he term `discrimination' would, for many of us, be sufficient to signify adverse treatment in any context. However, it is not unusual for some to argue their case as `reverse discrimination.' For others, this seemingly new term lacks relevance. Nevertheless, many high profile national and international famous court cases have discharged judgements in favor of those filing against reverse discrimination. This fact makes it imperative to become conversant and aware of the usage and implications of reverse discrimination for employers. The term, although very significant in the employment context, is also used in other contextssuch as institutional discrimination (including educational institutions), international politics, liberalization, and globalization.
`Reverse' discrimination is, of course, something of an oxymoron. really there is only one type of discrimination. However, the popular definition of `reverse discrimination' describes the situation where a non--minority (e.g., a white male) has been denied a job, promotion, or business opportunity specifically because he or she is NOT on the government's official list of `historically disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups'. Conversely, `reverse discrimination' also describes the situation where certain government specified racial or ethnic groups are specifically and deliberately given preferential treatment in hiring, promotions or contracting ( www.adversity.net, 2001).
Synonyms of the term, among others, include `affirmative discrimination,' (Glazer, 1975), `discrimination in reverse,' (Gross, 1978), and `preferential treatment,' (Pincus, 2001/2002). The earliest use of the term dates back to the late 1960s and it has been employed by critics of affirmative action ever since. |
