The issue of discrimination or favoritism in the workplace has been in place for countless years. The reason behind its permanence is no doubt due to the fact that it was once fully embraced. It has only been in the last 100-150 years that progressivism has started to establish a firm foothold amongst professionals as minority groups now fight to demand a seat at the table. Yet the rise of these historically underrepresented demographics in the business world may have also brought with it an unintended consequence: reverse discrimination. For minority groups that have had to endure past prejudices, it may be difficult to hear someone from a majority group claim that he or she was deliberately overlooked due to his or her demographic. Yet those who believe that reverse discrimination is a real problem may point to the notion that legislative action and professional paradigm shifts have created an environment where employers feel as though they have no choice but to feel a quota of minority candidates. From this perspective, one may say that the concept of reverse discrimination is a byproduct of affirmative action.
The Link Between Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination
The term “affirmative action” was first used in Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. In it, it states that employers must “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” The intent of this order was to combat racial discrimination in the hiring and workplace treatment of minorities. In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11375, which extended the influence of affirmative action to consider sex.
Since that time, affirmative action has been cited in numerous court cases and by professional organizations aimed at influencing employers to ensure that professional development and growth opportunities are more equitable. Yet some would now argue that the affirmative action movement has swung the pendulum too far in the other direction, and that out of fear of facing litigation for not hiring a certain number of minority candidates, employers are now actually discriminating against majority groups. None of this was intended when the issue of workplace discrimination was first addressed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its stated intent was to eliminate any perceived favoritism based upon race, sex, religion or nationality. However, one could potentially argue that since initiatives such as this or those that first spawned the ideas of affirmative action were enacted, an atmosphere of entitlement may have developed amongst minority groups who may feel as though they are owed recompense due to past discrimination. Those who believe that such an attitude of entitlement exists may hold to the validity of reverse discrimination.
The Challenge in Proving Discrimination
However, simply citing reverse discrimination is not enough to actually halt any actions over which it is believed to have influence. As is the case in claims involving standard discrimination, the burden of proving that it is actually happening falls to those who are claiming to be the victims. To support their arguments, they must be able to present proof of the following:
- That they are indeed members of a particular protected class
- That their qualifications or performance was equal to that of any other candidates being considered for employment or promotion
- That those who were awarded the professional benefit that they were seeking were only given it because of their demographics
- That the companies in question have a history of discrimination against majority groups.
There is no easy way to answer the question of whether or not discrimination continues to happen within the workplace. Those responsible for the hiring and promotion of employees can only continue to try their best to extend such employment rewards and benefits based solely off of merit. Keeping their processes as transparent as possible will no doubt help to quell fears of discrimination, or at least leave less room for the misinterpretation of motives should discriminatory claims arise.
Legal Disclaimer
The content on our website is only meant to provide general information and is not legal advice. We make our best efforts to make sure the information is accurate, but we cannot guarantee it. Do not rely on the content as legal advice. For assistance with legal problems or for a legal inquiry please contact you attorney.