Reverse_discrimination

Reverse discrimination is a controversial term used to describe the perceived effects of government policies (most notably Affirmative action); namely that they benefit a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of discrimination against members of a historically dominant group.

For example, in India, the term is often used by the citizens protesting against reservation and quotas.

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." http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/papers/fryer_loury_jepfinal.pdf

The term has also been used in discussions about the practice of specifically awarding government contracts to businesses owned by women or minorities.

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]}

Some argue that affirmative action programs destroys unbiased competition, and that the United States is being hurt both educationally and monetarily because this lack of competition. http://www.snc.edu/socsci/chair/336/agaffir.htm

Nomenclature, usage, and opponents of preferential treatment

The phrase reverse discrimination has been in use in the United States for several decades.

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 lead 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).

See also

• Affirmative action
• Gender-blind
• Color blindness (race)
• White privilege

References

External links

• UK Home Office Employment Targets
• Positive action in employment under the UK Race Relations Act
• John Rosenberg\'s Discriminations,
• Tim Fay\'s Adversity.net,
• Chetly Zarko\'s Power, Politics, & Money.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia