Reverse discrimination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(January 2008) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. |
Reverse discrimination, known as positive discrimination in the United Kingdom[1] is the practice of favouring a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of members of a historically dominant group (usually in university admissions or employment).[2] The term is often used to describe the perceived effects of government policies (most notably affirmative action).
For example, in India, the term is often used by the citizens protesting against reservation and quotas.
Contents |
[edit] In the United States
In the United States, the term reverse discrimination has been used in past discussions of racial quotas for collegiate admission to government-run educational institutions. Such policies were held to be unconstitutional in the United States, while non-quota race preferences are legal. Harvard professor Roland Fryer, however, has argued that there is no logically tenable difference between "quotas" and "goals." [3]
Reverse discrimination has been practiced in the United States for several decades. The practice has been applied to university admissions, employment, and other situations.[4]
Those challenging specific government or university policies have sought redress through the courts.[citation needed] Many legal cases involving claims of "reverse discrimination" are settled before they go to court.[citation needed]
[edit] Critics of affirmative action
Those disadvantaged by specific government or university reverse discrimination policies have taken their grievances to the courts.[citation needed] It has been claimed that many of these cases are settled before they go to court.[citation needed]
In the United States, the setting of racial quotas for collegiate admission to government-run educational institutions were held to be unconstitutional, while non-quota race preferences are legal. Harvard professor Roland Fryer, however, has argued that there is no logically tenable difference between "quotas" and "goals." [5]
While the term is used in casual speech, many academic and expert opponents of racial or gender based affirmative action policies, such as Carl Cohen, would avoid the term "reverse discrimination" on the grounds that "discrimination is discrimination" and that the label "reverse" is a misnomer. Groups such as the American Civil Rights Institute, run by Ward Connerly, have opted for the more legally precise terms "race preference", "gender preference," or "preferential treatment" generally, since these terms are contained and defined within existing civil rights law, such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Cohen, who was a supporter of Michigan's Proposal 2 (see below), and other academics have argued that the term "affirmative action" should be defined differently than "race preference," and that while socio-economically based or anti-discrimination types of affirmative action should be permissible, those that give preference to individuals solely based on their race or gender should not be permitted. Cohen also helped find evidence in 1996 through the Freedom of Information Act that led to the cases filed by Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter against the University of Michigan for its undergraduate and law admissions policy - cases which were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2003.
Ward Connerly has promoted a series of ballot initiatives to remove "preferential treatment" in the states of California (California Proposition 209 (1996)), Washington (1998 - I-200), and Michigan (the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative - MCRI, or Proposal 2, 2006).
