1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Reverse discrimination

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Steve, Nov 20, 2002.

  1. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Anyone here ever been on the receiving end of reverse discrimination? Lost a job? Waited too long on line? Called names?

    I have been. Nothing really blatant, just different, less attentive treatment in service industry situations, like shops, restaurants, etc. It doesn't happen very often, probably no more than a dozen times in my life, but when it does it's very noticeable.

    The odd thing is that it doesn't bother me all that much. Granted, most discrimination is reprehensible; I just can't get all worked up over reverse discrimination, at least when it happens to me.

    First, it happens so infrequently as to be almost a novelty. Second, no real harm has ever been done to me. Besides, I'm more inclined to chalk up rude behavior as just "one of those bad days" we all have.

    But I've never been denied employment, or housing, or a promotion, or anything serious, due to reverse discrimination. No doubt I'd feel differently if that were the case.

    Anyone have any experiences or opinions they'd like to share?
  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    What is reverse discrimination? I think putting a definition to that statement would allow people to answer more correctly.
  3. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Reverse discrimination would be when a member of a non-protected class is discriminated against by a member of a protected class.

    Federal protected classifications are race, sex, age, ethnic origin, and a couple of others. Think of as a black person denying a white person a job simply because they are white; or, a woman denying a man a job simply because he's a man.

    Actually, to bluntly characterize it, if you're a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant male and you are discriminated against, it's reverse discrimination.
  4. btdude

    btdude Veteran Member

    LOL It seems that stevent has done some reading on Title VII Good man!!
  5. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Why "reverse"?

    Not to be a pain in the ass but discrimination is discrimination. Initially, I thought reverse discrimination would be something that's done to you by the SAME member of your ethnicity. Sort of like if you came to Africa, the Blacks would be more favorable to you whites than other blacks.
  6. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    Bingo. Good work Ethics.

    The term 'reverse discrimination' is patently discriminatory.

    It implies that only the historically disenfranchised can be victims of discrimination.

    'Affirmative Action' is, frankly, blatant racism.

  7. Attila

    Attila Registered User

    Reverse duscrimination is when one is waiting outside the guidence counseler's door , hears "you can get in that school, they take a lot of blacks",then go in and find that your white ass can't get in with higher grade point average.
    Been there. Done that. Was not pleased.
  8. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    I don't know the exact etymology, ethics. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably because of an assumption that WASP's traditionally have done most of the discriminating in this country and therefore any done against them would be "reverse".

    That's just my guess, of course.

    Here's an interesting observation:

    I'm 6'2" and 230 pounds; not a small man. It's a given that, whenever I approach a crowded service area, say a bar or checkout register in a department store, or some such place, I will be recognized before short women are recognized, even if they've been there before me. I'm always saying "she was here, first".

    Short men have no problem; if they were there first, they get served ahead of me. But short women are almost universally ignored, by both male and female employees, even if they were there before me.

    A girlfriend pointed this phenomenon out to me years ago when were at a bar trying to get drinks.

    I provide that information to illustrate what I perceive as some sort of unconcious societal preference to recognize WASPs before anyone else.
  9. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Domhain, I certainly agree that discrimination, of any type, is wrong. I'm simply noting that the sub-category referred to as "reverse" discrimination is much rarer.

    btdude, help me out here!
  10. btdude

    btdude Veteran Member

  11. btdude

    btdude Veteran Member

    Affirmative action, the set of public policies and initiatives designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, is under attack.

    * Originally, civil rights programs were enacted to help African Americans become full citizens of the United States. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution made slavery illegal; the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law; the Fifteenth Amendment forbids racial discrimination in access to voting. The 1866 Civil Rights Act guarantees every citizen "the same right to make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by white citizens ... "
    * In 1896, the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson upheld a "separate, but equal" doctrine that proved to be anything but equal for African Americans. The decision marked the end of the post-Civil War reconstruction era as Jim Crow laws spread across the South.
    * In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 which outlawed segregationist hiring policies by defense-related industries which held federal contracts. Roosevelt's signing of this order was a direct result of efforts by Black trade union leader, A. Philip Randolph.
    * During 1953 President Harry S. Truman's Committee on Government Contract Compliance urged the Bureau of Employment Security "to act positively and affirmatively to implement the policy of nondiscrimination . . . ."
    * The 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.
    * The actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."
    * In 1967, Johnson expanded the Executive Order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women.
    * Other equal protection laws passed to make discrimination illegal were the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title II and VII of which forbid racial discrimination in "public accommodations" and race and sex discrimination in employment, respectively; and the 1965 Voting Rights Act adopted after Congress found "that racial discrimination in voting was an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of the country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution."

    Much of the opposition to affirmative action is framed on the grounds of so-called "reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences." In fact, less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases. Under the law as written in Executive Orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefitting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications.
  12. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Two percent is very low. As I noted, I have rarely encountered it, and never in a job, housing, or educational context.

    91,000 <u>pending</u> cases, though, is amazing! When will people learn?
  13. Pyrion

    Pyrion Liquid Metal Nanomorph

    The underlying problem with the entire concept of "affirmative action" is that it makes "race, creed, color, and/or national origin" an issue to be investigated when choosing new employees. If "affirmative action" were to be fair, they would include "intellectual competency" in the list of qualifiers, so that people cannot be discriminated, race over competency. There's nothing that gives provisions for the geniuses that get turned down because there aren't enough black employees (regardless of what color they are). That's what's so ridiculous about it.
  14. btdude

    btdude Veteran Member

    WHAT?????????????? SPLAIN that to me, please
  15. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Please include 1947, the year Harry Truman integrated the Armed Forces. Not many people realize the military is often at the forefront of social change. The military had articles requiring defendants be advised of attorney rights before Miranda.
  16. Domh

    Domh Full Member


    what the hell was that btdude?

    1 - Atilla didnt use any foul language. Are you upset that he used the term 'black' instead of 'african american'? please.

    2 - atilla didnt come here from BBR.

    3 - :huh:
  17. Pyrion

    Pyrion Liquid Metal Nanomorph

    Oh, it's simple really.

    Competency is the single caveat protection that can be implemented in this situation that doesn't directly counter "race". The entire argument of "I was turned down for the black guy even though I have a bachelor's degree and he has a GED", in essence. Put competency as another balancing factor to ensure that the smart people, REGARDLESS OF THEIR RACE, have a higher chance of getting whatever job they damn well please provided the competency required is less than or equal to the competency of said worker. This would make getting an education *gasp* important to the process of getting a job.
  18. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    Re-read my post a few times. ;)

    Discrimination is discrimination PERIOD.

    To CATEGORIZE is to DISCRIMINATE between things.

    To SUB CATEGORIZE is to be even MORE discriminatory.

    Edit - Dark Seraph! Ding ding ding! Thats right! You are our winner! What do we have for him Johnny? ;)
  19. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Unless I'm mistaken, qualifications for a given job have always been independent of affirmative action issues. If a BS in chemistry is required, only applicants with such a degree are considered.

    Affirmative action is supposed to have the intent that, all else being equal, given the record of past discrimination against protected classes, a member of a protected class should be offered a position ahead of anyone else...<u>all else (including education and competency) being equal.</u>

    Granted, there have been abuses of this concept, some of the quite egregious in nature. The abuses make for great headlines, which is why we hear so much about them.

    I deplore the use of race, or any other protected class, to either deny or provide a person a particular advantage. All else being equal, though (meaning a coin toss is how I would otherwise make the decision), I see nothing wrong with choosing someone from a protected class over someone who is not in one.
  20. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    SteveNT, I don't think you can discuss reverse discrimination without mentioning quotas. Schools and businesses are being rated on the percent blacks, whites, Jews, women, NYC (Name Your Category) they have in their company, student body, etc. With quotas you have people selected who meet the minimum criteria but are not the best qualified. If you have enough money riding on the decision you will also have unqualified selected in order to fund you school or qualify for government programs if a business. My impression is the era of quotas is ending but weekly you will find an article detailing about how so and so's stats don't exactly match that of the population.

Share This Page