RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research methodology adopted is doctrinal keeping in mind the conceptual, theoretical

and evaluative aspects of the topic. Primary as well as secondary sources of information

inclusive of books, articles, web sources, and online legal databases have been used from the

Dr. Madhu Limaye Library. In this project, study will basically be limited to the topic

selected for the project. No other related studies or sources will be discussed in the project as

such.

AIM AND OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT

Through this project , I will try to achieve the objective to understand affirmative action with

respect to Reverse discrimination in the USA. The new efforts of government will have to

face and fight the different state’s Acts on Reverse discrimination in USA. The project would

only include analysis of reverse discrimination stages and would discuss the problem and

new efforts being made by the people with respect to the discrimination.
 INDEX

INTRODUCTION

THE TRADITIONAL MEANING OF DISCRIMINATION

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 1964

DISCRIMINATION AS "ACTION" OR "CONDITION"

Is IT "DISCRIMINATION"?

REVERSE DISCRIMINATION: POPULAR DEFINITIONS

LEGAL DEFINITIONS

WHAT IS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION?

REVERSE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT: THE LAW

CASES

CONCLUSION
 INTRODUCTION

Institutions of upper education are confronted with difficult employment dispute and
allegations of discrimination on a ostensibly routine basis. whereas such discrimination
claims are unremarkably raised by minorities girls, since the civil rights movement of the
1960's members of the bulk ( white and / or males) have pursed claims of reversed
discrimination.1

Institutions of upper education are confronted with difficult employment dispute and
allegations of discrimination on a ostensibly routine basis. whereas such discrimination
claims are unremarkably raised by minorities girls, since the civil rights movement of the
1960's members of the bulk ( white and / or males) have pursed claims of reversed
discrimination.

In 24 July 1984 year past a replacement House of York Times newsman noted: In political
Washington, it generally looks virtually everyone likes 'affirmative action,' no one likes
'reverse discrimination,' and hardly anybody likes 'quotas.'

All of which can be confusing to those who think about 'affirmative action,' 'reverse
discrimination,' and 'quotas' as completely different phrases that means additional or less the
identical issue.. . Be that because it might, all of those terms represents one thing way varied,
contingent upon UN agency is doing the characterizing..

THE TRADITIONAL MEANING OF DISCRIMINATION

The traditional which means of racism is stock-still in american history. it is understood that
slavery within the u. s. was supported race. once the war settled the difficulty of slavery, 3
amendments were extra to the Constitution to clarify the standing of former slaves.

The result of such laws was to put Black Americans in "a position of political powerlessness"
that needed "extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process".'

The rise of the ku Klux klan, innumerous incidents of brutality directed at Black Americans,
and therefore the reluctance of Congress to adopt Associate in Nursing anti-lynching law
exemplify the continued reality of discrimination within the aftermath of the warfare. Black

1
https://www.stetson.edu/law/conferences/highered/archive/2004/AvoidingReverseDiscrimination.pdf
minorities found very little sympathy from the White majority till well into the 20 th century.
The landmark call of the Supreme Court to outlaw segregation within the public faculties in
1954 marked the start of a replacement era in race relations. The Civil Rights movement, that
began with the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955, culminated within the adoption of major
legislation touching Black Americans. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and also the vote Rights
Act of 1965 were the foremost vital product of associate degree era of social policy.

Quota-a number, amount, or share that is officially allowed or necessary.2

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

The term "affirmative action" originated by President John F. Kennedy in 1962. Its main
provisions include:

(1) not discriminating against historically disfavored minorities

(2) advertising as an "equal chance employer"

(3) creating special efforts to recruit qualified Americans of color for admission and coaching
programs.

The Supreme Court has represented the aim of affirmative action as a technique "to dismantle
previous patterns of employment discrimination within the future." The relief is to be
provided to the category as a full instead of to individual members.' Goals, timetables or
quotas could also be a part of an affirmative action program.

The term itself was 1st employed in the U.S. below government Order No. 10925, signed into
law March 6, 1961, by President John F. Kennedy. it's primarily used to promote actions that
are non-discriminative in nature.3

Affirmative action, within the us, an energetic effort to boost employment or instructional
opportunities for members of minority teams and for ladies. social action began as a
government remedy to the consequences of long-standing discrimination against such teams
and has consisted of policies, programs, and procedures that offer preferences to minorities
and ladies in job hiring, admission to institutions of upper education, the awarding of

2
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quota
3
https://www.upcounsel.com/reverse-discrimination
government contracts, and other social benefits. The typical criteria for affirmative action are
race, disability, gender, ethnic origin, and age.4

DISCRIMINATION: ACTION OR CONDITION?

Discrimination not only has a historical component; it has distinctive meanings depending on
whether it focuses on the perpetrator or the victim, the action or the consequences of the
action.

From the perpetrator's point of view, discrimination describes what someone has "done" or
"is doing" to someone else. If discrimination is an act, then the way to end it is to stop
discriminating.

The following dictionary definition of "discrimination" is action based: "discrimination:... .

the act of prejudice or partiality in attitudes, actions, etc., discrimination against minorities."
However, one's understanding of "discrimination" changes dramatically if viewed from the
victim's point of view. From the victim's perspective, racial discrimination describes those
conditions of actual social existence as a member of a perpetual underclass.

This perspective includes both the objective conditions of life-lack of jobs, lack of money,
lack of housing-and the consciousness associated with those objective conditions-lack of
choice and lack of human individuality in being forever perceived as a member of a group
rather than as an individual. If one focuses on the results rather than the actions which lead to
the results, then "discrimination" does not end until the conditions, which are a product of
discriminatory actions themselves change.

The most important Supreme Court ruling on racial discrimination,

Brown v. Board of Education, stressed the results, not the actions. Chief Justice Warren
described the effects of segregation on school children, To separate them from others of
similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as
to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever
to be undone.

The difference in these perspectives is vital to the debate over "reverse discrimination."
From the perpetrator's view, if an action appears to be similar to what has been called

4
https://www.britannica.com/topic/affirmative-action - ref167699
discrimination in the past, then it too, is discrimination. However, if the focus is on
conditions, it is clear that "reverse discrimination" is based on an illusion. Many Americans
of color have lived as a "perpetual underclass" based on race which White Americans have
never experienced.

Is IT "DISCRIMINATION"?

Another way of understanding the meaning of discrimination is through logical analysis.

Since "a white majority is unlikely to disadvantage itself for reasons of racial prejudice," and
the overwhelming majority of legislators who adopted race conscious legislation in the 1960s

In 1975, a New York woman argued that the University of North Carolina violated her rights
because the university had a policy which favored children of alumni and state residents over
out-of-state applicants.

REVERSE DISCRIMINATION: POPULAR DEFINITIONS

The term "reverse discrimination" was 1st utilized in the popular media in 1974 when the
Supreme Court rendered its call in DeFunis v. Odegaard. In The case concerned charges of
racial bias in grad school admissions. The conservative journalist, James Kilpatrick, wrote "A
additional acquainted name for this abnormality is 'reverse discrimination.' The short and
ugly word is racism."19 In 1976, U.S. News & World Report commented on "a apply
called reverse discrimination,". On the flat solid was written. "white male? forget it!" that
very same year, a number one Republican politician used the term. In his 1st bid for the
presidency, President of the United States commented, "If you happen to belong to an
grouping not recognized by the federal government as entitled to special treatment you're a
victim of reverse discrimination., 3 years later, Republican legislator Orrin Hatch and former
Texas Governor, John Connally additionally used the term. By the 1980s, "reverse
discrimination" had lost its quotation marks and was accepted into standard language. In
science these days, as an example, the term meant giving "somewhat additional favorable
treatment" to Black men over white men or girls. professional General edwin Meese argued
that affirmative action programs were "substituting one quite discrimination for one more."
LEGAL DEFINITIONS

In discussing "reverse discrimination" authors of law review articles have adopted a wide
variety of explanations of the term. It may mean:

(a) discrimination against members of the white majority

(b) preferential hiring policies or affirmative action

(c) many different things to different people

(d) code words to express emotional or ideological support or opposition

(e) the removal of that benefit which American society has for so long bestowed without
question, upon its privileged classes

(f) prejudice or bias exercised against a person or class for the purpose of correcting a pattern
of discrimination against another person or class.

The definitions of "reverse discrimination" can be organized into three categories:

(1) discrimination as "action"

(2) discrimination as a "condition"

and (3) no specific content

(as established by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1976 McDonald vs. Santa Fe Trail Transport
Co. decision).5

anti-discrimination or reverse discrimination laws were originally enacted to stop

discrimination against minorities and teams that were traditionally deprived and denied
opportunities within the work, there has generally existed a perception that members of
majority teams aren't protected by the identical laws. However, these laws usually disallow
all types of discrimination supported protected characteristics, together with those against
members of a majority cluster.

5
https://employment.findlaw.com/employment-discrimination/reverse-discrimination.html
As a result, the term "reverse discrimination" originated to explain these forms of cases
wherever members of a majority cluster are claiming they were discriminated against on the
premise of their age, race, gender, or different protected characteristic.

WHAT IS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION?

While "reverse discrimination" isn't specifically addressed below federal law, the term
sometimes refers to things wherever a member or members of a majority are discriminated
against on the idea of a protected issue, like race or gender. Common examples would come
with a Caucasian individual World Health Organization is discriminated against in favor of a
racial minority, or maybe a person suing an leader as a result of a girl was given favorable
treatment at work on account of her gender. Diversity initiative programs (such as affirmative
action) are usually designed to "level the enjoying field" within the work or academic
settings, they additionally might run the danger of breaking discrimination laws despite their
historical justifications.6

Examples of "reverse discrimination" could include:

 creating hiring or promoting selections in favor of minority teams, despite the

expertise or seniority of Caucasian, male, or alternative majority candidates.
 Hiring or promoting ladies entirely on the idea of their gender over equally or a lot of
qualified males.
 Refusing to rent or firing of persons below 40 years old in favor of the hiring of
persons over 40 years of age.
 Rejecting an applier for college while admitting a minority applicant entirely on the
idea of race (courts have declared that race may only be used as a "factor" in
educational applicant decisions).

REVERSE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT: THE LAW

Courts have struggled with various types of discrimination cases, including those considered
to be "reverse discrimination." Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers
may not discriminate based on race, sex, gender, religion, or national origin, irrespective of
who the victim of discrimination might be. In addition, under Title VII, employers may not

6
https://employment.findlaw.com/employment-discrimination/reverse-discrimination.html
create programs and policies that would have a "disparate impact" or adverse effect on
members of a protected class. However, courts have interpreted this and similar state laws in
different ways in discrimination cases with majority (Caucasian, male, etc.) plaintiffs.
Although, some forms of discrimination in favor of minorities and historically disadvantaged
groups like women have been upheld by courts, others have not, and it remains a contentious
legal issue.

As with discrimination claims brought by members of historically disadvantaged groups, so-

called reverse discrimination claims are not easily proven. The plaintiff has the burden of
proving actual discrimination on the part of the employer based on race, sex, or another
prohibited basis. Furthermore, a person making the claim must prove the following:

 Evidence that plaintiff is a member of a protected class (for example, a member of a certain
race, sex, or religion);
 Similarly situated employees outside the plaintiff's class received more favorable treatment
than the plaintiff;
 Information that supports that the employer discriminates against historically privileged or
majority groups; and
 Plaintiff performed the job satisfactorily (if part of a promotion decision).

By the late 1970s the court challenges of affirmative action as a form of “reverse
discrimination.”

1969 - President Nixon via Philadelphia Order discourages quotas, but requires contractors to
demonstrate affirmative action to increase minority employment.

June 28, 1978

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
This landmark Supreme Court case obligatory limitations on affirmative action to confirm
that providing larger opportunities for minorities failed to come back at the expense of the
rights of the majority—affirmative action was unfair if it crystal rectifier to reverse
discrimination. The case concerned the Univ. of California, Davis, school of medicine, that
had 2 separate admissions pools, one for traditional candidates, and another for minority and
economically underprivileged students. the college reserved sixteen of its one hundred places
for this latter cluster.
Allan Bakke, a white applier, was rejected doubly although there have been minority
applicants admitted with considerably lower scores than his. Bakke maintained that deciding
him on the premise of his race was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that whereas race was a legitimate
consider college admissions, the utilization of such inflexible quotas because the school of
medicine had put aside wasn't. The Supreme Court, however, was split 5–4 in its decision on
the Bakke case and addressed only a minimal number of the many complex issues that had
sprung up about affirmative action.

July 2, 1980
Fullilove v. Klutznick
While Bakke affected down strict quotas, in Fullilove the Supreme Court dominated that
some modest quotas were absolutely constitutional. The Court upheld a federal law requiring
that fifteenth of funds for structure be put aside for qualified minority contractors. The
“narrowed focus and restricted extent” of the affirmative action program failed to violate the
equal rights of non-minority contractors, consistent with the Court—there was no “allocation
of federal funds according to inflexible percentages entirely supported race or ethnicity.”

May 19, 1986

Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education
This case challenged a college board’s policy of protective minority staff by losing non-
minority academics initial, while the non-minority staff had seniority. The Supreme Court
dominated against the varsity board, maintaining that the injury suffered by non-minorities
affected couldn't justify the advantages to minorities: “We have previously expressed concern
over the burden that a preferential-layoffs theme imposes on innocent parties. In cases
involving valid hiring goals, the burden to be borne by innocent people is diffused to a
substantial extent among society typically. although hiring goals might burden some innocent
people, they merely don't impose the identical quite injury that layoffs impose. Denial of a
future employment chance isn't as intrusive as loss of an existing job.”

.
Feb. 25, 1987
United States v. Paradise
In July 1970, a court found that the State of Alabama Department of Public Safety
consistently discriminated against blacks in hiring: “in the thirty-seven-year history of the
patrol there has never been a black trooper.” The court ordered that the state reform its hiring
practices to finish “pervasive, systematic, and obstinate discriminatory exclusion of blacks.”
A full 12 years and several other lawsuits later, the department still had not promoted any
blacks higher than entry level nor had they enforced a racially truthful hiring system. In
response, the court ordered specific racial quotas to correct things. for each white employed
or promoted, one black would even be employed or promoted till a minimum of 25 of the
higher ranks of the department were composed of blacks. This use of numerical quotas was
challenged. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the utilization of strict quotas during this
case together of the sole means that of combating the department’s public and resistant
racism.

Jan. 23, 1989

City of Richmond v. Croson

This case concerned social action programs at the state and native levels—a Richmond
program setting aside 30th of town construction funds for black-owned companies was
challenged. For the primary time, affirmative action was judged as a “highly suspect tool.”
The Supreme Court dominated that an “amorphous claim that there has been past
discrimination during a specific business cannot justify the utilization of an unyielding racial
quota.” It maintained that social action should be subject to “strict scrutiny” and is
unconstitutional unless racism are often established to be “widespread throughout a specific
business.” The Court maintained that “the purpose of strict scrutiny is to `smoke out’
illegitimate uses of race by reassuring that the legislative body is following a goal necessary
enough to warrant use of a extremely suspect tool. The take a look at additionally ensures that
the means that chosen `fit’ this compelling goal so closely that there's very little or no risk
that the motive for the classification was illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype.”
June 12, 1995

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña

What Croson was to state- and local-run social action programs, Adarand was to federal
programs. The Court once more concerned “strict scrutiny” in deciding whether or not
discrimination existed before implementing a federal social action program. “Strict scrutiny”
meant that social action programs consummated a “compelling governmental interest,” and
were “narrowly tailored” to suit the actual scenario. though 2 of the judges (Scalia and
Thomas) felt that there ought to be a whole ban on social action, the bulk of judges declared
that “the sad persistence of each the follow and therefore the lingering effects of racism
against minority teams during this country” even the utilization of race-based remedial
measures in bound circumstances.

July 19, 1995

White House guidelines on affirmative action
President Clinton asserted in a speech that while Adarand set "stricter guidelines to order
change of governmental policy regarding minorities in society, it really reaffirmed the
requirement for governmental policy regarding minorities in society and reaffirmed the
proceeding with presence of methodical separation in the United States." In a White House
memorandum on the same day, he called for the elimination of any program that “(a) creates
a quota; (b) creates preferences for unqualified individuals; (c) creates reverse discrimination;
or (d) continues even after its equal opportunity purposes have been achieved.”

March 18, 1996

Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School
Cheryl Hopwood and three other white graduate school candidates at the University of Texas
tested the school's governmental policy regarding minorities in society program, attesting that
they were rejected as a result of uncalled for inclinations toward less qualified minority
candidates. The Supreme Court maintained a lower-court deciding that struck down as
unlawful the University of Texas affirmative action program, contending in that there was no
convincing state enthusiasm to warrant utilizing race as a factor in confirmations choices.
Subsequently there were further administrative and constituent difficulties to governmental
policy regarding minorities in society in numerous pieces of the nation. 7

7
https://www.britannica.com/topic/affirmative-action#ref167699
As a result, the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals suspended the university’s affirmative action
admissions program and ruled that the 1978 Bakke decision was invalid—while Bakke
rejected racial quotas it maintained that race could serve as a factor in admissions. In addition
to remedying past discrimination, Bakke maintained that the inclusion of minority students
would create a diverse student body, and that was beneficial to the educational environment
as a whole. Hopwood, however, rejected the legitimacy of diversity as a goal, asserting that
“educational diversity is not recognized as a compelling state interest.” The Supreme Court
allowed the ruling to stand. In 1997, the Texas Attorney General announced that all “Texas
public universities [should] utilize race-impartial criteria.”

Nov. 3, 1997
Proposition 209 enacted in California
A state restriction on all forms of affirmative action was passed in California: “The state shall
not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the
basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment,
public education, or public contracting.” Proposed in 1996, the controversial ban had been
delayed in the courts for almost a year before it went into effect.
Dec. 3, 1998
Initiative 200 enacted in Washington State
Washington becomes the second state to abolish state affirmative action measures when it
passed “I 200,” which is similar to California’s Proposition 209.

Feb. 22, 2000

Florida bans race as factor in college admissions.
Florida legislature supports education instituion component of Gov. Jeb Bush’s “One
Florida” initiative, aimed at ending affirmative action in the state.

Dec. 13, 2000

University of Michigan’s undergrad affirmative action policy
In Gratz v. Bollinger, a federal judge ruled that the use race as a factor in confirmations at the
University of Michigan was sacred. The substance of the college's contention was as per the
following: similarly as inclination is allowed to offspring of graduated class, grant
competitors, and others bunches for reasons regarded useful to the college, so too does the
affirmative action program serve “a compelling interest” by providing educational benefits
derived from a diverse student body.
March 27, 2001
Univ. of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy
In Grutter v. Bollinger, a case similar to the University of Michigan undergraduate lawsuit, a
different judge drew an opposite conclusion, invalidating the law school’s policy and ruling
that “intellectual diversity bears no obvious or necessary relationship to racial diversity.” But
on May 14, 2002, the decision was reversed on appeal, ruling that the admissions policy was,
in fact, constitutional.

June 23, 2003

Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action in University Admissions
In the most important affirmative action decision since the 1978 Bakke case, the Supreme
Court (5–4) maintains the University of Michigan Law School's strategy, deciding that race
can be one of numerous components considered by schools while choosing their understudies
since it encourages "a convincing enthusiasm for acquiring the instructive advantages that
stream from a different understudy body." The Supreme Court, be that as it may, ruled (6-3)
that the more standard methodology of the University of Michigan's undergrad confirmations
program, which utilizes a point framework that rates understudies and grants extra indicates
minorities, must be adjusted. The undergrad program, not at all like the law school's, does not
give the "individualized thought" of candidates considered vital in past Supreme Court
choices on governmental policy regarding minorities in society. with Grutter v. Bollinger.

June 28, 2006

Supreme Court Rules Against Considering Race to Integrate Schools
In Parents v. Seattle and Meredith v. Jefferson, affirmative action in society endures a
misfortune when a harshly isolated court rules, 5– 4, that programs in Seattle and Louisville,
Ky., which endeavored to keep up assorted variety in schools by thinking about race when
doling out understudies to schools, are unlawful.

November 4, 2008
Ballot Measure to Ban Affirmative Action Goes Before Voters
Ballot measures proposing to ban affirmative action — race and sex based inclinations by
open substances — goes before voters in two states, Nebraska and Colorado. The boycott
goes with over half of the vote in Nebraska. Voters in Colorado, however, dismiss the
proposed boycott.
June 29, 2009

Ricci v. DeStefano, Firefighters Go to Court

In a claim brought against the city of New Haven, 18 offended parties—17 white and 1
Hispanic—contended that aftereffects of the 2003 lieutenant and commander tests were
tossed out when it was resolved that couple of minority firemen fit the bill for headway. The
city asserted they tossed out the outcomes since they dreaded obligation under a unique effect
rule for issuing tests that oppressed minority firemen. The offended parties guaranteed that
they were casualties of switch separation under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Supreme Court ruled (5– 4) for the firemen, saying New Haven's "activity in disposing
of the tests was an infringement of Title VII."8

June 24, 2013

Court Orders University to Re-examine Affirmative Action Policy
In Fisher v. University of Texas, the court enables colleges to keep thinking about race as a
factor in admissions to accomplish assorted variety, yet it tells them that they should
demonstrate that "accessible, serviceable race-impartial choices don't get the job done" before
thinking about race. The court ruled 7– 1 to send the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit for further survey to decide whether the school breezed through the trial
of "exacting examination," the largest amount of legal audit. The decision is viewed as a
trade off between the court's traditionalist and liberal factions.
In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016) 579 U.S, the Supreme Court vacated and
remanded an appeals court decision that had rejected a challenge to an affirmative action ,
when University of Texas candidate Abigail Fisher, who is Caucasian, was denied admission
to the school in 2008. She contended that by utilizing race as a factor in the application
procedure, she and other Caucasian candidates were distraught and along these lines
oppressed. Nonetheless, the Court again held for this situation that "the race-cognizant
confirmations program being used at the season of solicitor's application is legal under the
Equal Protection Clause." Finding that the lower court had not exposed the program to severe
examination, the most-requesting type of legal survey. After the interests court maintained
the program a second time, the Supreme Court asserted that choice (2016), discovering that
exacting examination had been fulfilled.9

8
https://web.uri.edu/affirmativeaction/affirmative-action-history/
9
https://www.britannica.com/topic/affirmative-action#ref167699
CONCLUSION

The term reverse discrimination is well established in our culture, and potential majority
plantiffs understand that they may seek redress under a theory that have been discriminated
against because of their status. Despite the phrasing, separation dependent on a presume order
like race or sex is unlawful and has no spot in advanced education organization. The test is to
guarantee that institutional basic leadership process depend on target authentic, non unfair
elements.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 https://escholarship.org/content/qt8dx5404v/qt8dx5404v.pdf
 https://www.britannica.com/topic/affirmative-action#ref167699
 https://employment.findlaw.com/employment-discrimination/reverse-
discrimination.html
 https://employment.findlaw.com/employment-discrimination/reverse-
discrimination.html
 https://www.upcounsel.com/reverse-discrimination
 https://www.stetson.edu/law/conferences/highered/archive/2004/AvoidingReverseDis
crimination.pdf
 https://web.uri.edu/affirmativeaction/affirmative-action-history/
 https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2445&context=lawreview