In case the phrase Reverse Discrimination animates you … oh, wait. If you’re puzzled, here’s Wikipedia:
Reverse discrimination is a term used to describe discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group. Reverse discrimination based on race or ethnicity is also called reverse racism.
OK, so what happened a while back at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals?
… decision that placed a heightened burden upon a plaintiff who is a member of a “majority group” in discrimination cases, requiring that the plaintiff shows “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” [USA Today]
In other words, that court claimed it was harder to prove reverse discrimination than discrimination. So what did SCOTUS say about this?
There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. There is just discrimination. It doesn’t matter if someone is White or Black, straight or gay, male or female. It only matters if they’ve been discriminated against.
On June 5, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision removing barriers for members of majority groups to file anti-discrimination suits. In this case, Marlean Ames, a straight woman, filed a suit against her employer, which she said denied a promotion in favor of a gay woman, and later demoted her in favor of a gay man filling her role. [USA Today]
Bold mine, because it matters. Compensatory discrimination – my phrase – for past discrimination against members of targeted groups doesn’t make for justice, and both wings of the Court agree on this conclusion, or at least that’s how this software engineer sees it.
The left may flutter about it, but the left wing of the Court, to reiterate, made it a unanimous decision – and implicitly rejects identitarian politics. As identitarian politics is one of the factors damaging lefty, and Democratic, politics, this is actually a good thing. The faster it’s expunged from the intellectual arguments of a substantial portion of the population, the better off we’ll be.
