Talk:Reverse discrimination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Please post all new comments at the bottom of the page


Contents

[edit] Destructive editing is not constructive

Anthony removed the following graf, and replaced it with nothing:

Such policies, of course, may tend to decrease the proportion of opportunities within the society available to members of the majority group in comparison with their historical opportunities. Since the intent of such policies are to increase opportunities for traditionally discriminated groups, they may tend to develop this increase by decreasing the opportunities for other groups, though it is arguable that they bring about a closer equality of opportunities among groups. When such policies are perceived to bring about a decrease in the opportunities available to the dominant group, those who feel affected by that loss of opportunity often refer to the policies as "reverse discrimination".

This graf provided an socially-derived explanation of why this term exists, and IMO that is an essential part of an encyclopedic entry on a term. To repair his destructive edit, I reworded. Why the problem with this graf was not discussed on the Talk page as is customary (and productive) I do not know, though everyone is entitled to their speculation.

67.171.139.232 added the following complaint:

Yet, since 1999, the UK government's Home Office sets targets for the recruitment, retention and progression of minority ethnic staff.

This doesn't seem relevant: I'm stating that the practice is technically illegal in that country, as an example. The added portion is a complaint about a party that is breaking the law. It's not relevant to the explanation of the term, but just a political issue.

Revert and rewrite the following reword by Func:

As it is alleged to be a type of discrimination in the traditional sense,

The argument made in the edit summary (which should have been made here, on the talk page, instead) is the following distinction:

  • "Traditional" discrimination works *against* a group.
  • "Reverse" discrimination works *towards* a group.

This is folly. Discrimination *against* a group wouldn't exist if it wasn't to protect or improve another group. If I'm discriminating *against* another group, it's because I want to *benefit* my group. The individual perspective of who is benefitting from the discrimination doesn't change the effects or practice of the discrimination. Also cut out the following by Func:

In some common or casual conversation, "reverse discrimination" is often used incorrectly to describe true discrimination or racism, an example being where a black employer might choose to not hire a white person because of a personal bias against white people. This is not reverse discrimination, because the motive is not to benefit a group, but rather to discriminate against a group.

Explained as addressed above. Moreover, since "reverse discrimination" is a colloquial term, it's redundant (or contradictive) to say that it is used differently in casual conversation.

- KeithTyler 17:43, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I initially responded before realizing you had typed all of the above.

Keith, the term "reverse discrimination" is not colloquial, except in casual conversation. In academic settings and in courts of law, it has a very specific meaning, and its meaning concerns motive, not actual or perceived effect. And yes, it is possible to be against a group without intending to be for another group. Consider, that same black employer might be willing to hire hispanic employees, which you cannot argue as being for blacks. func(talk) 18:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To continue... Your definition adheres to the colloquial use of the term only. When a white university president and his primarily white staff institute an affirmative action policy that results in reverse discrimination, are you saying that these people of European heritage are acting against themselves? Of course not, they are acting for another group. The matter is a simple one of logic and grammar. "Reverse discrimination" is not the discrimination of a minority against a non-minority, it is the practice of attempting to reverse discrimination. By the way, are you from a country other than the U.S. I only ask because you may have an understanding of this issue that is different than how it is perceived in the U.S. func(talk) 19:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The point of encyclopedic articles is to cover them in an objective manner - not based on perception. (Note that the term "Point Of View", taken literally, is synonymous with "perception".) If included, individual perceptions must be covered as such -- not stated as fact or treated as the rule.
The use of "reverse discrimination" as a term is by those who perceive that their group is being operated against by such policy. So yes, a white person who is upset that they were not admitted to a college run primarily by whites due to a racial quota would say that the primarily white institution is working against whites. That is the whole point of the term "reverse discrmination". In the dominantly understood usage, one would not use the term "reverse discrimination" to refer to, say, a black college denying a white applicant.
"Reverse discrimination" is not the discrimination of a minority against a non-minority -- I agree, and which is why the latter example above is not reverse discrimination.
As for your black hiring hispanics over whites example, you seem intent on defining my carefully worded "social group" term as being only definable as "race". However, "social group" can easily refer to groups of multiple races (compare the groups "Asians" and "Chinese"), especially one with which the discriminating party feels comraderie. In America, it is not a far reach to say that many blacks feel comraderie with Latinos as a group. Furthermore, "social group" does not have to be race at all; it can also be gender, class, education, or even profession. And yes, it can be the social group of "non-whites" or "non-blacks". If you are working against one group, you are working in favor of its complement (or some part of it).
If you have a non-colloquial-use definition of this term, please, by all means, show it to me. I am not aware of, say, a legal, or even sociological, definition of this term that is not rooted in its colloquial use, but I am happy to concede that there is one if you can find a generally accepted source for one.
As for what country I am in, my user page should provide enough info.
- KeithTyler 19:42, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
The point of encyclopedic articles is to cover them in an objective manner - not based on perception...

I agree with this statement in every possible conceivable way. You seem to be implying that I am attempting to insert POV. I believe I was attempting to define the term reverse discrimination as it is understood in academic and legal circles, in particular, to explain how it is different from mere bias against a defined group. (If they are the same fundamental concept, then why did the term come into use?)

Even more in particular, it was my intention to document that "reverse discrimination" is not the discrimination of a minority against a non-minority, which you say you agree with. This, however, is a point that many who use the term "reverse discrimination" are confused over.

...use of "reverse discrimination" as a term is by those who perceive that their group is being operated against by such policy...

It is also used by academics and lawyers who discuss and are professionally involved with issues surrounding reverse discrimination, and when they do, it is clear that they are discussing an issue that involves motive on the part of the discriminator.

one would not use the term "reverse discrimination" to refer to, say, a black college denying a white applicant

Correct, which is what I was trying to point out. There are lots of people who would say that this is an example of reverse discrimination, and they are wrong for doing so. This is what I meant by common or casual conversation.

As for your black hiring hispanics over whites example, you seem intent on defining my carefully worded "social group" term as being only definable as "race".

No, I used race as a readily understood example. My example would still be valid if we were talking about people who butter their bread on the top as opposed to the bottom.

In America, it is not a far reach to say that many blacks feel camaraderie with Latinos as a group.

But it is a far reach to suggest that a person who butters their bread on the top, who has just turned down an application from someone who butters his bread on the bottom, is acting for the benefit of his group AND the benefit of those who don't use butter at all.

If you have a non-colloquial-use definition of this term, please, by all means, show it to me... a generally accepted source for one

That's a tall order for me just at the moment. I will provide many academic and legal sources on the Internet when I get home from work. Note: Once a term is used for a long period of time in formal, educated settings, it ceases to be colloquial.

func(talk) 20:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I may have misread your second graf, but I still disagree that reverse discrimination is not still discrimination. If I make the determination that I am going to favor group A over group B, it is because I favor group B less, and therefore I am effectively working against them in terms of their ability to benefit from my acceptance. Whether I deliberately say that I want to screw Group B over is not relevant; I am still discriminating in a way that is against the acceptance of Group B. Historic discrimination is rife with such false distinctions (e.g. "I have nothing against Group B, but I would rather have a Group A person for _____."). We see this phenomenon even in today's major discrimination issues.
You seem to be implying that I am attempting to insert POV. I believe I was attempting to define the term reverse discrimination as it is understood in academic and legal circles, in particular...
You suggested that the article did not come from the right perspective, which is why I said that.
(If they are the same fundamental concept, then why did the term come into use?)
A sociological question, to be sure. I can't explain how society comes up with its colloquialisms. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of direction. It is a choice of one group over another group (or groups of groups, etc.). The *direction* of the discrimination may be reversed from its traditional direction, and the *intent* of the discrimination may be arguably different, and I try to explain that in the opening graf(s). But the *act* of discrimination doesn't change -- I am still favoring one group over another.
But it is a far reach to suggest that a person who butters their bread on the top, who has just turned down an application from someone who butters his bread on the bottom, is acting for the benefit of his group AND the benefit of those who don't use butter at all.
I don't think whom he is trying to benefit matters. He is trying to benefit a group he feels to be a part of. Going back to the black/Latino example, this is true whether the group he's benefitting is only his own race, or in a group of races he identifies with (e.g. "non-whites" or "non-whites and non-Asians", or some other grouping).
- KeithTyler 21:53, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


===========

"Reverse discrimination" most certainly colloquial. A court of law can redefine a Starbuck's coffee cup as a 757 aircraft of a "new type". If there are restraints on legal redefinitions, I am unaware of them.

The term is based, purely and simply, on the assumption that racial discrimination is an in-born characteristic of white males of northwestern european extraction. Thus, when those people are discriminated against, it is "reverse". This seems abundantly clear through the presence of "reverse". Thus the term itself is inherently and unavoidably racist. It has nothing to do with discrimination against "minorities". The world is full of examples where a minority actively and aggressively discriminated against an ethnic/ racial majority. Try South Africa.

"Discrimination" always benefits the group that practices it, and it can be practiced by any race, ethnic group, or sex.

I deliberately avoided the word "minority" iin my version of this article because, as you indicate, the majority is not always the dominant group.
Legal redefinitions are neither linguistically canonical nor conventional. (For example, the U.S. legal definition of a corporation as "a person".) Legal definitions do not equal standard definitions. I'm not in the practice of basing conventional understanding or usage of terms on their various legal definitions, and I don't think Wikipedia is either. (Besides, legal definitions usually only have scope within a particular section of law -- and can be completely different for a given term among other sections of law.) The meaning of the word in its common use is what needs to be focused on; legal definitions take a back seat. - KeithTyler 19:36, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] don't get emotional.

I had to enjoy this bit of choose-your-own-definition:

While discrimination is simply the ability to discern between one group and another, and carries no moral overtones, it is a subject often fraught with emotion. Groups who have historically fought discrimination and labeled it as 'morally bad' now find themselves supporting the same sort of policies that benefit them. In order not to be labeled 'bad' by their own definitions they use the term "reverse discrimination".

"The dictionary definition of discrimination is merely to tell your kind of person apart from my kind of person, so you shouldn't be upset over me not giving you this job because you're a different kind of person from me."

Classic. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 18:31, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and someone please explain to me what "reverse equality" is supposed to mean. Before conservative PC was invented, we used to call it inequality. - Keith D. Tyler [flame]

[edit] Disagree with merge

I don't think this article should be merged with Affirmative action. Affirmative action refers to a specific employment strategy; it is only one of a set of policies which are or could be considered to be "reverse discriminatory".

For example, some may consider reparations to be reverse discrimination, but this would not be affirmative action. Likewise for land reform in Zimbabwe.

-Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 20:16, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse racism

The problem with saying "some people call this reverse racism" is that racial discrimination is not the only arena in which reverse discrimination can occur. That is a common presumption, but the article takes pains not to imply that "reverse racism" is the only form of perceived reverse discrimination or even lean towards it. - Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 18:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Keith, thanks for bringing this up on the talk page. I see your point. I edited the sentence to try to make it clearer that, as you emphasize, the racial arena is just one example of reverse discrimination. It does seem that supposed reverse discrimination is mostly employed regarding race, so I think it should be OK to mention the term 'reverse racism.' Also, the term is definitely in wide use: a google search for the phrase (in quotes) yields 25,000 results, vs 96,700 results for 'reverse discrimination'. Do you see any problems with the revised sentence?
Also, I removed the specification from the sentence that only those in the majority group who are unhappy with such policies use the term reverse discrimination; individuals in minority groups that benefit from such policies also express opposition, commonly expressing that they believe such policies suggest they need help in order to compete with individuals from other groups, that is, white and asian groups.--Nectarflowed 03:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds good to me too. Thanks for considering my comments. - Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 05:10, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Racism and discrimination are not synonyms. Currently reverse racism is a redirect here, which I find illogical; but since I will not tamper any further with these page(s) here at English Wikipedia I won't do anything about it. However, the interwiki link from here to Swedish Wikipedia pointed to sv:Omvänd rasism - reverse racism, not reverse discrimination. We do not (yet) have an article on sv:WP about reverse discrimination, but i do think these two concepts should be kept separate; and so, I removed the interwiki link. /Habj 18:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] article needs expansion

This article needs to be filled out. It seems like simply an abstraction of the affirmative action article. The two terms are NOT synonymous, and this article should not be treated as such. In particular, the opening paragraph says "policies and acts", and then talks only about policies. I would like to work on this some, but let's bring this article up to par. - Che Nuevara 04:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The term "reverse discrimination" assumes that...

Racism has inherently to do with power. That's a weasel-words type thing that's been invented to basically try to excuse anti-white racism by non-whites, for instance, and is also used to excuse anti-male sexism by women, etc.

Prejudice is prejudice. Is some random poor white guy out in the backwoods who HATES everybody who isn't white less of a racist than a black employer who subconsciously promotes blacks more than whites regardless of merit, because the former's racism is powerless (let's say there's no non-whites within a 100 mile radius) whereas the latter's subconscious preference actually has some effect? Is the KKK less racist today than it was 50 years ago, because it has less power today? --Edward Wakelin 21:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not the term is literally oxymoronic or nonsensical doesn't eliminate the fact that it is a term in common use. The article makes an effort to explain its conventional meaning as well as address its literal invalidity. - Keith D. Tyler 05:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'm gonna make that a little bit less vague. --Edward Wakelin 20:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Am just adding the actual meaning of the phrase, "However, it is usually agreed that the term 'reverse' refers to the discrimination in the name of preventing discrimination, which has similarities to the idea of doublespeak." --Max 01:00 01st Feb 2006 GMT

[edit] explanation of changes

I moved "politically charged" from the opening line to 'criticism of the term itself.' Some people do think of it as politically charged, but that's POV.

I clarified 'criticism of the term itself.' It seemed a bit vague. 1st paragraph: criticism from those who support affirmative action - I removed the counter-argument, which really belongs in a different place. In controversial areas of Wikipedia, you get counter-argument after counter-argument tacked on by disagreeing parties. Since the heading is 'criticism of the term,' I've just left the criticism itself.

2nd paragraph: criticism from those oppose reverse discrimination - it's not actually a tautological term. A tautology might be 'prejuduced discrimination.' The objection to it being labelled 'reverse' is that discrimination is discrimination, period, so why qualify it at all. I also removed that it can't be quantified, because that's not entirely true: you can talk about how many people have suffered discrimination, or by how much.24.64.223.203 01:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalisim Revert

Spotted a random "Hey!" With an insane amout of excalmation points and an italicised "Italic Text" tacked on the end for good measure. It's been removed.--Vince Skrapits 01:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse racism in the television

Is this the appropriate article to talk about certain black comedies making racist jokes against whites, where the same kinds of jokes made by whites against black would be considered inappropriate? -Doubleg 23:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong page. Sorry.--Cberlet 21:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colloquial use

This page really needs a forthright disucssion of the widespread colloquial use:

  • "The term is sometimes used colloquially to suggest that unqualified minorities and women are being unfairly hired and promoted and taking jobs and positions away from qualified white workers and male workers; although there is no persuasive statistical evidence to support this claim."

This is probably the most widesperad use of the term in the United States. We can't just ignore it.--Cberlet 21:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect?

My understanding of "reverse discrimination" is when there is discrimination already in existence (eg. only white students are admitted to a university), and it is eventually recognised by someone or some authority. So, in an attempt to "correct" this discrimination, that person or authority brings in rules/laws that to some extent, discriminate against those that were benefiting before (eg. 10% of uni students are to be black, whether they meet the required academic levels or not). In truth it is unneccessary - discrimination is discrimination - but all languages add words together for emphasis or added meaning. Yes, it is political. Yes, it is emotive. ---Bruce in Brisbane, Australia.

With quotas of minorities to fill, it may be necessary for the common sociopolitical groups to be passed over in certain circumstances to select a candidate solely due to their sociopolitical background.

AFAIK, the u.s. supreme court has declared that racial quotas are totally illegal. I believe this was brought to the court when someone tried to challenge the legality of affimative action itself. Am I right here? --Vaergoth 06:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct which makes the above comments by Bruce incorrect at least for the U.S. Quota systems are considered illegal. In fact the whole "lowering the standards" claim is entirely debatable. A college has standards for both amjority and minority students, they are not necessarily just letting anyone off the street in because they are a minority. This is why I think we ought to keep contreversial in the definition. This is a complex issue. --Farbotron 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomprehensible and dubious

I have read this page over and over for the past few weeks, and I have to say that it is just as incomprehensible and full of dubious uncited claims as it was the first time I read it. I have obtained several books on the subject, and browsed a list of websites. Nothing I read seems to support 80% of the text on this page. If there is someone reading this from England or Australia, can they provide a cites to how the term is used in those countries. In the United States, the term is almost universally used by critics of affirmative action to suggest that:

  • When a society, government agency, or other public or private institution or group uses certain methods to try to increase participation, employment, or membership from historically minority or marginalized groups; that the intent, process, and outcome creates "reverse discrimination" against members of the historically majority or dominant group."

Is this not the proper definition used by both supporters of the idea and opponents of the idea. What is all this other obtuse and contradictory language about? I have flagged the page as POV and factually disputed. This whole page needs a major overhaul.--Cberlet 22:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone here?--Cberlet 14:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But this is "one of those articles" where any time spent improving it will immediately be countered by someone else disemproving it.
Atlant 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I am totally with you. This page needs an overhaul. What "evidence" is there in case law to prove reverse discrimination? Only the fact that people have brought such allegations to the supreme court? --Farbotron 05:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
First off, the fact that the allegations made it and were heard by the Supreme Court does warrant seriousness. A case based on nothing would not have made it through appeal. The Bakke case does prove discrimination with their set-aside policies. What more is necessary? Matt620 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough with the Bakke case and quotas, (yes there were quotas and that has been proven fairly) but the article states that reverse discrimination "is" happening in the present tense. Where is the evidence for this? Allegations brough before the supreme court may prove a case's seriousous, but it is not proof that reverse discrimination is happening, rather that it may be happening.

--Farbotron 23:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, we could no sooner prove reverse discrimination then we could prove regular discrimination or anything at all. There are some articles on the top that provide more information. Matt620 20:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your arugment is here because I can think of many other kinds of evidence in support of reverse discrimination or discrimination existing besides case law. This includes sociological experiments/studies, statistics, and the testimony of individuals. In additional the articles you have provided are not sufficient as I stated in a different section. Yes, one of your internet articles states that there have been 6 six cases of substantiated reverse discrimination. But then it just has in parenthesis US Labor Dept. How can you expect me to follow up on this source? I need more information. See the thing is, I would rather take off inacurate and dubious things and try to start from scratch rather than leaving this mess of an article intact with a complete lack of citation. Who's with me? --Farbotron 22:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Reverse Discrimination" dosen't right past wrongs.

I find it an incorrect statement that so called "reverse discrimination" is here to right past wrongs. As a person who is familiar with their family history I know that my family has never wronged another ethnic or social group. In fact, they were themselves discriminated against because of their religion which included being mobbed, seeing friends and associates killed, having their land stolen away from them and being forced out of the state which I currently live. Yet with all the wrongs done against my family, I see no benefits of "reverse discrimination", in fact I've seen promotions go to other, less qualified individuals because of "reverse discrimination". Individuals who haven't lived in our country long enough to have been discriminated against can benefit from "reverse discrimination" if they fall into the right categories. To me "reverse discrimination" is just plain old discrimination, just pointed in a slightly different direction.

This is not a political discussion page. This is wikipedia. --Farbotron 21:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Now Let's Finally Be Constructive

As mentioned previously this page is rife with dubious facts and a lack of reliable sources. Thus, it is going to have to cut down, and I will explain each of the changes. I suspect that some of the people editing this page may not be from the United States, where I am fairly certain that the term "reverse discrimination originated. Before we can go any further I think we need to agree on a few basic things.

1. Reverse Discrimination is a politically charged and contreversial term. There is alot of evidence to support this, first of the all the fact that proponents of affirmative action do not use the term. But if you look at the website sources currently on the page you will notice that reverse discrimation is a term only used by opponents of affirmative action.

2. As of the sources cited now, there is not adequate case law which is evidence for reverse discrimination. Just because people have brought allegations before courts, it does not mean reverse discrimination occurs. The second source, a website claims that only six cases have been substantiated and then references the U.S. department of Labor, but gives me nowhere else to go. I do not consider this to be a reliable source and therefore I am removing this statement until further evidence can be found.

3. This article is filled with a ton of weasel words and they need to be fixed or taken out. More or less the whole "Policies Regarding Reverse Discrimination is filled with them. I will put a tag there for now.

4. Oprah Winfrey's Ball is not an example of reverse discrimation. Her ball was designed to celebrate African American Women. So by definition she could only invite African American Women. If she said the ball was to celebrate women in general that would be a different matter. So this event is different from a job which should ideally be open to anyone of any race. So I'm cutting this example.

5. The Asian American fetish example seems to me totally off topic and not really about reverse discrimiation. This is about people's sexual preferences, and assumes that white people should naturally be attracted to white people which is an entirely prejudiced assumption. Should straight men claim that women who are lesbians discriminate against them? Perhaps I am reading the argument wrong, but it is entirely convoluted and until it can be written in a more coherent way I'm taking it out.

6. There are too many inconsistent scare quotes. I'm fixing those. If we don't put scare quotes on reverse discrimination there certainly shoudn't be any on affirmative action.

I am just attempting to make this article as objective as possible. If people want to help me and find sources that's cool. What we need good evidence here for whatever claims are being made.--Farbotron 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Give it a try. What is here is a mess.--Cberlet 03:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
So apparently no one has heeded or even responded to my concerns and comments. I am going to attempt more cuts of sections with no citations.

[edit] Page seems internally inconsistent?

As far as I can see, the article defines the term as "used to describe discriminatory policies or acts that benefit ...." Therefore, shouldn't the links to "Racial quota" and "Affirmative action" be in the subsection "Discrimination" rather than "Counter-discrimination"? The Slimey 00:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean "Anti-discrimination." Admittedly, "counter-discrimination" would actually be a more correct term for those, but I wouldn't advocate further section-creep. I suppose such a question could be hacked to death at Template_talk:Discrimination2. I think my working theory in putting them there is that they are policies intended to work against historic discrimination, therefore anti-. Counter-discrimination (like anything counter-, e.g. counterrevolution) is essentially discrimination and anti-discrimination at the same time. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 20:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/v/Talk%7EReverse_discrimination_4806.html"