Reverse discrimination is denial of equal protection of the laws and is viewed as discrimination on the basis of race by opponents of racial quota programs (a.k.a. reverse racism),[1][2] while proponents of racial quotas and affirmative action programs generally view it as discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group in order to promote members of a minority or consistently disadvantaged group (benign discrimination).[3] However, to the individuals concerned it still discriminates against one in favour of another based on race/gender/disability.
[edit] In the United States
In the United States, the terms "reverse discrimination" and "reverse racism" have been used in past discussions of racial quotas or gender quotas for collegiate admission to government-run educational institutions. Such policies were held to be unconstitutional in the United States, while non-quota based methods, which may include race as a factor, including some affirmative action programs (race as a factor, ethnic minorities, and physical, mental, or learning disabilities) can be legal.
The first United States Supreme Court case to challenge reverse discrimination is Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 [551 U.S. 701 (2007)], Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."[1]
[edit] In India
For example, in India, the term is often used by citizens protesting against reservation and quotas.[4][5][6]
[edit] See also
Gender:
[edit] References
[edit] External links
