politics

Reverse Discrimination? In spite of the MAGA bluster over DEI, data shows white Americans are still advantaged

Pets to Go Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

Two big assumptions underlie President Donald Trump’s attack on diversity, equity and inclusion policies. The first is that discrimination against people of color is a thing of the past. The second is that DEI policies and practices discriminate against white people – especially white men – in what’s sometimes called “reverse discrimination.”

I’m a sociologist who’s spent decades studying race and inequality, and when I read the documents and statements coming out of the Trump White House, these assumptions jump out at me again and again – usually implicitly, but always there.

The problem is that the evidence doesn’t back these assumptions up.

For one thing, if discrimination against white Americans were widespread, you might expect large numbers to report being treated unfairly. But polling data shows otherwise. A 2025 Pew survey found that 70% of white Americans think Black people face “some” or “a lot” of discrimination in general, and roughly two-thirds say the same of Asian and Hispanic people. Meanwhile, only 45% of white Americans believe that white people in general experience that degree of discrimination.

In other words, white Americans believe that people of color, as a group, face more discrimination than white people do. People of color agree – and so do Americans overall.

In a second national study, using data collected in 2023, Americans were asked if they had personally experienced discrimination within the past year. Thirty-eight percent of white people said they had, compared to 54% of Black Americans, 50% of Latinos and 42% of Asian Americans. In other words, white Americans are much less likely to say that they’ve been discriminated against than people of color.

The ‘hard’ numbers show persistent privilege

These statistics are sometimes called “soft” data because they reflect people’s perceptions rather than verified incidents. To broaden the picture, it’s worth looking at “hard” data on measures like income, education and employment outcomes. These indicators also suggest that white Americans as a group are advantaged relative to people of color.

For example, federal agencies have documented racial disparities in income for decades, with white Americans, as a group, generally outearning Black and Latino Americans. This is true even when you control for education. When the Census Bureau looked at median annual earnings for Americans between 25 and 64 with at least a bachelor’s degree, it found that Black Americans received only 81% of what comparably educated white Americans earned, while Latinos earned only 80%. Asian Americans, on the other hand, earned 119% of what white people earned.

These gaps persist even when you hold college major constant. In the highest-paying major, electrical engineering, Black Americans earned only 71% of what white people did, while Latinos earned just 73%. Asian Americans, in contrast, earned 104% of what white people earned. In the lowest-paid major, family and consumer sciences, African Americans earned 97% of what white people did, and Latinos earned 94%. Asian Americans earned 117% of what white people earned. The same general pattern of white income advantage existed in all majors with two exceptions: Black people earned more in elementary education and nursing.

Remember, this is comparing individuals with a bachelor’s degree or higher to people with the same college major. Again, white Americans are still advantaged in most career paths over Black Americans and Latinos.

Disparities persist in the job market

Unemployment data show similar patterns. The July 2025 figures for workers at all education levels show that Black people were 1.9 times more likely to be unemployed than white Americans. Latinos were 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed, and Asian Americans, 1.1 times.

This same white advantage still occurs when looking only at workers who have earned a bachelor’s degree or more. Black Americans who have earned bachelor’s degrees or higher were 1.3 times more likely to be unemployed than similarly educated white Americans as of 2021, the last year for which data is available. Latinos with college degrees were 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed than similar white Americans. The white advantage was even higher for those with only a high school degree or less. Unfortunately, data for Asian Americans weren’t available.

In another study, researchers sent 80,000 fake resumes in response to 10,000 job listings posted by 97 of the largest employers in the country. The credentials on the resumes were essentially the same, but the names signaled race: Some had Black-sounding names, like Lakisha or Leroy, while others had more “white-sounding” names like Todd or Allison. This method is known as an “audit study.”

This research, which was conducted between 2019 and 2021, found that employers were 9.5% more likely to contact the Todds and Allisons than the Lakishas and Leroys within 30 days of receiving a resume. Of the 28 audit studies that have been conducted since 1989, each one showed that applicants with Black- or Latino-sounding names were less likely to be contacted that those with white-sounding or racially neutral names.

Finally, a 2025 study analyzed 600,000 letters of recommendation for college-bound students who used the Common App form during the 2018-19 and 2019-20 academic years. Only students who applied to at least one selective college were included. The study found that letters for Black and Latino students were shorter and said less about their intellectual promise.

Similarly, letters in support of first-generation students – that is, whose parents hadn’t graduated from a four-year college, and who are disproportionately likely to be Black and Latino – had fewer sentences dedicated to their scientific, athletic and artistic abilities, or their overall academic potential.

These and other studies don’t provide evidence of massive anti-white discrimination. Although scattered cases of white people being discriminated against undoubtedly exist, the data suggest that white people are still advantaged relative to non-Asian people of color. White Americans may be less advantaged than they were, but they’re still advantaged.

While it’s true that many working-class white Americans are having a tough time in the current economy, it’s not because of their race. It’s because of their class. It’s because of automation and overseas outsourcing taking away good jobs. It’s because of high health care costs and cuts in the safety nets.

In other words, while many working-class white people are struggling now, there’s little evidence race is the problem.

Confused Thinking about White Student Unions and Racism

Pets to Go Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment

The controversy over establishing a White Student Union (WSU) at Towson University in Baltimore provides an excellent opportunity to explore how whites think about issues like racism, inequality, discrimination and education.  While it may be the case that Matthew Heimbach, the white student promoting the WSU, is a genuine white supremacist, some of his arguments resonate with more mainstream whites: “If they have a Black Student Union, why shouldn’t we have a White Student Union?  Isn’t this just a matter of fairness?”

Even before the 2008 election of President Barack Obama, public opinion polls showed that a large proportion of whites believed that racism was a thing of the past.  In employment and education, the argument goes, the playing field is fairly level today.  Racial discrimination is only a minor problem and hard work generally leads to success.

Of course, most of us can clearly see that there are large inequalities between the incomes and educational attainments of whites and Asians, on the one hand, and Blacks and Hispanics on the other.  The explanation inequality, according to this argument, relies on culture rather than discrimination: Blacks and Hispanics don’t try hard enough, they don’t value education, they don’t have strong families, etc.  Sociologists refer to this as blaming the victim.

If you accept this culture argument, the idea that whites are privileged and that special programs are needed to help Blacks and Hispanics seems ludicrous.   Not only are these programs seen as unnecessary and wasteful, many of them are viewed as hurting whites who have struggled hard to get where they are.  Some even use the term reverse discrimination.

The problem with this way of thinking is that it’s not based on reality.  Racism and racial inequality are, unfortunately, still alive and well, even though they are different than in the past.

o In 2009, for example, the FBI reported almost 4000 race-based hate crimes, with Blacks being victimized at four times the rate of whites.  Most observers see this as the tip of the ice berg.

o In 2011, 35,000 race-based employment discrimination complaints were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the vast majority by Blacks and Hispanics.

o  Blacks and Hispanics make up 61 percent of the prison population even though they are only about one-third of the American population.

o Towson University is still a predominantly white campus, with almost 70% of the student body being white and only 13.5% black.  Compare this to the 30% of the state population that is black.  Even UMBC, a more selective institution on the other side of Baltimore County, clocks in at 15% black and slightly less than half white.

Towson, like most other colleges,  reflects mainstream American culture, which is also white.  Towson University IS the white student union, although it is making progress with cultural diversity.

Minority student unions began emerging across the country in the late 1960s to develop a sense of cultural solidarity and to fight for minority rights and more diversity on campus.  While they have achieved some success, the struggle isn’t over.  White student unions are a great step backward.

Goals and Quotas Are Not the Same

Pets to Go Tags: , , , 1 Comment

Opponents of affirmative action general are critical of both goals and quotas that are associated with affirmative action.  In addition, they mistakenly equate these two policies.  Regardless of what one may think of affirmative action, it is critical to understand the difference between goals and quotas.  Since goals are a specific part of affirmative action procedures of the Office of Federal Comtract Compliance Programs, let me try to explain.

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs  Affirmative Action Guidelines

The largest federal affirmative action program is based on Executive Order 11246 issued by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965.  Guidelines to implement this program were first issued in 1968 and revised in 1971.  Federal contractors and subcontractors, excluding those in construction, who have 50 or more employees and a $50,000+ federal contract are required to develop an affirmative action plan within 120 days of receiving a contract.  Failure to develop and implement an affirmative action plan could result in a contractor  losing the current contract and being declared ineligible to receive additional contracts.  This is called being “debarred.”

 
Contractors must first conduct a utilization study of their employees.  Basically, they must count the number of women and minority employees in each department and in each occupational category and  be able to say that “X% of skilled blue-collar workers in the maintenance department are black” or “Y% of the managers in the sales department are Hispanic.”  The employer must also determine the percentage of minority and female employers who are in the “availability pool;” i.e., those who qualified and potentially available for the job.

 
It is then necessary for employers to compare the actual distribution of minority or female employees in a specific job category in a specific department to the minority and female distribution in the availability pool.  If the actual employment is equal to or greater than the availability (e.g., the availability of women sales managers is 15% and 15% of the sales managers actually employed are female), the employer is “in compliance.”  If, on the other hand, the actual employment distribution is below the availability figure (e.g., only 5% of the sales managers are female), the employer is “underutilized.”  The employer must follow this same procedure for each job category in each department.

 
If a contractor is underutilized, a set of goals and timetables must be included in the affirmative action plan.  An appropriate  goal would be to hire enough qualified female or minority employees to reach the percentage distribution stated in the availability pool.  In the above example, the contractor tries to hire enough female sales managers so that 15% of all sales managers are female.

 
The timetable must be based on the conditions facing that specific contractor.  Employers with big turnovers might be able to reach the goal in a few months, while one with little turnover might take a few years.  Contractors in expanding industries would have shorter timetables than those in stagnant or contracting industries.

 
Next, the contractor must specify procedures to achieve the goal.  This means trying to “cast a broad net” to encourage diversity among those who apply for the position.  Employers should  publically advertise jobs rather than relying on informal networking.  Advertisements should contain a statement like “Equal Opportunity Employer; Women and Minorities Encouraged to Apply.”  Some advertisements should be placed in publications targeted at qualified women and minorities.  Employers should  send letters to well known  women and minorities in the field asking for referrals, send letters to schools who train large numbers qualified women and minorities, and make recruiting trips to conferences that might be attended by qualified women and minorities.  In other words, employers must go out of their way to increase the hiring pool of  potential women and minority candidates.

 
After the contractor designates an employee as the affirmative action representative who oversees this process, the affirmative action plan is then complete.  It is important to realize that the contractor is not required to submit the plan to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) for approval; the plan must simply be kept on file in the contractor’s office.  However, the contractor is expected to make a “good faith effort” to implement the plan; i.e., they have to try.

 
What happens if the contractor fails to meet the goal specified in the plan?   Does the contractor face the loss of the federal contract because a white male was hired rather than a black female?  Probably not?

 
First of all, no one but the employer is likely to know that the goal was not met.  The OFCCP does not review the hiring process of each employer for each year.  More importantly, the contractor was only required to make a good faith effort to achieve the goal; not to actually succeed.  In the unlikely event that the employer was ever investigated by the OFCCP, all the contractor would have to do is show that they followed the procedures to encourage women and minorities to apply for the position.  If the contractor can demonstrate that the white male who applied for the administrative position was more qualified than the black and female applicants, there is no problem.  Affirmative action guidelines require meritocratic hiring.  Preferential treatment or quotas are illegal under these guidelines.

 
Although these affirmative action regulations involve a certain amount of effort and cost on the part of federal contractors, they do not force contractors to hire unqualified people, nor do they permit reverse discrimination.  All contractors have to do is offer reasonable explanations of why their employment levels are below the percentages in the availability pool.  Some contractors, however, may pressure personnel officers to illegally hire unqualified underutilized minorities to avoid problems with  OFCCP officials.  It is difficult to determine how extensive this practice is.

 
I have gone into so much detail about the OFCCP guidelines for several reasons.  First, they are the least known of all affirmative action policies.  Second, affirmative action critics usually don’t discuss them.  Third, they are the least controversial since the final hiring decisions are supposed to be meritocratic and companies are only required to try to meet their goals. Employers are only required to show that they have cast a broad net to find qualified candidates for their positions. Finally, they affect more employees than other affirmative action policies.

Hiring and Promotion Quotas

The most controversial of all affirmative action policies are “quotas;” i.e., programs that reserve certain positions for  qualified” minority or female candidates.  This specifies a hiring or promotion floor; i.e., at least that number of women or minorities must be hired or promoted.  This is different from the historic use of antisemitic quotas as a ceiling; i.e., no more than a certain number of Jews may be hired.

 
Although the concept of quotas is quite controversial, one thing is clear:  quotas and  goals are not the same.  First, especially in court-imposed quotas, the employer or school must hire or a minority or female for that position, under penalty of law.  If no qualified minority or woman is found, either the position must remain empty or the employer must seek special permission to hire or promote a white male.  In the case of goals, on the other hand, the employer must merely make a good-faith effort to hire or promote a qualified minority or woman; if none is found, there are no legal consequences and a white or male may be hired or promoted.

 
Second, in a consent decree with quotas, a white male with superior work experience or credentials, could be passed over in favor of a qualified, but less experienced minority or female applicant.  When goals are being used, a more qualified white male must be hired or promoted over a less-qualified minority or female applicant since the final hiring must be meritocratic.  Affirmative action critics who say that goals and quotas are the same are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

 
The 1972 Equal Employment Opportunities Act made it legal for courts to impose hiring and promotion quotas on employers that were found guilty of discrimination.  Quotas could also be used as a remedy as part of consent decrees, or out-of-court settlements in discrimination lawsuits.

 
Before a quota can be imposed by a court, a group of minority or female employees generally sues an employer for race or sex discrimination. One possible outcome of these law suits is that the government and plaintiffs enter into a consent decree with the employer that contains a quota system of hiring and/or promotion. The quotas might require the hiring of 1 black for every five whites until the percentage of black employees reaches the level of blacks in the availability pool.

 
Even under quotas, employers are not forced to hire unqualified people.  Generally, the employer has some criteria which makes the prospective employee “qualified;” e.g., an educational credential, a minimum score on a test, a minimum level of experience, etc.  Employees who don’t meet these criteria cannot be considered for the position.  Hence, all those who do meet the criteria are seen as being able to carry out the duties of the position.

 
Next, the qualified whites (or males) are ranked from “most qualified” to “least qualified” in terms of the criteria.  The same is done for the qualified minorities (or women).  If only 10 people can be hired or promoted and there is a 50-50 quota, the top 5 whites and the top 5 minorities are chosen.  Even though all of the selected minorities (or women) are qualified, it is possible that some of them may be less qualified (i.e., their scores are lower) than some of the whites (or men) that were not chosen.  For example, a woman who scored 85 out of 100 might be promoted while a man who scored 86 would not.  While such a decision has a great impact on that particular man, such small differences in scores would not warrant the conclusion that the man would have done a better job than the woman.

 
There is a widespread belief, especially among whites, that quotas are very common across the country.  However, it is getting more and more difficult for hiring and promotion quotas to meet the test of constitutionality.  A variety of court decisions has resulted in a set of “strict scrutiny” criteria that must be met.  First, there must be a “compelling state interest” to justify a quota.  This is usually interpreted as combating intentional race or gender discrimination when no other policy is likely to work.

 
Second, the quota system must be “narrowly tailored” which is generally interpreted as not “unduly trammeling” on the rights of white males.  The consent decree cannot require that 100% of new hires be minorities or women since this would make it impossible for white males.  In fact, the quota proportions must have some connection to the availability pool. In addition, the quota system cannot be in effect indefinitely; e.g., it may be in effect until the percentage of minority/female employees reaches a percentage equivalent to the availability pool.

 
In fact, court-imposed quotas are few and far between. It is generally illegal for an employer to voluntarily adopt a quota hiring system without getting court approval.   Courts impose quotas only when there is a long history of explicit discrimination and when the employer fails to take corrective action; i.e., quotas are generally seen as policies of last resort.  The conservative U.S. Supreme Court has issued numerous anti-affirmative action rulings in recent years which restrict the scope of quota systems.  For example, it is unconstitutional to use race or sex as part of the criteria in the decision to lay off workers.  Affirmative action supporters fear that the Supreme Court will continue on this anti-affirmative action trend.