What Is 'Reverse Discrimination' But A Farce?

"As one economist has argued, 'racial nepotism' rather than 'racial animus' is the major motivation for much of the discrimination blacks experience... You're suggesting that whites tend to treat one another like family, at least when there's a choice between them and us. So that terms like 'merit' and 'best qualified' are infinitely manipulable if and when whites must explain why they reject blacks to hire 'relatives'--even when the only relationship is that of race."

--Bell, Derrick. Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism. New York: Basic Books, 1992 (1993 ed.), p. 56.

"...Justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream... in this 'post-racial' era!"

--Daniels, Lenore. "Jamie & Gladys Scott: Nothing New About American Torture." NewsOne 5 May 2009.

There's a new sheriff in town. And because he is Black, certain people have comfortably concluded that the 'race problem' is now a defeated demon--a thing of the past, never to rear its ugly head again. Obama had just been sworn in a few hours before the Wall Street Journal declared racism a "myth," last November.

A fiction of the colored person's imagination. Unreal. Made up!

So, it came as no surprise to read an Associated Press report, last week, detailing "several states" facing "legal battles" being "waged by whites claiming they were unfairly treated in favor of protecting and promoting blacks and Hispanics."

One such lawsuit involved Benedict College, an HBCU, which was sued, earlier this year, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of three white instructors, who claimed their termination was racially motivated. Last month, Benedict College was forced to shell out $55,000 to each instructor, to contain the public spectacle.  

Another incident involved a white woman in Texas who "filed a federal lawsuit against an assisted-living center, contending she was discriminated against and harassed by Hispanics because she didn't speak Spanish."

All this coming at a time when an all-white jury just acquitted two white teenagers of hate-crime charges, following the assault-caused death of Mexican-immigrant Luiz Ramirez. The irony couldn't be more spell-binding!

But most important is that this recent surge in 'reverse discrimination' lawsuits undoubtedly has EVERYTHING to do with the presence of a Black family in the White House. Their presence constitutes, to many, the fulfillment of equality, the vividness of color-blindness, and the reality of a 'post-racial' society. 

The more talked-about of these series of lawsuits is that of 20 firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, who sued their company, accusing it of discrimination, for scraping a promotion exam that "too few minorities" passed. In return, the firefighters allege reverse racism. Last week, even the Supreme Court appeared divided on a decision (don't count on Uncle Tom' us!). The White firefighters saw no paradox in patrolling themselves before TV cameras, to argue that, above all their other colleagues, it is them being discriminated against most.

I'm sure in the eyes of many, they have a legitimate case. I'm sure some see their cause as upright and righteous. I'm sure "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" are willing to put everything on the line to see victory swing the firefighter's way. Yes. But I'm also sure that setting such precedent would deal a severe blow to Obama's presidency. I'm also sure that a legitimization of such erroneous claim as "reverse racism," would yield unmitigated disaster upon whatever policies the Obama administration is putting together to "renew a sense of common purpose and shared citizenship."

Upon a moment's reflection, the term itself, "reverse discrimination," carries an oxymoronic scent: How can the oppressed inflict terror upon the oppressor, within the context of ongoing oppression? Very few people stop to think about it, and that's the problem.

There's no doubt that many poor White Americans are suffering, and catching economic hell, but the issue isn't so simply defined. Calling for an end to Affirmative-Action, and other policies constructed to assuage racial employment disparities, cannot be more morally bankrupt. Not only will it deleteriously affect Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians and White women, but the same people--poor White males--protesting it would suffer, consequently, for its loss.

Critical race theorist and renowned civil rights attorney, Derrick Bell, explained this theory in his best-selling book, "Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism." Bell outlined the trickery employed by corporate hacks who succeed, time after time, in convincing poor whites against their own interests:

They rely instead on the time-tested formula of getting needy whites to identify on the basis of their shared skin color, and suggest with little or no subtlety that white people must stand together against the Willie Hortons, or against racial quotas, or against affirmative action. The code words differ. The message is the same. Whites are rallied on the basis of racial pride and patriotism to accept their often lowly lot in life, and encouraged to vent their frustration by opposing any serious advancement by blacks. [p. 9]

This "time-tested formula" is working again--unfortunately. With the current economic disaster guaranteeing an escalation of job losses, many more Whites would come forth, railing against inherent "biases" in favor of Blacks or Browns, whining about "opportunities" they were excluded from, petitioning against illegal immigration and the theft of menial jobs.

And the beat goes on.

They, regrettably, fail to see who the real culprits are--the bad guys that win every time. Instead, they choose to scapegoat easy targets--Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, Women, Gays, etc.

It shouldn't be so hard to see that the complaints about state-sponsored discrimination against Whites--White males especially--are as farcical as it gets. The fact that such cries actually receive ample media coverage is even more telling. Conservative crackpots like Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity have promptly presented the firefighter "victims" with platforms to, as Bell put it, "vent their frustration" against what they perceive to be an "unfair" move by department officials--a move they claim impinged on their civil rights. As White men, they were reversely discriminated against.  

Isn't it curious, that the very people who have, repeatedly, claimed Black folks exaggerate their suffering, are the ones now acknowledging it--however subtly--by insisting that their discrimination has a past, a history. The word "reverse" makes reference to a backdrop, upon which the notion of "discrimination" rests. Whether the plaintiffs like it or not, charging "reverse discrimination" implies admission of an historical discrimination the defendant(s) has suffered, at the hands of those now accusing it of reversing what was previously accomplished. If Black workers--people--were previously discriminated against, and the plaintiffs are willing to admit that (by virtue of their lawsuits), we can only begin assessing what measures must be taken, in calculating the damage wrought by the foundational discrimination they suffered.    

Until that context is promoted in this discourse, all institutions/workers charged with the earth-shattering indictment of "reverse discrimination" should STAND up for what is right, by exposing the farcicality of it.