Prometheus 6

The article "The Social Construction of Reverse Discrimination: The Impact of Affirmative Action on Whites" was published in the Journal of Intergroup Relations, Volume XXXVIII, No. 4 Winter 2001/2002, pages 33 - 44.

That link goes to www.adversity.net, a spiritual ancestor of Discriminations both in politics and in naming itself via word-play on progressive concerns. Something of an in-your-face gesture, in my opinion. Anyway, the link goes to adversity.net because it was mentioned in the article and the owner of it contacted Prof. Pincus for permission to present it unaltered on his site, which I grant shows the owner of the site has the courage of his convictions.

You have to read it, not me, because I already have.

Again, roughly two pages (20% of the text this time) below the fold. And the Quote of Note from further on in the document is:

Earlier I alluded to how half to two-thirds of whites and males believe that reverse discrimination is common. Some of the polls asked respondents whether they, personally, had lost a job, promotion, college seat, etc. because of affirmative action. When the question is phrased this way, the number of whites and males who respond 'yes' drops significantly to between 2% and 13% (Steeh & Krysan, 1996).

One of the most controversial issues in the affirmative action debate is its perceived negative impact on large numbers of whites, especially white males. Public opinion polls show that between half and three-fourths of whites believe that, as a group, they are routinely discriminated against. A 1999 poll, commissioned by the Seattle Times, found that 75% of whites agreed with the statement saying that 'Unqualified minorities get hired over qualified whites' most of the time or some of the time. Two-thirds said the same about promotion and 63% said the same about college admission (Seattle Times, 1999; Steeh & Krysan, 1996).

This phenomenon, where whites believe that they have less opportunity because of affirmative action, goes by a variety of names including 'affirmative discrimination' (Glazer, 1975), 'discrimination in reverse' (Gross, 1978) and 'preferential treatment.' The most popular term, however, is 'reverse discrimination.' The earliest use of this term dates back to the late 1960s and it has been employed by critics of affirmative action ever since. The Internet has numerous reverse discrimination sites, the most sophisticated of which is http://www.adversity.net.

The language used to analyze a problem is critical and opponents of affirmative action are well aware of this. The adversity.net (2001) website contains the following introduction to their section 'Terms and Definitions of the Racial and Gender Preferences Movement:'

The quota industry works overtime to invent terms that they think will sell racial and gender quotas, preferences, targets and goals. A new term seems to be invented every week. Language is very important in our fight for color-blind justice. Language shapes our perception of our environment. Don't let the quota industry define your environment!

Of course, the anti-affirmative action forces are also trying to use language to define the environment. The goal of this article is to demonstrate that using the concept of reverse discrimination or any of its euphemisms does not adequately portray the way in which whites are impacted by affirmative action. According to Ganason and Modighani (1987),

Every policy issue is contested in a symbolic arena. Advocates of one or another persuasion attempt to give their own meaning to the issue and to events that may affect its outcome. Their weapons are metaphors, catch phrases, and other condensing symbols that frame the issue in a particular fashion ... The ideas in this cultural catalogue are organized and clustered: we encounter them not as individual items but as packages. (p. 143)

There are a number of questions that need to be answered before we can understand the package of reverse discrimination. What central idea (frame) will be used to view the phenomenon? Which labels will be used to describe the phenomenon? What cultural symbols are attached to it? How will we view this phenomenon in comparison to discrimination against people of color and women? Who is doing the analysis and what interests do they have? What remedial policies will be suggested?

In fact, Gamson and Modiglioni (1987) argue that there were three different packages that were available to describe affirmative action in the late 1980s. The 'Remedial Action" package argued that race-conscious remedies were needed to overcome the continuing effects of racial discrimination. The impact on whites was generally ignored in this package. The 'Delicate Balance' package argued for the need to help old victims of discrimination without creating undue pain for new victims (i.e., whites). The emphasis here was on using race as a factor in decision-making without making it the factor.

The third package, 'No Preferential Treatment,' argued that all race-conscious policies were wrong and that emphasis should be placed on equal opportunity for individuals rather than on statistical parity for groups. There were also several 'subpackages' under the general heading of no preferential treatment. The 'Reverse Discrimination' subpackage argued that affirmative action violated the rights of whites. The 'Undeserving Advantage' subpackage argued that affirmative action gives minorities opportunities that they did not earn. The 'Blacks Hurt" subpackage argues that recipients of affirmative action are stigmatized. Finally, the 'Divide and Conquer' subpackage argues that poor whites have problems too.

Gamson and Modigliani (1987) analyzed how common these various packages appeared in the media between 1969 and 1984. Their main conclusion is that 'remedial action was once the dominant package but by 1984 had lost this initial advantage to no preferential treatment' (p. 163). In addition, when the no preferential treatment package appeared, the reverse discrimination subpackage was invoked 65% of the time.

Each of these packages and subpackages has been socially constructed. They are interpretations of reality, not reality itself. If repeated often enough and if believed by enough people, however, a socially constructed concept is viewed as reality. In this case, the phenomenon becomes reified (Berger & Luckman, 1967). This is what has happened with reverse discrimination. Whether by conscious design or not, the term reverse discrimination inflames passions, exaggerates the negative impact on whites and promotes a conservative and erroneous view of race and gender relations in the U.S. Therefore, if one is interested in understanding the impact of affirmative action on whites, the concept of reverse discrimination is not a useful tool.