What Is Reverse Discrimination - Essay Example

?Reverse Discrimination Within the United s “[n]o shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Equal Protection Clause, U.S. Constitution , Amendment . XIV, §1) Reverse Discrimination, often considered to be a controversial term, refers to discrimination against a majority of dominant group, a group of people who have not historically been victims of discrimination. Lokos (1971) described it as the new racial discrimination. An example is if jobs are given specifically to new migrants, rather than being offered to the long term resident population. Another example might be having all women short lists. The term is especially used when such discrimination results from policies which have been set up to correct possible discrimination against minority or otherwise disadvantaged group members. Sometimes it is referred to as affirmative action, which sounds good, but has also been described as ‘a necessary, but imperfect, remedy for an intractable social disease.’ (Plous, 2003) The various groups concerned may be defined by size, ethnic group, race, religious affiliation, or gender, as well as other possible factors. Such discrimination may be deliberately aiming to redress various inequalities, in cases where members of minority groups have been denied access to privileges which are available to members of the majority group. For instance white middle class students may have had better early educational advantages than members of other groups, so colleges may have a policy of deliberately accepting at least a proportion of students from other backgrounds. The latter however may have scored lower on tests than some white students, who will not be offered places as a result of this policy. According to Barron’s Law Dictionary (2003) the term has been used to describe the practice of reserving places for minorities in schools and in corporate promotions, and the hiring of minority group members, such as Afro-Americans who have less job seniority than possible white candidates. A good example of this is a case brought by fire fighters who had taken and passed an examination which would normally have entitled them to promotion. This happened in New Haven, Connecticut in 2004. (Richey, 2009). The local authority disregarded their positive results because no Afro-American had scored highly enough to pass the examination. They were being discriminated against simply because they were white, i.e. they were members of a minority group. City officials stated that they aimed to add diversity among management within the fire service. They had therefore made efforts to come up with a test process that would limit any bias that might perhaps disadvantage candidates from minority groups. When only 2 Hispanics and 17 white men passed the tests, but no Afro-Americans did, the test was scrapped. The claim was that the city authorities had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964), legislation designed ‘to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations.’ This law (Acosta 2009) :- prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, and bars employment practices that result in disparate treatment or disparate impact. A federal judge threw out the case, as she claimed that passing the test did not entitle anyone to a job, but merely made an opportunity for promotion. 27 Afro-Americans had taken the test, but none were open for promotion as a result, all having failed. The City Charter in New Haven requires the Board of Fire Commissioners to use civil service examinations which are based on a "Rule of Three", i.e. only the three highest scoring candidates will receive promotion. There were no black candidates among the highest scorers. The judge claimed that throwing out the results was not a race discriminatory act, as all results were discarded. An appeals panel later stated that the officials were aiming to fulfill their legal obligations under anti-discrimination laws, and that the test results had produced a result that had a racial impact that was disproportionate. Another case occurred in 2009, when a Texan detective claimed that he had been refused a job because he was white. The answer given was that he was not the best qualified person, which may well be true, and is perhaps an example of someone believing that there had been discrimination, when they simply had been rejected on other grounds. (African American Pundit, 18th April 2009) As Barron (2003) points out:- The contention that affirmative action violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§2000d et seq has been the cause of differing opinions by members of the Supreme Court. 438 U.S 265. The Future Take a trip to any major city and you will quickly observe that there is a greater racial mix than ever before. There are also more women in the work place than there were a generation ago. (The Economist, December 2009). According to Scommegn, (Population Reference Bureau, April 2004) , “The U.S. is getting bigger, older, and more diverse.” as quoted by Shrestha and Heisler ,Page 1, 2011) The same two authors also predict increasing levels of immigration ( page 3) and the majority of such migrants are of young working age (Shrestha and Heisler, Page 18, 2011) The same authors ( page 18) predict that the majority white population , at present making up 81% of the population, will fall to a projected 74% by year 2050. So while the white population will not become a minority, they will decrease in proportion, and presumably in relative influence and importance. At the same time the numbers of Asians, as well as people of many other racial backgrounds, including those of mixed race, will increase dramatically. It is possible therefore that cases of reverse discrimination, similar to that outlined above, will continue to occur. It has to be asked how long before non-white Americans are bringing such cases, or will America by that time have become a true melting pot, where all really do have equal opportunities and equal outcomes. Knowledge of human nature suggests that there will always be haves and have nots – although who makes up the membership of each group may vary over time. Johnson (undated) believes that ultimately the root problem of discrimination goes far beyond what can be legally controlled Conclusion It can be easily seen that this is a complex topic which does not necessarily have easy or clear answers. The case of the fire fighters described above raises the question of what to do when steps taken when trying to avoid discrimination against one group of people, actually result in active discrimination against others. One way of looking at this is to distinguish between Equality of Provision and Equality of Outcome, i.e. if what is wanted is to ensure fair outcomes, then there might of necessity be some adjustments made e.g. a dyslexic candidate might be allowed to record answers rather than writing them. With voting, all may be entitled to vote, but some people would need explanations, perhaps in Spanish or other language, others might need transport, if they live far away from the voting station. This is an equality of provision, but also an equality of outcome. At its simplest it is like a family at table. The youngest child needs a taller chair and help cutting up his meal; grandmother may need a cushion; another family member may be sitting in a wheelchair; but all share in the family meal as equals. References Acosta, L .( 2009) United States: Divided Supreme Court Addresses Reverse Discrimination Claim, Law Library of Congress, retrieved 3rd November 2011 from http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205401430_text African American Pundit, ( 18th April 2011) Reverse Discrimination in Dallas Police Department, retrieved 3rd November 2011 from http://aapoliticalpundit.blogspot.com/2009/04/reverse-discrimination-in-dallas-police.html Barron’s Law Dictionary, ( 2003) retrieved 3rd November 2011 from http://www.answers.com/topic/reverse-discrimination Johnson, B., ( undated) quoted on The History of Equality ( undated) retrieved 3rd November 2011 from http://www.letu.edu/people/annieolson/1023Webs/sp02/graves/history.html Lokos, L. ( 1971) The New Racism: Reverse Discrimination in America, New York, Arlington House Plous, S., ( 2003) Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination, The Journal of Social Issues , Volume 52, pages 206 – 212, retrieved 4th November 2011 from http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm Ricci v. DeStefano (07-1428 and 08-328), retrieved 3rd November 2011 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-1428 Richey, W, (January 9th, 2009), U.S. Supreme Court takes up 'reverse discrimination' case, Scommegn, P., ( April 2004) Population Reference Bureau, retrieved 3rd November from http://www.prb.org/. Shrestha, L. and Heisler, E. ( March 21st 2011) The Changing Demographic Profile of the United States, Congressional Research Service, retrieved 3rd November 2011 from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32701.pdf The Christian Science Monitor, retrieved 3rd November 2011 from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/0109/p25s30-usju.html The Economist (30th December 2009, Female Power, retrieved 3rd November 2011 from http://www.economist.com/node/15174418 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, retrieved 3rd November 2011 from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm United States Constitution, 14th Amendment (1866) , Legal Information Institute, Cornell University, Law School , retrieved 3rd November 2011 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv Read More