Talk:Reverse discrimination

Merge with reverse racism?
The idea has been proposed to merge reverse racism with this article. Any ideas on this? Regorsash (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the articles separated as they are. Daask (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose because different topics. The term "discrimination" is broader than race, to include religion or gender restrictions, and tends to imply an action such as hiring or housing, whereas the term "racism" often involves just talk, bad-mouthing or mingling with no action to segregate or deny access by race, nor any concern with religion, as Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The above user has been banned from Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I recently brought up a similar concern on the other article's talk page. After further consideration, I think the 'reverse racism' article could stand well on its own feet with some improvements. I've attempted to improve that article this morning and hopefully it should look better as its own subject. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge some contents from Reverse discrimination to Affirmative action but redirect page to Reverse racism. The current article is a mess of uncited claims, weasel words, and opinions cited as facts, resulting in what is largely a WP:POVFORK for certain aspects of affirmative action. Sources for Reverse racism, on the other hand, indicate that "reverse discrimination" is an alternative name for that topic, which itself deals mostly with affirmative action in the U.S. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The page could stand on its own, but it needs the same clarification/definition in the introduction as the reverse discrimination page, in that it indicates racism directed towards a majority group by minority groups. The article as it stands is very clearly written from a Western — rather than universal — perspective. CALESCiENCE (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Moving out United States Colleges section
I suggest moving the United States Colleges section out of this article. I think it belongs at Affirmative action in the United States. Including it here runs the risk of creating a WP:POVFORK. What do others think? Daask (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Seems like a WP:COATRACK or WP:INDISCRIMINATE example. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Blumrosen report
The paper by Alfred W. Blumrosen and Alexander B. Blumrosen says that in 1995, "Affirmative action in employment was under severe public attack. Ultimately, President Clinton found his way through these assaults proposing to 'mend it, not end it.' The senior author was asked by the Labor Department to recommend programs to respond to these attacks." That could mean a variety of different things. We can't use source B to imply something in source A is untrue; that's the definition of improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Citing a different source on Blumrosen's "motivation", i.e. the "context" of the report is obviously meant to undermine the credibility of the report itself, which is improper synthesis. "Recommend programs to respond to these attacks" does not imply that the report itself is meant to "rebuff criticism". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the author - Blumrosen - was directly asked to find way to respond to those who did not agree with the policy. Just like a lawyer for a client will make argument for that client - that does not mean the lawyer is lying or wrong, only that on hearing the arguments, a reader of the arguments - deserves to learn that context and interpret the findings for themselves. Blumrosen's report - from his own admission, was not designed to evaluate without finding positive support for the policy. Wikipedia's readers, like in any jury context, deserve that context and mandate of the researcher, and decide for themselves. --Cowwaw (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are misquoting. Blumrosen does not say the report was was not designed to evaluate without finding positive support for the policy. "Programs to respond to these attacks" could mean anything, and in any case the report is not a "program". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The most recent version uses the language from Blumrosen . If you still believe/claim it not representative of what Blumrosen said about the context of authorship, please find a way to incorporate the point to empower the reader Cowwaw — Preceding undated comment added 02:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. Your intent to discredit the Blumrosen report is clear given your original addition. I disagree that the added material is there to empower the reader. Its only purpose is to advance an anti–affirmative action agenda. That's POV and improper synthesis. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not discrediting it, in no way is the language implying it is wrong. You obviously have at least read the report, so you do not dispute the context. Your political beliefs seem to be causing you to not want any information that does not reveal pro-con analysis. The article is about reverse discrimination, the reader deserves the information. You seem to be the only person reverting the improvement for the reader's context. It is about 8 words of true context on a paragraph of 7 lines. Vs. edit war, how is a 3rd party resolve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowwaw (talk • contribs) 13:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your original edit stated, "Alfred Blumrosen was not a independent voice on the topic. He personally was a champion of the affirmative action laws ... and so had a strong incentive to prepare a report, that would cast doubt on the credibility of any legal arguments not supporting his contributions." Your intent to the report itself is obvious. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I support affirmative action, and come to this page as part of learning more. I found the research intriguing and read more. On reading the details of the research, I found it was not independent, and realized wikipedia owed more on the context. Political adverts are allowed in America, though disclosure on funding is required. So too, Sangdeboeuf cutting 12 words of disclosure (written in a manner to use Blumrosen's words - per Sangdeboeuf's earlier argument) on a paragraph of 142 words, risks showing a bias that I know Sangdeboeuf doesn't want to reflect.   I do not have the wikipedia editor knowledge that Sangdeboeuf's has, so for a future 3rd party review of this, a brief disclosure could be the phrase: "under direction from the Clinton administration's Labor Department to find programs to respond to attacks"  Cowwaw (talk •  01:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * An official US government report is not comparable to a political ad. Regardless, I've now added independent sources that cite the 1995 report, so any qualms about Blumrosen's "bias" are moot. See also the guideline on biased or opinionated sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Sangdeboeuf - your link to the 'Biased or opinionated sources' is helpful. Wikipedia encourages 'Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate'. Do you disagree with the statement as 'fact' that the report was written "under direction from the Clinton administration's Labor Department to find programs to respond to attacks"?    The work's author, Blumrosen, explains he was asked to 'find programs to respond to attacks.'  By directed personal admission, Blumrosen's research was going to come out with conclusions in one direction - those that defend against attacks; that maps to the definition of (statistical) bias. It does not make the research unreliable.  This would seem to be a case that makes in-text attribution appropriate, by the guidelines you are highlighting. --Cowwaw (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Even assuming that this report was written to respond to these attacks, which I don't think is explicitly stated, it doesn't follow that the report's conclusions will be in favor of affirmative action. "Respond to" does not imply "defend against". Since we already have independent sources on the report, no attribution is warranted. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, the Cambridge Dictionary reveals that 'counterattack' and 'defensive' are concepts implied with the phrase 'respond to an attack' Regarding the 'independent source claim' - it is one citation by one publication, and there may be a handful more - but that is not the 'widespread citation' required by the wikipedia guidelines link you provided. Perhaps more importantly, even widespread citations of Barry Goldwater (the example from the the 'Biased or opinionated Sources' sources link you provided) does not make Barry Goldwater an un-opinionated source. This report is very different from tens or hundreds of academic citations for a peer-reviewed academic paper. This was a draft of a report - not a finalized report - prepared by one advisor to the Department -- not even a member of the Dept of Labor --  without any publication in any peer reviewed journal. Finally - you added the phrase 'Several cases "were brought by whites or males who were less qualified than the females or minorities who obtained the position"' -  do you find the claim that several women or minorities made meritless discrimination claims implies/suggests the non-validity of all discrimination claims?  Only with informative data on the ratio of such meritless claims across groups, is perhaps useful information added --Cowwaw (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, the Cambridge Dictionary reveals that 'counterattack' and 'defensive' are concepts implied with the phrase 'respond to an attack' Regarding the 'independent source claim' - it is one citation by one publication, and there may be a handful more - but that is not the 'widespread citation' required by the wikipedia guidelines link you provided. Perhaps more importantly, even widespread citations of Barry Goldwater (the example from the the 'Biased or opinionated Sources' sources link you provided) does not make Barry Goldwater an un-opinionated source. This report is very different from tens or hundreds of academic citations for a peer-reviewed academic paper. This was a draft of a report - not a finalized report - prepared by one advisor to the Department -- not even a member of the Dept of Labor --  without any publication in any peer reviewed journal. Finally - you added the phrase 'Several cases "were brought by whites or males who were less qualified than the females or minorities who obtained the position"' -  do you find the claim that several women or minorities made meritless discrimination claims implies/suggests the non-validity of all discrimination claims?  Only with informative data on the ratio of such meritless claims across groups, is perhaps useful information added --Cowwaw (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The Cambridge dictionary link also includes the words "white flag", "retreat", and "withdrawal"; what's your point? WP:USEBYOTHERS does not widespread citation; it says that the more there is, the stronger the case for reliability. What you or I think about the validity of the claims is irrelevant. The quote is from a high-quality source and seems entirely pertinent. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The relevance that 'several' of 100 claims, are claimed not accurate, is indeed not pertinent; especially in the logic flow following the reporting findings by Blumrosen. If you feel otherwise - before reinstating again - Kindly please adhere to what you admonished to me, on my talk page: "The onus is on you to obtain consensus before adding disputed material. Edit-warring is the wrong way to go about that. Please stop. Thank you."--Cowwaw (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your initial complaint was that Blumrosen was "biased" and "not an independent voice". Now that those concerns have been addressed, you've moved the goalposts to be about "logic flow". As long as we're stating our personal opinions, I will say that the quote fits entirely logically within the existing paragraph. More to the point, the material is pertinent because it is covered in an independent, reliable source and serves as an example of how reverse discrimination is generally inconsequential according to the source. If necessary, I'll put in a WP:3O request to make sure consensus is established. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The 'goal posts are not moved' these are two different topics - not to be conflated. The initial topic, I'll reference as 'topic1' - is the more important one, and is around the need for disclosure on the context of authorship of the Blumrosen work. Topic2 is a different one, regarding the injection of this non pertinent information. They became connected, only in-so-far as your claim was the presence of any, however non-pertinent reference of the Blumrosen report, somehow validated that work sufficiently to avoid the need for even a few words of disclosure on the motivations behind the draft Blumrosen wrote. Itself, an assertion that seems unsupported in this context. Back to the more important topic1 – I can tell we infer different degrees of pre-inclination of conclusion, as the Blumrosen work was created. To me, it’s clearly a lawyer arguing for a client. And, just like a lawyer, you can’t lie in court - but you can carefully craft a case supporting your client. And, as the Wikipedia section you helpful pointed to suggests, that can be good information, so long as the context of it is clear. I would propose then compromising with using the language of Blumrosen directly Regarding the inclusion of disclosure context: I do understand you want to be neutral. You earlier wrote - "Programs to respond to these attacks" could mean anything,

> case A: you genuinely believe it 'could mean anything'; in which case it would not be a problem to include that information

> case B: you don't genuinely believe it could mean anything and you think it reveals an opinionated source - in which case, it deserves disclosure

then, from your view, either it is not a problem to include, or it deserves disclosure. From my view, it is very clear what that means, and deserves disclosure. Knowing that you seek to be informative for wikipedia's readers, this implies consensus between the two of us. As such, I propose we write with his language as directly as possible :
 * Alfred Blumrosen was asked in 1995 by the US Department of Labor to “recommend programs to respond to … attacks” on affirmative action. He prepared a draft of a report on claims of reverse discrimination in employment discrimination cases in federal courts between 1990 and 1994. The draft concluded that between 1 and 3 percent involved claims of reverse discrimination; and that a "high proportion" of the claims were found to be without merit.[24]

--Cowwaw (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Total non-sequitur. Could mean anything means we assume Blumrosen was charged with defend[ing] against anything. As I said, this is moot because the "lawyer" Blumrosen has been cited in independent sources that saw his comments as noteworthy. Anything else is WP:SYNTH. Please explain why you find the quote from  to be indeed not pertinent. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding 'pertinency' - The relevance of a statement that reiterates that 'several' of 100 claims, are claimed not accurate, does not add informative information in the logic flow following the reporting findings by Blumrosen that " a 'high proportion' of claims were found to be without merit". For 3rd party reviews looking at this discourse, the statement is as uninformative as the converse statement would be in the same place, namely that " 'several' of 100 claims where with merit".

Then, back to the reason for this entire thread between us - the need for disclosure on an opinionated source. I do want to clarify - I meant that Blumrosen was 'biased' in a very rarefied notion of that term, and I should have used a phrase like 'one-sided advocacy' instead, to better describe the behavior of a lawyer in court.

So a 3rd party review can easily follow the flow, please respond to three, sequential points: @Sangdeboeuf, to avoid appearing to a reviewer of this thread, either non-neutral, or like you might be intentionally deflecting, this time, please do respond to the carefully written out reasoning, regarding points (I), (II), and (III) --Cowwaw (talk) May 3, 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (point I) Do you agree, that the phrase "Programs to respond to these attacks" accurately uses Blumrosen's language
 * (point II) assuming your answer to (point I) is 'yes', then do you agree with 'case A' above, or with 'case B' - which are two cases written to be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive
 * (point III) then, what is your issue, if any, with the summary conclusion, that you either 'don't care' or, agree the Blumrosen work needs a disclosure, that can use Blumrosen’s own language
 * I've already explained why I think such disclosure is a form of SYNTH and POV-pushing. No matter how one fiddles with the actual wording, the result is the same. I've filed a third-opinion request . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in, . I've part of the 3O request relating to the quote from Blumrosen/MacLean, . Feel free to respond to that as well. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I’ll take a look in a few hours. Was there any discussion outside of edit summaries? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See several back-and forth replies above, starting at 06:22, 29 April with Finally - you added the phrase 'Several cases "were brought by whites or males who were less qualified than the females or minorities who obtained the position"'. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the article is better without that sentence. I don't know of any policy/guidelines that would demand its exclusion, but I think it's fair for Cowwaw to question its value to the reader. The vague wording is a challenge, especially so soon after concrete data. I believe part of your intention in seeking out that source was to add evidence to the reliability of the Blumrosen report; I believe the report can stand on its own. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefanglgedfeathers - thank you for engaging on this. Regarding "SYNTH" - the WP guidelines states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In this case, it is Blumrosen's quote -- as direct as possible -- so, it is something he explicitly stated. (that evolved during this thread, and the current proposal is to use the *explicitly stated language by the source*.) Regarding multiple sources, in this case, it is one source, at two points in time. At the later point in time, Blumrosen writes about his earlier point in time. That would not appear to be a violation of SYNTH.

There is some complexity/ambiguity in the definition of the term 'source' in this case. If one interprets the later Blumrosen quote as a second source: (a) then it is either a primary or secondary source on the event of the 1995 draft creation. (b) in either case [ primary or secondary], the example of when it is proper-- see, shows that each phrase must be sourced. Since the proposal in this case includes direct quoting, with a reference, then it complies with "each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to the same dispute" from here. As such, again, that would not be a violation of SYNTH.

Thoughts? —Cowwaw (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. To me it is evident that Blumrosen 1995 and Blumrosen 2009 are two separate sources. In addition to the large time gap, there is the fact that they were published by different organizations. As noted above, it's also unclear that Blumrosen 2009 is directly referencing the draft report. The "conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" concerned here is that Blumrosen 1995 was biased or non-credible. Yes, both sources are "carefully sourced". However, WP:SYNTH is clear that we can't combine A and B to imply conclusion C. To save you time, I would say that I am about 80% confident in my reading of SYNTH in this situation. It is distinctly possible but unlikely that you will find a part of the policy that flips my understanding. At least two other editors have reverted your edits on similar grounds. I encourage you to direct your efforts toward finding sources. If Blumrosen's report was non-credible, it is likely that there will be reliable sources out there that make such a conclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH also says, Similarly, do not combine to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source (my bolding). Even if we treat the two documents published 14 years apart as coming from the same source, the proposed text would still be improper synthesis. However, WP:NOR policy defines the most reliable sources as: • Peer-reviewed journals

• Books published by university presses

• University-level textbooks

• Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses

• Mainstream newspapers So "source" in this context clearly means a published document, not a person. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, no one is claiming there is not credible information - it's a question of 'one-sided advocacy'. A lawyer for a client is not 'un-credible', and nor, under the modern definition of the word bias -- is that lawyer even (per-say) 'biased.'

For a trivial example here of how 'one-sided-advocacy,' is not the same things as non-credible: seems Blumrosen conveniently only looked at 'non-credibly of claims'  (no pun intended) among those filed by his target: reverse-discrimination claims. No information on the relative rate of non-credibility was including on standard discrimination claims for comparison. Like a client lawyer or a careful marketer, his shared numbers may be correct, but how convenient to completely leave out relative rate statistics...   that is one-sided advocacy.

One proposed wording, extends the passage to read, avoiding any criticism of synth. As WP guidelines make clear, Juxtaposition is not Synth.


 * Blumrosen prepared a draft report on claims of reverse discrimination for the United States Department of Labor in 1995.[a] Its analysis of employment discrimination cases in federal courts between 1990 and 1994 concluded that between 1 and 3 percent involved claims of reverse discrimination; and that a "high proportion" of the claims were found to be without merit.[24]  In 2009, Blumrosen writes he  "was asked by the Labor Department to recommend programs to respond to ... attacks" on affirmative action in 1995.

This wording makes the context of what Blumrosen said, in 2009, about his activities in 1995, a direct quote. And it make it clear that the draft report occurred in the same year. It does not explicitly link them further. A motivated reader can read Blumrosen's 1995 report and decide for themselves what to make of it.

If you write an article promoting a stock, you are required by quality publications to disclose any holding in that stock. If you hold the stock, a reader can decide for themselves what to do with that information. Maybe it's cause of that information you bought the stock? Maybe holding the stock motivated the article? Up to the reader to decide. Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure. This draft of a report was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, or what disclosure might have been required? Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure. Again - juxtaposition is not Synth Cowwaw (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Addressing your points in order: • Actually, you yourself claimed that Blumrosen was biased, and you were clear that your intention in adding the content was to.

• If and when you find a reliable source that describes Blumrosen as a one-sided advocate or that criticizes his narrow focus, you are welcome to include it. As it stands, you have formulated an opinion about how Blumrosen acted and are trying to synthesize sources to share that opinion in Wikipedia's voice.

• The part of WP:SYNTHNOT that mentions juxtaposition is very clear that the difference between mere juxtaposition and inappropriate synthesis is that in synth, In all your proposals so far, the insinuation has been obvious. We could also use the test proposed in the juxtaposition section: would you be equally happy to put the section quoting Blumrosen 2009 in a different part of the article entirely, say, in the first paragraph of the United States section?

• True, placing quotes next to each other does not link them, but SYNTH is clear that we should not links that aren't supported on their own by reliable sources.
 * Once again, I urge you to find a source that explicitly links Blumrosen's report with the contemporary goals of the Labor Department. We can't use two sources to show that link, so find one. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with all of Firefangledfeathers' points regarding SYNTH; the that Blumrosen is not credible has been clear since your original addition. If you still disagree, you could ask about this at No original research/Noticeboard. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing, the Intro, and the Entire Affirmative Action Section
I think its safe to say this page has some issues. The entire introduction rests on a single source, which is explicitly talking about this phenomenon in the context of the USA. I'd say this is an issue if the article is going to be acting like this is some widely studied and accepted sociological phenomenon, when best I can tell this is a rhetorical bit almost exclusively employed by the American right. Additionally, the section of Affirmative Action is... Not good. It seems like it is attempting to lay out the argument of what "Reverse Discrimination" is, but the tone just feels quite odd. I think perhaps this whole section should be scrapped, and a more explicit one replace it that makes it clear that it is summarizing the argument. SomerIsland (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

26 February 2022
The main article appears to be confounding in that if discrimination based upon race, age, or for that matter insert-class-here is held unconstitutional, it then naturally follows that the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment naturally bars reverse discrimination because by extension of basic logic, while a minority would have a right to equal-protection there exists no right to special privileges of law- where it naturally and logically follows that if reverse discrimination is not actionable then anti-discrimination operates as special privilege of law which the fourteenth amendment explicitly forbids by it's text in no uncertain terms. Therefore, it appears that, unless there is an implicit argument the article doesn't mention that the main article doesn't withstand basic logic and is therefore highly questionable based upon basic common sense. Therefore, the article needs to be edited to include at least some background on the development of underlying principle as to see the basic logic of where things are. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Articles are based on published, reliable sources, not armchair logical analyses by anonymous users. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Needs update
Recent SC decision 108.20.37.19 (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge SFFA v. Harvard didn't have much to do with "reverse discrimination", i.e, but I could be wrong. Source? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)