An emerging phenomenon attracts heated debates across various spectrums, including the
workplace. This phenomenon is referred to as “reverse discrimination.” Reverse discrimination
means that the minority discriminates against the majority by having a majority trait (Degn,
2024). For example, Whites who have always been the majority can now bring legal actions if
they feel they are being affected because they are in the majority. Before reverse discrimination
can be established, affirmative action must be satisfied.
Affirmative action, the preferential recruitment or treatment of underrepresented groups, such
as blacks, was a response to the ongoing historical injustices against minorities. Its legislative
genesis can be traced to 1941 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law EO 8802,
outlawing federal contractors from discriminating during their hiring policies.
In 1961, President John F. Kennedy reignited the concept of affirmative action to ensure that
employees are treated fairly without “regard to race, creed, color or national origin” (Greig et
al., 2023). This came at a time when the civil rights movement was gaining momentum. It now
begs whether reverse discrimination is discrimination without all those provisions.
Even though the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the courts do not recognize
the label “reverse discrimination,” there are provisions for everyone who is discriminated
against. In the United States of America, the gold standard for discrimination is deeply
embedded in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act was spearheaded by Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr and cemented into law by Congress to ensure that employment would be based
on character and merit rather than race (Noe & Hollenbeck, 2023). A point to note is that all the
other discriminatory acts have a foundation in Title VII.
The case of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (2025) is a significant one. Ames, a
heterosexual woman, alleged that she was denied a promotion to a less qualified LGBTQ+
colleague. The lower court rejected the case because she had not established the background
circumstance test. In the appeal, the Supreme Court justices rejected the background
circumstance test, citing Title VII, which guarantees equal rights to everyone irrespective of
status. A decision is expected to be made in the summer of 2025. A ruling in favor of Ames
could provoke more lawsuits in which the majority of plaintiffs do not have the burden of proof
to show background circumstance tests.
Maintaining a balanced approach to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is crucial to avoid
potential pitfalls. If not balanced, DEI can result in a pattern of favoritism toward minorities.
Opponents of DEI can argue that too much emphasis is being placed on DEI, resulting in the
majority being discriminated against. It's essential to address these concerns to ensure that the
objectives of DEI are not undermined, further perpetuating inequalities, wasted resources, and
potential for tension in the organization.
In order for these policies to be effective, steps must be taken to ensure that everyone sees and
understands the merit of the policy implementation. The overused argument for DEI policies is
that they threaten meritocracy and justice principles. These arguments provide the opportune
time to advise opponents that these “policies are needed to create a fair system that provides
equal opportunities for disadvantaged groups who have experienced historical and ongoing
systemic discrimination.” These policies align with merit and justice principles (Iyer, 2022).
Fath (2023) argues that blind hiring, which removes identifying information from job
applications to focus solely on qualifications, can enforce diversity. This trend is not widespread,
but studies have indicated it is gaining traction. A survey of over 800 US Human Resource
practitioners has indicated that about 20 percent work for organizations that utilize blind hiring,
and about 60 percent know of it.
Discrimination, whether it be reverse or what is commonly referred to as 'straight'
discrimination, does not make the act less offensive. Title VII has removed the guesswork from
any doubt that may arise. In the meantime, organizations can employ policies that make the
workplace less hostile. It is also true that when the advantaged groups feel threatened, there
will be labels and lawsuits. Furthermore, Proverbs 22:2 (King James Version) asserts that God
creates rich and poor people and is equal in His sight. Should this principle be adhered to, there
will be no need for the ensuing chaos.
