Reverse Discrimination

[Pacmanite]

Oohhh! Ooohhh! *facepalm*

I didn't know college football was a revenue raiser for the colleges!

Ahhh it makes so much more sense now. Feeling a little jittery at being repeatedly called judgmental because I hadn't seen this point from the start, but now it fits together. Call me an ignorant foreigner. I didn't know your colleges could make money that way (Australian unis never do sport things on that scale). But now I do. So thank you, and sorry for derailing the discussion.

[Stal]

Think nothing of it. The use of judgmental was used in a clinical way. Basically that the conclusion was arrived not from objective logic but values. Not a derisive "oh you're a terrible person"

I mean in judgmental terms, I have little good to say about athletic scholarships. My view is the intellectual pursuits is better for society, so people should want more for that. But the economist in me smacks me down and points out the market is giving people what they want.

That's why part of me wants to sell my soul into writing supernatural bondage fiction because evidently that's the million maker thing right now. But the rest of me complains that the market isn't demanding more American Gods or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or Moby Dick.

[Gav]

I'd also like to point out that on that tangent, there is plenty of science related to athletics - Sports Science can deal with muscles, proteins, nutrition, footwear, sportswear, etc. Is it what most athletes going into university would likely be wanting to study? Probably not, but hey, I know a couple people that are really interested in it.

Jumping back to the original topic, I do remember the one book I did in secondary school literature being J.M. Coetzee's Disgrace (1999). It does deal with reverse discrimination (particularly that or whites in a black-dominated region of South Africa), and it touches on feminism as well - though the ideas expressed might not be too comfortable for some of the more modern feminist readers (there's rape in there, so a fair warning). Probably worth a check out.

[Clocky: Activity is a Thing]

First off, I find the name "reverse discrimination" to be kind of silly. The reverse of discrimination is acceptance; what's being described is more akin to retaliatory discrimination, or compensatory discrimination.

Does it happen? Yes, yes it does. Should it be shrugged off? No. Discrimination is discrimination regardless of the adjectives you slap on it — never a good thing. The idea that it happening to a group that's a majority in an area, or that's been a discriminator in the past, makes it irrelevant or less serious, is the kind of attitude that lets the discrimination snowball. It's not something that should be tolerated on any level or with any direction, plain and simple.

Possessing a majority trait and experiencing discrimination because of it is almost never acknowledged as actually occurring, from personal experience. People are told they're being discriminatory themselves, even, if their harassers have any minority trait. At least in the U.S., when you're a minority in the area, you're more likely to be heard and have resources at your disposal, but if you're a majority, support for you gets crap about trying to encourage discrimination or keeping minorities down. (See men's support groups as compared to women's support groups.) There's terrible mindsets about this all over the place. S'why I hate the terms "feminist" and "masculinist," since they imply extremes, as opposed to just being a freakin' "equalist." (Hi Legend of Korra fans!)

tl;dr people are dumb and come up with dumb ways of trying to make themselves feel better about being mean

[Ted (the zombie Dalek)]

The situation, as I understand it, is that there is a high level of prejudice in society, and people from minority backgrounds often face a dire struggle to get to the same level as those from non-minority backgrounds. On an individual case-by-case basis it would be discriminatory to turn down a person based on their race/sex/sexuality, rather than their sole ability to do the job.

However, if we look at it from a general, wider perspective, it's a lot harder for minority individuals to get and keep jobs, whether from stigma and ignorance or just plain old hardship from living in a society that's stacked against you.

I guess what I should really say as opposed to minority groups is disempowered groups. Women, trans* individuals, ethnic minorities, immigrants, the poverty stricken, etc. are all discriminated against by society. It's only natural, after all, since a capitalist society will always gear itself towards the largest market and men have historically occupied a position of power over women. In the grand scheme of things, I reckon levelling the playing field is probably the right thing to do.

The challenge is to make everyone understand why it is necessary, so that it doesn't just generate more ill-feeling towards the disempowered.

[Cyborg]

Umm so I know this thread is a few months old, but since I just came back and saw this I figured I'd post.

Let's talk about this 'reverse discrimination' thing. What is being called 'reverse discrimination' in some cases is actually.....*drum roll* equity.

The problem here that I've seen is that people who are saying this reverse discrimination exists and that everyone should be treated 'equally' don't think of one major problem. In order for people to be treated truly equally they must be on equal footing. How do you achieve that equal footing? Equity THEN Equality.

SPOILER: Click to show

I felt the above picture related to this topic nicely.

If people want equality now the world wouldn't really be equal would it? People who were say 'three steps behind' would still always be disadvantaged and 'three steps behind'. No real fairness or 'equal chances/status/etc' would really be achieved. However if equitable practices are used first (or as some seem to call it, forms of 'reverse discrimination') it puts the disadvantaged minorities closer to the advantaged majorities. And from that point equality stands a better chance of actually being equal and fair.

Just my thoughts. I'm not even going to get into discrimination against gay people because I'd have a never-ending rant of a post. So I'll leave it at that. For now.

[Stephanie (swordlilly)]

This topic came up when I was filling out Ph.D. applications. Berkeley has two essay questions, one asking who you are as a scholar (Statement of Purpose), and the other asking who you are as a person (Personal History Statement). The prompt for the latter is as follows:

Please describe how your personal background and experiences inform your decision to pursue a graduate degree. In this section, you may also include any relevant information on how you have overcome barriers to access higher education, evidence of how you have come to understand the barriers faced by others, evidence of your academic service to advance equitable access to higher education for women, racial minorities, and individuals from other groups that have been historically underrepresented in higher education, evidence of your research focusing on underserved populations or related issues of inequality, or evidence of your leadership among such groups.

It was very controversial on The Grad Cafe. Some people interpreted it as saying, "If you've enjoyed a life of privilege, you're gonna be discriminated against!" And some felt so strongly about it that they said, "That's why I'm not applying to Berkeley."

But, I don't think it has to be that way. All that is being asked for is a reflection on the histories of oppression that, whether you like it or not, are foundational to society. As long as you show that you are thoughtful, kind, and intellectually curious, there will be a place for you. I forget who it was who said it, but everybody contributes to diversity, even the white, male, cisgendered person from, say, central Ohio.