|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Supreme Court did the right thing in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. That’s the actual name of the case that the media mockingly reported with headlines about a “straight woman” claiming “reverse discrimination”.
There is no such thing as “reverse discrimination”. Only discrimination. It’s either discrimination or not.
The term “reverse discrimination” implies that discriminating against white people is somehow not discrimination, a lesser form of discrimination or some sort of aberration that doesn’t really exist.
That was also the issue at the heart of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services which was not about the question of whether Marlean Ames was actually discriminated against, but whether white people should have to meet a higher bar to prove not ‘discrimination’, but ‘reverse discrimination’.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling striking down different discrimination standards was written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, of all people, (usually done to limit the application of an inevitable decision) and these are her words. “the Sixth Circuit held that Ames had failed to meet her prima facie burden because she had not shown “ ‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.’ ” The court reasoned that Ames, as a straight woman, was required to make this showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a primafacie case.”
The Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule requires plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to bear an additional burden at step one. But the text of Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. The provision focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against “any individual” because of protected characteristics. Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone..
The majority ruling, as I said, is tepid, noting that Congress did not allow such discriminatory treatment, rather than that the discriminatory treatment is inherently illegal, but it still gets at the core problem in the case.
The Court of Appeals explicitly held that “Ames is heterosexual . . . which means she must make a showing in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case.”
It’s inherently discriminatory concepts like ‘reverse discrimination’ that make that kind of discrimination seem reasonable.
This so-called reverse discrimination always seemed to me to be a form of discrimination that is retaliatory and is therefore somehow “justified”.
It suggests that a person or a group is always at risk of or deserving of discrimination based on factors that are beyond their choosing, for example, whiteness or maleness.
Unfair is unfair. The law should recognize that.
Yes. Plus, “they” – pop culture and the left- tell you if you are or are not member of the supposed privileged class. So, a poor, ill, white person has privilege. But a rich healthy darker-skinned person does not. Or for example, Jews who were once considered racially lower than whites are now considered white. Grouping people is flawed. Especially when denying an individual his rights based on ascribed group membership.
The law does recognize that. It’s scumbag activist judges who refuse to. The Sixth Circuit’s ruling was illegal.
I get the author’s point, but the claim in the title is 100% WRONG. We must NEVER stop using that specific term in order to call out and slap down the lie that some discrimination is ok, as long as it is favored groups doing it. Very strange and very dangerous idea, Daniel!
“Discriminate and discrimination” don’t mean what most people think they do, especially our lawmakers and college perfessors. Of course, Dictionaries for the last four Decades have been so rife with incorrect spellings, pronunciations and definitions that it’s no wonder the majority use that word incorrectly.
Another thing about reverse racial bigotry is that it insinuates that blacks are subjected to bigotry on a routine basis, when the exact opposite is true. Only islamopithecines are more privileged and pampered. Women rank a weak third to those two demographics.
There is no such thing as a member of the majority because there is no such thing as a majority when you divide by sex, race and sexual orientation.
Even if you just divide by race, the idea of a majority vague and kind of meaningless. I am white therefore a member of the majority race — right? But I live in Fresno CA where whites make up only 27%. Am I still a member of a majority race? Why would the racial make up of places like Vermont have anything to do with a white person employed in Fresno CA?
White men in Fresno make up only 13.5% of the population, about the same as the national black population of both sexes.. Yet DEI says we should be on the bottom when it comes to hiring and promotions as well as all kinds of social advancements.
And so what if a white person is a member of a racial majority and is employed by a leadership that is of the same race. If that organization. That does not mean that person is immune from discriminations. Some large corporations, perhaps most, have DEI polices which expressively promote the interests of others above the despised straight white male.
Banning a person who carries a Gun for Self defense from having a Job Is Discrimination no matter what banning you from trying the American Flag for the 4th of July is also Discrimination as well