It is difficult to keep up with the rampant disinformation that the radical right is pushing.
On day one, the new administration took a sledgehammer to long-established diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. These programs are not only legal, but they promote greater fairness and opportunity across society, lead to greater innovation and result in higher revenues for companies.
Now, the right-wing legal movement is attempting to redefine the legal standards needed for white plaintiffs to prove discrimination.
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The case involves a heterosexual white woman who sued her employer under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, arguing that she was demoted and replaced by a gay man and denied promotion in favor of a gay woman. She claims that both positions were awarded to people less qualified than her.
She is arguing what is commonly referred to inaccurately as “reverse discrimination.” These types of cases are being brought more frequently to courtrooms across America. However, the contention that “reverse discrimination” against majority groups is widespread, especially against white males, is simply untrue and not supported by data.
Let’s start with hiring. Despite new laws and changing attitudes, racial discrimination in hiring is still a persistent problem. Some may recall the landmark 2004 study, when two economists submitted fake job applications with fictitious names in Boston and Chicago. They found that applicants with names suggesting they were white received 50% more callbacks from employers than those whose names indicated they were Black.
Nearly two decades later, in 2021, researchers sent more than 80,000 fake job applications for entry-level openings to Fortune 500 firms. On average, the researchers found that applications with distinctively Black names were about 10% less likely to get a call back than similarly qualified white applicants.
When it comes to promotions and upward career movement, the numbers paint a similar picture. As any professional knows, in order to move up the ladder, you have to promote your successes to upper management.
However, Black employees are penalized for self-promotion more than any other racial group, according to a 2022 study from the London School of Economics. The study showed that when white employees engaged in self-promotion for job advancement, it worked out in their favor.
Break promotion data down by gender, and the story is not much different. On average, women are 13% less likely to be promoted than men. While women hold more of the top jobs in companies than ever before, they lag behind men on crucial early promotions into management.
That said, to all the people who claim that white people are being “reverse-discriminated” against at scale, I would love to see the peer-reviewed studies from which they are getting this data.
Let’s get back to the plaintiff is arguing “reverse discrimination” because she is heterosexual. If the Supreme Court makes it easier for majority groups to sue, the environment for promoting fair workplaces will suffer.
Those in favor of changing these standards are doing so because they believe the Constitution should be “colorblind.” The problem is the theory ignores reality on the ground. It is political cover for a decades-long agenda focused on rolling back the progress of the Civil Rights movement.
“Reverse discrimination” is nothing short of a manufactured crisis. Data clearly shows that marginalized communities continue to confront discrimination and bias. Now is not the time to weaken our laws and policies. Instead, we should build towards the promise of equity.
Alphonso David is a civil rights attorney, and the president and CEO of the Global Black Economic Forum.