Reverse Discrimination By: Jennifer Doull REVERSE DISCRIMINATION: THE REPRECUSSIONS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Discrimination in employment has been an issue that has plagued our society throughout history. At the turn of this century it was acceptable to advertise job openings and specifically state that people of a certain race, color, religion, gender, or national origin "need not apply"Ã¯Â¿Â½. A lot has changed over the last 100 years. The proverbial "pendulum"Ã¯Â¿Â½ has swung in the direction of federal protection of certain people, but the problem now is that it has swung too far. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act states that it is unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"ÃÂ¦"Ã¯Â¿Â½ 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1).
This law was enacted in an effort to set right the wrongs of the past and instill equity in the workplace; yet a new set of wrongs and social injustices have been created. This newly created set of wrongs and injustices are referred to as reverse discrimination. Reverse discrimination is discrimination against a majority class, and is ever increasing in public-sector employment. Social Equity and Affirmative Action Affirmative action was instituted to redress the social inequities of past discrimination in employment against what became known as a "ÃÂprotected class' (women and minorities). The goals of affirmative action plans are to increase the representation of historically disadvantaged people in the workplace equal to their representation in the corresponding community and relevant labor market. This formula is how affirmative action became coined as the "ÃÂquota system'. The financial burden associated with discrimination lawsuits forced employers to implement remedial plans (affirmative action plans),