If white men are as commonly
discriminated against because of
these programs as affirmative-action foes suggest, why don’t they
file more lawsuits? White men
accounted for an average of 4. 4
percent of all racial-discrimination
charges with the EEOC in the last
decade, yet made up about 45
percent of the U.S. employed work
force during that time, according
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The EEOC did not provide
DiversityInc the number of settlements
awarded white-male plaintiffs in
these cases, but clearly, the hype
over these cases substantially overstates their significance.
“When there was a real political agenda behind it, those individuals tended to be represented
by counsel that came to the EEOC
for the sole purpose of touching
the jurisdictional base, getting
their right-to-sue letter, and then
going into court with their private
lawyers because the agenda was
more than simply this individual’s
case, it was more part of a cause in
order to get publicity around this
issue,” says Casellas.
“Often, reverse discrimination
is viewed as a racial thing, but if you
look at who’s complaining about
what, it’s also a gender issue, but it’s
never seemed that way,” adds Pin-
cus. “Public-opinion polls show that
people are less hostile to gender-based affirmative action than they
are race-based affirmative action.
It may be that critics think they’re
going to get more mileage off of the
race thing than the gender thing.”
You don’t hear much about
white men filing sex-discrimina-tion lawsuits against their employers, but the number of these
charges they filed over the last
decade nearly doubles the number
of race-discrimination charges they
filed in the same period.
Besides, the three years in
which white men filed the most
racial-discrimination charges as a
percentage of the total from 1996
to 2006 each corresponded with
a major federal or Supreme Court
decision on affirmative action—
1996, Hopwood v. Texas; 2003,
Gratz v. University of Michigan
and Grutter v. University of Michigan; and 2006, a year prior to the
U.S. Supreme Court decisions on
school integration in two public-school districts.
WHITE PRIVILEGE:
WHAT THE OPPONENTS SAY
Why do many white men lash out
against affirmative-action and
‘Reverse Discrimination’
(% EEOC discrimination charges filed by white males)
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Based Based
on Race on Sex
Source: U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
1996
Hopwood v. Texas
Four white plaintiffs
rejected from the
University of Texas
School of Law prevail
in the first successful
legal challenge to ad-
missions affirmative-
action policies since
Bakke. Later decision
nullifies this (2003)
2000
Western States
Paving Co. v.
Washington State
Department of
Transportation
Court of Appeals
rules that federal
financial-assistance
programs for “disad-
vantaged businesses”
discriminate
2002
Smith v. University
of Washington Law
School Four white
students rejected
from law school
challenge race-based
admissions policies.
U.S. District Court
says policies are con-
sistent with Bakke
2003
Grutter v. Bollinger
Supreme Court
upholds constitution-
ality of affirmative-
action policies in a
5-4 decision because
diversity is a “com-
pelling interest” in a
student body
2003
Gratz v. Bollinger
Supreme Court
rules University of
Michigan under-
graduate quota-based
affirmative-action
admissions policies
unconstitutional
2007
Parents Involved in
Community Schools
v. Seattle School
District and Mer-
edith v. Jefferson
County Board of
Education Supreme
Court overturns
voluntary school-
integration plans
