Reverse discrimination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reverse discrimination is discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group. Groups may be defined in terms of disability, ethnicity, family status, gender identity, nationality, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation, or other factors.[original research?]

This discrimination may seek to redress social inequalities under which minority groups have had less access to privileges enjoyed by the majority group. In such cases it is intended to remove discrimination that minority groups may already face. Reverse discrimination can be defined as the unequal treatment of members of the majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities.[1]

Conceptualizing affirmative action as reverse discrimination became popular in the early- to mid-1970s, a time period that focused on under-representation and action policies intended to remedy the effects of past discrimination in both government and the business world.[2]

Affirmative action[edit]

When members of a particular group have been barred from a particular employment, it is said[by whom?] that this group has received less than its fair share of employment, in question, and deserves to receive more by way of compensation. Thus, this group is being compensated for past lack of employment or opportunity.[clarification needed] Therefore, a group already existing in the workplace will be discriminated against, even if they have never been denied employment previously. An example of this would be an organization's efforts to hire more women in order to meet federal guidelines. However in thus doing, the organization may deny opportunities of equal measures to men.[3] If the point of reverse discrimination is to compensate a wronged group, it will hardly matter[according to whom?] if those who are preferentially hired were not among the original victims of discrimination.[4]

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.[5] 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.[5] 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.[6]

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.[7]

By country/region[edit]

European Union[edit]

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 can happen because of the legal principle of subsidiarity that EU law is not applicable in situations purely internal to one Member State.[8]


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 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.[9][10]


In India, among the limited positions for higher education in Government institutions, 50 percent seats are reserved for members of economically disadvantaged castes and classes.[11] Reserved category candidates can select a position from the Open 50 percent if he or she has good merit. This results in further reverse discrimination of Open/General/Non Reserved candidates. Further, since there was economic criteria in classifying Reservation, poorer sections of reserved class often remain poor whereas the affluent section (the "creamy layer") reap benefits for successive generations. Also, the poorer sections of Open/General Category become devoid of access to higher education for even slightly low merit on competitive exams. The difference in merit on entrance exams is often very wide between the reserved and unreserved classes. In India, the term is often used by citizens protesting against reservation and quotas.[12][13][14] In later years a "creamy layer" exception forbad reserved status to those whose parents held relatively high governmental posts.

United Kingdom[edit]

UK law draws a distinction between Equality of Provision and Equality of Outcome, particularly in respect to disability rights. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Equality Act 2010 make it clear that treating two people identically may not be sufficient to guarantee that they have been treated equally in law if the task, physical environment or service does not offer them equality of outcome. The law provides for disabled people to request the provision of 'reasonable adjustments' to ensure that they are able to access employment, services and the built environment with the same potential as non-disabled people.

United States[edit]

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.[15]

The number of reverse discrimination cases filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission doubled in the 1990s[16] and continue to reflect a growing percentage of all discrimination cases as of 2003.[17]

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.[18][non-primary source needed]


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.[19]

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 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.[20]

However, in Grutter v. Bollinger (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.[21] 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.


According to a draft report prepared in 1995 for the United States Department of Labor by Alfred W. Blumrosen, affirmative-action policies had caused few claims of reverse discrimination by whites. The report 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. The report indicated[clarification needed] that a high proportion of the claims lacked merit. In Blumrosen's report, 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. Blumrosen also said that the reports filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offer additional evidence that reverse discrimination was rare: 2% of cases were of white men charging, sexual, racial or national origin discrimination and 1.8% were of white women charging racial discrimination.[22]

Newer reports by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have found that less than[vague] 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[edit]






  1. ^ "Reverse Discrimination".
  2. ^ Embrick, David G. (2008). "Affirmative Action in Education". In Schaefer, Richard T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, Volume 1. SAGE. pp. 12–19. ISBN 978-1-41-292694-2.
  3. ^ Schultz (2010). psychology and work today. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-205-68358-1.
  4. ^ Cher, George (1975). Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol 4, No.2 Winter: Justifying Reverse Discrimination in Employment. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 159–170. JSTOR 2265161.
  5. ^ a b Fullinwider, Robert. "Affirmative Action". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 ed.).
  6. ^ Arneson, Richard. "Equality of Opportunity". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 ed.).
  7. ^ Baer, Judith (January 1982). "Reverse Discrimination: The Dangers of Hardened Categories". Law & Policy Quarterly. 4 (1): 71–94. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9930.1982.tb00266.x.
  8. ^ Ritter, Cyril (2006). "Purely Internal Situations, Reverse Discrimination, Guimont, Dzodzi and Article 234". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.954242. SSRN 954242.
  9. ^ 《凭栏观史》第34期:中国到底有没有大汉族主义
  10. ^
  11. ^ "The Chronicle of Higher Education". July 16, 2009. Retrieved 16 June 2013.
  12. ^ Devanesan Nesiah. Discrimination With Reason? The Policy of Reservations in the United States, India and Malaysia. 1997. Oxford University Press. 0195639839.
  13. ^ "Excess reservation will cause reverse discrimination, cautions Supreme Court". The Hindu.
  14. ^ R. Kent Greenawalt. Discrimination and Reverse Discrimination. 1983. Knopf. ISBN 0-394-33577-5.
  15. ^ Carlisle, Rodney P., ed. (2005). Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and The Right. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. p. 1009. ISBN 978-1-41-290409-4.
  16. ^ Evans, W.D (2004). "Reverse Discrimination claims: Growing like kudzu". Maryland Bar Journal: 48–51.
  17. ^ Pincus, Fred L. (2003). Reverse discrimination: Dismantling the myth. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN 978-1-58-826203-5.[page needed]
  18. ^ Sakile K. Camara, Mark P. Orbe (9 June 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. S2CID 144238807.
  19. ^ 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. ISBN 978-1-41-290409-4.
  20. ^ Robert, Menache, Brian H Kleiner (1999). "New Developments in Reverse Discrimination". Equal Opportunities International. 18 (2/3/4): 41. doi:10.1108/02610159910785790.
  21. ^ "Google Scholar". Retrieved 2015-10-26.
  22. ^ Blumrosen, Alfred (1995). Draft Report on Reverse Discrimination Commissioned by Labor Department. Daily Labor Report.
  23. ^ Pincus, Fred L. (2008). "Reverse discrimination". In Schaefer, Richard T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and society, Volume 1. Thousands Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 1159–1161. ISBN 978-1-41-292694-2.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]