socially disadvantaged castes.<ref name="Neelakantan 2009">Template:Cite news</ref> Reserved category candidates can select a position from the Open 40% also.

In India, the term is often used by citizens protesting against reservation in India. <ref name="Nesiah 1997">Template:Cite book Template:Page needed</ref><ref name="Excess reservation">Template:Cite news</ref><ref name="Greenawalt 1983">Template:Cite book Template:Page needed</ref>

United StatesEdit

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.<ref name="Carlisle 2005">Template:Cite book</ref> 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.<ref name="Embrick 2008">Template:Cite book</ref> Historian Nancy MacLean writes that during the 1980s and 1990s, "so-called reverse discrimination occurred on an inconsequential scale".<ref name="MacLean 2006">Template:Cite book</ref> The number of reverse discrimination cases filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) doubled in the 1990s<ref name="Evans 2004">Template:Cite journal</ref> and continued to reflect a growing percentage of all discrimination cases Template:As of.<ref name="Pincus 2003">Template:Cite book Template:Page needed</ref>

CollegesEdit

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.<ref name="Purdy 2005">Template:Cite book</ref>

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.<ref name="Menache 1999">Template:Cite journal</ref>

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.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> 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.

ComplaintsEdit

A draft report on claims of reverse discrimination was prepared for the United States Department of Labor in 1995.Template:Efn 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.<ref name="Bendick 2000">Template:Cite journal</ref>

Newer reports by the EEOC have found that less than 10% of race-related complaints were filed by whites. 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.<ref name="Pincus 2008">Template:Cite book</ref>

By sex, gender or sexual orientationEdit

Template:See also

A 2019 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), a smaller portion reported gender discrimination.<ref name="Sakile 2011"/> A 2008 study found 18% of gender-related complaints and 4% of the court cases were filed by men.<ref name="Pincus 2008"/>

A small number of heterosexuals reported experiencing discrimination based on their sexual orientation.<ref name="Sakile 2011">Template:Cite journal</ref>Template:Primary source inline

By economic statusEdit

In Reservation in India, a 10% quota is reserved for members of Economically Weaker Section,<ref name="Neelakantan 2009"/> which has been criticized as reverse discrimination.<ref name="l687">Template:Cite journal</ref>

By citizenship or nationalityEdit

European UnionEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}} 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.<ref name="Ritter 2006">Template:Cite journal</ref>

NotesEdit

Template:Notelist

ReferencesEdit

Template:Reflist

External linksEdit

Template:Sister project links

Template:Discrimination Template:Authority control