Points of clarification:
Unlawful discrimination means to discriminate against an individual based upon non-merit decisions, i.e., to violate one or more of:
-
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
-
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
-
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
-
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
-
Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and
-
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.
There are other relevant federal and individual state laws, but the above the the “big” ones.
Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
“*Affirmative action calls for minorities and women to be given special consideration in employment, education and contracting decisions. Institutions with affirmative action policies generally set goals and timetables for increased diversity – and use recruitment, set-asides and preference as ways of achieving those goals. In its modern form, affirmative action can call for an admissions officer faced with two similarly qualified applicants to choose the minority over the white, or for a manager to recruit and hire a qualified woman for a job instead of a man. Affirmative action decisions are generally not supposed to be based on quotas, nor are they supposed to give any preference to unqualified candidates. *”
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/affirm/affirm.htm
“Reverse racism,” also known as “reverse discrimination,” does not exist in the true sense of the word. It is a misnomer and when used, expresses a lack of understanding with respect to the concept of unlawful discrimination and the equal opportunity laws which attack unlawful discrimination.
If you use the phrase “reverse racism” this implies discrimination is a one-way street in that, for example, only white people can discriminate, only men can discriminate, etc., and/or the laws were written only for specific classes of people. Anti-discrimination laws are neutral, because they apply to all individuals, with certain specific, and defined exceptions. However, in the life of an average person it is possible for all discrimination laws to apply to everyone (except for pregnancy anti-discrimination laws).
What you may be seeing when the phrase “reverse racism” is used, is that individuals as a class who traditionally never have used discrimination laws are now using them. For example, white men are filing discrimination actions because they feel they are being discriminated against because of the race, gender or other factors. Also, there is a sharp increage in age discrimination cases being filed these days. The implication of this is that Generation X and Generation Y managers and supervisors are refusing to hire Baby Boomers, all other considerations being equal.
It is my understanding the State of California threw out all affirmative action programs because they don’t work. (I have no cite at the moment.)
You may also want to look at University Of California Regents V. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) for a pivotal affirmative action case.
My experience? I spent five years as a federal EO counselor. What you see above is from memory and may not be up to snuff these days.
As Manhattan said, the GD board is the place to debate.