However, we grudgingly use this
term since it is so widely understood to mean illegal discrimination against anyone who is not on
the government’s approved list of
“historically disadvantaged.”
That’s a concept with which
a couple of courts that have said in
so-called ‘reverse-discrimination
cases’ that the majority-member
person has to show some extra
evidence that this is the unusual
workplace in which a member of
a majority might be discriminated
Each so-called “reverse discrimi-
nation” case requires an individu-
alistic assessment because it’s all
fact-specific, he cautions. “You
can’t take a snapshot of what the
workplace looks like and assume
from that that either one person
has an advantage or the
other person has a disad-
vantage,” says Casellas.
“You’ve got to actually
look at the particular job,
the individuals who apply
for that job and the action
that was taken.”
“White males ARE STILL A VERY
privileged GROUP AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
MAY REDUCE THEIR PRIVILEGE A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT
isn’t DISCRIMINATION IN THE SAME WAY AS
traditional discrimination.”
FRED PINCUS, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Casellas, who opted not to use
the term “reverse discrimination”
during his tenure as EEOC chair,
agrees. “Discrimination is discrimination, and if it’s based on race, if
it’s based on gender, it didn’t matter and it shouldn’t matter. Sexual
harassment covers either sex and
race discrimination is supposed to
cover either race,” he says.
The EEOC maintains that position today. “The Commission has
long taken a position that discrimination is prohibited regardless of
which way it goes,” says Dianna
Johnson, assistant legal counsel
with the EEOC. “There have been
against but the commission rejects
that position.”
The legal process for proving
discrimination on the basis of race
or sex in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the
same for white males as anyone
else except when the white male is
complaining only about the existence of a program that condones
“alleged preferences” without
claiming he suffered personal
injustice as a result.
“If that’s the case, that in
and of itself, they’d have to show
some injury to themselves,” says
Casellas. “It’s a tricky area.”
A WEAPON
OF DISTORTION
The alleged negative
impact of affirmative-action and
corporate-diversity programs that
critics such as Connerly say have
on whites is overrated.
“While people can philosophically defer on whether affirmative
action is good or bad or indifferent,
the so-called negative impact that
affirmative action is supposed to
have on whites is highly exaggerated and distorted,” says Pincus.
“White males are still a very
privileged group in all aspects, and
affirmative action may reduce their
privilege a little bit, but it isn’t
discrimination in the same way as
traditional discrimination.”
Reverse-Discrimination Legal Timeline
1976
McDonald v. Santa
Fe Trail Transporta-
tion Co. Supreme
Court rules that Title
VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 also pro-
tects white people
1978
Regents of the Uni-
versity of California
v. Bakke Supreme
Court rules University
of California, Davis
Medical School’s
quota-based policies
unconstitutional
1989
Richmond v. J. A.
Croson Co. Supreme
Court strikes down
city’s affirmative-
action program as
unconstitutional;
establishes “strict-
scrutiny” review
1980
Fullilove v.
Klutznick Supreme
Court upholds
minority business
enterprise (MBE) pro-
vision of Public Works
Employment Act
requiring 10 percent
of federal funds for
public-works projects
go to MBEs
1990
Metro Broadcasting
Inc. v. FCC Supreme
Court upholds
Federal Communica-
tions Commission
supplier-diversity and
minority-ownership
programs, affirms
importance of broad-
cast diversity
1995
Adarand Construc-
tors Inc. v. Pena
Supreme Court
upholds affirmative-
action plan that pro-
vides financial incen-
tive for contracting
with Small Business
Administration’s list
of “disadvantaged
businesses”
