Reverse discrimination

Reverse discrimination is alleged unfavorable treatment of members of historically advantaged or majority groups, often linked to policies intended to improve representation for underrepresented groups.

Affirmative action: Policies that seek to address historical exclusion or underrepresentation through measures such as outreach, targeted recruitment, or selection preferences. It is the policy most often accused of producing reverse discrimination.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: A 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case that rejected a medical school’s fixed racial quota while permitting race to be considered in admissions. The decision became an early landmark in challenges to race-conscious admissions.
Equal protection: A constitutional guarantee that government must treat people equally under the law, subject to applicable standards of review. U.S. challenges to public affirmative-action programs commonly invoke this constitutional guarantee.
College admissions in the United States: The processes U.S. colleges use to select applicants for enrollment. Admissions policies have been a central setting for disputes over race-conscious selection.
Disparate treatment: Intentional unequal treatment based on a protected characteristic under antidiscrimination law. Legal claims often turn on whether a preference constitutes intentional unequal treatment.
Grutter v. Bollinger: A 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s narrowly tailored consideration of race in admissions. It illustrates the Court’s former acceptance of individualized race-conscious admissions.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: A U.S. federal law prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It governs many workplace claims alleging discrimination against majority-group employees.
Employment discrimination: Unfavorable treatment in employment based on characteristics protected by law. Workplace allegations extend the dispute beyond university admissions.
Disparate impact: A legal theory addressing neutral policies that disproportionately disadvantage a protected group without requiring proof of discriminatory intent. It contrasts with claims centered on explicit preferences and their intended beneficiaries.
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard: A 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision restricting the admissions programs challenged at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The ruling sharply changed the legal framework for race-conscious university admissions.

Linked from 2 pages

Institutional discriminationCompared with: The claim is often raised in debates over institutional remedies and equal treatment.