The Myth of “Reverse Discrimination”
Last spring, a Houston high school student named Michael Brown was accepted to all twenty universities that he applied to, even receiving full-ride scholarships to each one of them. It is evident that Brown is an extremely intelligent and motivated young man (he had well over a 4.0 GPA and a nearly perfect SAT score). However, it didn’t take long for pundits to decry this as an injustice and chastise Brown for his accomplishments. To a group of Fox anchors, in particular, Brown’s twenty applications were an injustice to other applicants, many of which they claim were waitlisted or even worse, denied admission, because of Brown’s application. And even though they never say it outright, they are obviously aggrieved that these “victims” were more than likely white (Brown is African American). I can’t think of a time when news anchors condemned a white student for applying to twenty universities. Unfortunately, this story is the most recent iteration of the “reverse discrimination” grumbles that have taken this country by storm in the last few decades, and higher education has taken the brunt of these complaints (think affirmative action).
However, it is important to realize that “reverse discrimination,” “reverse racism,” “reverse sexism,” and the other “reverse –isms” simply do not exist. Instead, they are the tools of privilege that aim to maintain the status quo, which in higher education has resulted in underrepresented student groups and a professoriate that is seriously out of touch with the needs of their minoritized students. So where do these accusations of reverse discrimination come from? How do we as educators and leaders respond to these accusations?
The origins story of the reverse discrimination claim is one privilege and oppression. To keep things simple, let’s examine the claim of reverse racism, which is the belief that people of color are actually discriminating against whites simply because of their skin color. In these instances, white people believe they are the victims of racism when they are excluded for a person of color or when institutions and companies use race as determining factor in admissions or hiring.
But the claims of racism in these instances are dubious because racism, at least in the U.S., is a system of white supremacy that is centuries in the making. In fact, the term racismactually refers to the belief that a person is inferior because of their skin color, and in America, this translates to a system that benefits whites because of the centuries old belief that African Americans, Latinxs, Asian Americans, and Indigenous people are mentally, culturally, and cognitively inferior to whites. This belief has been built into our systems of education and government, and, as such, we are used to seeing whites overrepresented in our history books and our institutions, and European culture has been the basis of our country’s values, traditions, and language. So when these norms are challenged, many white people feel threatened and fight back. Oftentimes, this response comes in the form of accusations of reverse racism.
However, since racism is a system built to oppress people who are not white, the main feature is that whites as a group can systematically oppress people of color. Traditionally, this has been done through laws and traditions, and more recently this has been accomplished through systematic discriminatory practices in areas such as real estate, finance, and even terror (e.g., Barbeque Becky). People of color, on the other hand, cannot systematically oppress whites. Sure, they can be prejudiced against whites. Individuals of color can even discriminate against whites. This would occur, for example, when a black or Asian business owner or employee seems hostile while providing customer service or outright refuses to help a white customer. This is by no means, systematic discrimination. The “victims” in these instances can walk away from the situation and not worry about being discriminated against at the next business. This is because whites as a group are not discriminated against or oppressed, not because of the color of our skin anyhow.
Let’s think about another hypothetical example. A white president at a local college has a long record of hiring only white men and women as deans and Vice Presidents at his college. In fact, the upper management of the college is all white. Most white people would not find this strange. In fact, if challenged on it, we’d likely find as many excuses as possible – they were the most qualified candidates, not enough people of color have applied for these jobs, etc.
But let’s flip it. Let’s say that the college president was black and he had a long history of hiring other black men and women. In fact, the entire upper management team is African American. Many whites would be dismayed. And why? We would argue that there is no way all those black administrators were qualified enough to be in their positions. We’d likely blame affirmative action or accuse the president of favoritism. We’d be upset that so many white candidates were passed over for these positions. We’d accuse him of reverse racism.
The same goes for other minoritized groups, including women, members of the LGBTQ+ community, immigrants, religious minorities, and people with disabilities. Because able-bodied, heterosexual, white men are overrepresented in every aspect of our society, any push to support or represent the above groups is a threat. This is why affirmative action is so controversial or why ethnic learning communities and programs are considered “boutique.” Not even President Obama’s colorblind policies meant to “lift all boats” could assuage the fear of whites and ease accusations of favoritism.
So what do claims of reverse racism and other -isms look like in academia? In what scenarios might a colleague or students decry the supposed slight and injustice? How do we as equity-minded educators respond?
Of course, the most commonly cited form of reverse discrimination is affirmative action and identity-based admissions. Unfortunately, too much misinformation has been spread about affirmative action, particularly from right wing pundits and politicians. These myths have been well documented and addressed, so I will not include them here. But for information on affirmative action and discussions of its common misconceptions, check out these articles:
“Debunking 5 Myths about Affirmative Action” (Ed Trust)
“Myths about Affirmative Action” (UCONN)
Claims of reverse discrimination can also plague faculty leaders and administrators as they conduct the business of the college, especially as it relates to committee assignments. But before proceeding, it is important to discuss faculty demographics. According to the TIAA Institute’s 2016 report, “Taking the Measure of Faculty Diversity,” women only account for 37.6% of the nation’s tenured faculty (they represent 49% of all faculty but are overrepresented amongst the adjunct and non-tenure track full-time ranks). However, according to the same report, white women make up 72.3% of all female professors. Even more shocking is that minoritized professors are only 12.7% of the entire professoriate, and they are more likely to work at private two-year colleges and for-profit universities, where they are still underrepresented as compared to their white colleagues (private colleges and for-profits also pay much less and are less likely to allow faculty a voice in shared governance).
So what does this mean for departmental and institutional committee assignments? In a nutshell, these committees will mirror the diversity of the faculty, which at most colleges and universities is dismal, and there is a likelihood that many committees won’t have a single professor of color sitting on them. This can have implications for admissions, faculty evaluations, curriculum, and hiring. Take for example the white president above. As in that scenario, most white faculty don’t see homogenous committees as a problem. In fact, when faculty leaders and administrators make an attempt to create more diverse committees, this is often seen as reverse discrimination, especially when a white professor is excluded from the committee as a result.
Let’s look at another hypothetical example. Imagine that the president of the college is convening a hiring committee for a dean-level position. Many of the senior faculty are very interested in serving on a committee where they will choose their next manager. However, the entire senior faculty in this particular department is white, which forces the president to include a member of the junior faculty or adjunct faculty on the committee who is a person of color. But as a consequence, one of the senior professors is excluded from the committee. In these instances, the aggrieved party usually cries “reverse discrimination” because the professor of color was included as a result of their skin color and the white senior professor was excluded because of theirs. However, this is not reverse discrimination or racism.
We need to really reflect on why the above scenario is not an example of reverse discrimination because at first glance, it is easy to argue that this is the case because the white professor has been excluded in favor of a colleague of color. But this is a kneejerk reaction. Instead, we need to take a moment to think about why we would think it is perfectly fine to have a hiring committee that is all white, especially considering the diversity of students at most institutions. We also need to keep in mind our colleges’ faculty demographics and we need to resist the desire to exclude an entire group of professors from faculty governance and hiring. We need to remember that minoritized professors have been historically excluded from these processes and decision-making bodies. Unfortunately, this lack of diversity on committees, particularly hiring committees, creates a cycle wherein the faculty’s demographics remain the same while the student body becomes more diverse.
Furthermore, when it comes to claims of reverse discrimination in higher education, what has not been documented as widely is the attack on support programs and learning communities for minoritized students. This can include centers for racial minorities, clinics for women and members of the LGBTQ+ community, and identity-based programs or Greek organizations that target students of color. Unfortunately, these programs face a two-pronged attack from fellow students and the administration. In the former, students, particularly white students, may argue that identity-based programs and centers are exclusionary. This is akin to the argument against Black History Month or Women’s History Month. In the latter case, administrators see these programs and centers as “boutique” and too expensive. They may argue that they serve too small a population (which at most universities is the fault of the admissions committees, not the minoritized students on campus).
It is important to recognize that we tend not to have these discussions when it comes to other fraternities/sororities or programs that tend to be dominated by white students, like honors programs. The fact is that minoritized students have been historically excluded from these types of programs and higher education, writ large. Unfortunately, this double standard requires much more space than this one post. However, it is important to note that these programs in addition to affirmative action and other diversity efforts are meant to combat the centuries of oppression of women, ethnic and racial minorities, members of the LGBTQ+ community, immigrants, and other minoritized, nonhegemonic groups. It will take more than a few decades of affirmative action and other diversity efforts to mitigate the effects of this oppression.
In the meantime, equity-minded educators and leaders must continue to push for representation and support programs for minoritized colleagues and students. The resistance can be fierce, but it is not impossible to overcome. We are fortunate that we work in education where our colleagues tend to be open-minded, so there is hope that we can change their hearts and minds – it will just take some time, a vision, and a whole lot of patience and dialogue.