“Reverse Discrimination” isn’t a Thing
In the wake of Justice Jackson’s opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services last week, I’ve seen a few headlines about how the Supreme Court has “made reverse discrimination claims easier.” The term “reverse discrimination” has always bugged me. I think it references a unnecessary distinction that ultimately perpetuates a notion of unfairness.
“Reverse discrimination” refers to situations in which a person in a majority group alleges negative treatment at work or in school because of that identity group membership (e.g., a white applicant is denied admission to a predominantly white university, while a Black applicant with similar or lesser qualifications was admitted), as distinguished from regular, old discrimination when someone who holds a historically marginalized identity alleges negative treatment at work or in school because of that identity group (same example, switch the races).
At the end of the day, NO ONE should be treated negatively based on ANY race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other of a myriad of identity groups protected by federal, state and local laws, and/or institutional policies -- regardless of whether you are in the majority or minority.
There were some U.S. circuits that elevated the bar for alleging discrimination for individuals in majority groups. In this recent case, Ms. Ames, who alleged that she was discriminated against because she’s heterosexual, was required to demonstrate “background circumstances” for her allegations that would not have been required of a homosexual complainant. The Supreme Court said this heightened threshold is inappropriate.
Although there may be some out there, I personally don’t know of any institutional or organizational policies that have made this distinction (i.e., raising the bar for only some complainants), so this recent ruling should have little-to-no impact on the day-to-day operations of internal equal opportunity investigations.
Are there systemic barriers to reporting and proving discrimination that some groups experience more than others do? Absolutely. Are differing standards of analysis an appropriate solution? I don’t think so. Investigations into discrimination allegations are an important right we’re afforded. AND even more important is creating cultures and climates in which all are treated respectfully and empowered to voice a concern should one arise.
