Talk:Reverse racism - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grayfell (talk | contribs) at 23:36, 8 September 2023 (→Reverted edit: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:36, 8 September 2023 by Grayfell (talk | contribs) (→Reverted edit: Comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reverse racism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Reverse racism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Reverse racism at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 May 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Civil Rights Movement Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil Rights Movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil Rights MovementWikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementTemplate:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementCivil Rights Movement

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for Reverse racism:

No to-do list assigned.

WikiProject Civil Rights Movement to do list:

Edit the tasks list

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : All redlinked articles listed at User:Mitchumch/Movement templates#Civil Rights Movement need to be created.
Durham movement (North Carolina)
Greensboro movement (North Carolina) (currently a redirect)
Henry Hezekiah Dee (currently a redirect)
Delano Herman Middleton (currently a redirect)
Charles Eddie Moore (currently a redirect)
Henry Ezekial Smith (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Rosa Parks, and upgrade to GA status
Black Arts Movement
Collaborate : Tagging all relevant articles with project template.
Expand : And the Walls Came Tumbling Down
Medgar Evers
The Children (Halberstam)
Cambridge movement (civil rights)
Browder v. Gayle
Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957
Photo : Milton Galamison • J. Charles Jones • Gloria Richardson • Richard Durham • Freedom Riders • Freedom Summer • March Against Fear • Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom • Youth March for Integrated Schools (1958) • Youth March for Integrated Schools (1959) • Birmingham riot of 1963 • 16th Street Baptist Church bombing (image of bombing) • Bloody Tuesday (1964) • Biloxi wade-ins (image of wade-ins) • Tallahassee bus boycott • Tent City (Tennessee) • Memphis sanitation strike (image of actual strike) • Americus movement • Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple bombing • Baton Rouge bus boycott • Orangeburg massacre • Mansfield school desegregation incident • Bloody Monday (Danville)

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Cabrera, Nolan L. (2014). "Exposing whiteness in higher education: white male college students minimizing racism, claiming victimization, and recreating white supremacy". Race Ethnicity and Education. 17 (1): 30–55. doi:10.1080/13613324.2012.725040. ISSN 1361-3324.
Cabrera, Nolan L. (2019). "'The Only Discrimination Left Is That Against White Men': The Campus Racial Politics of 'Reverse Racism'". White Guys on Campus: Racism, White Immunity, and the Myth of 'Post-Racial' Higher Education. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. pp. 39–54. ISBN 978-0-8135-9910-6 – via The Misplaced Pages Library.
Earle, Megan; Hodson, Gordon (2020). "Questioning white losses and anti-white discrimination in the United States". Nature Human Behaviour. 4 (2): 160–168. doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0777-1. ISSN 2397-3374. PMID 31819205.
Emirbayer, Mustafa; Desmond, Matthew (2015). The Racial Order. University of Chicago Press. pp. 163–165, 254, 293–294, 319. ISBN 978-0-2262-5366-4.
Garner, Steve (2016). A Moral Economy of Whiteness: Four Frames of Racializing Discourse. New York: Routledge. pp. 10, 42, 46, 78, 83, 87, 89–103, 128, 147, 149–151, 160–162. ISBN 978-1-317-52945-3.
Hill, Jane H. (2009). The Everyday Language of White Racism. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 78–79. ISBN 978-1-4443-0474-9.
Nelson, Jacqueline K.; Hynes, Maria; Sharpe, Scott; Paradies, Yin; Dunn, Kevin (2018). "Witnessing Anti-White 'Racism': White Victimhood and 'Reverse Racism' in Australia" (PDF). Journal of Intercultural Studies. 39 (3): 339–358. doi:10.1080/07256868.2018.1459516. ISSN 1469-9540 – via ResearchGate.
Nieman, Donald G. (2020). Promises to Keep: African Americans and the Constitutional Order, 1776 to the Present (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1900-7165-3.
Pincus, Fred L. (2021). "Affirmative Action: Not the Harsh Impact on Whites That Some Assume". In Austin, Duke W.; Bowser, Benjamin P. (eds.). Impacts of Racism on White Americans In the Age of Trump. Springer International Publishing. pp. 213–234. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-75232-3_13. ISBN 978-3-030-75232-3.

30 March 2023

Thread retitled from "Bad faith sources".

Some of the sources seem to be arguing in bad faith In specific, I understand that "reverse racism" refers to belifs that specific grovernment programs (such as afirmative action) and/or social movements are racist for privileging certain racial groups over others Yet many sources (namely 4 to 10) frame it as a belif that white people are sistemicaly disadvantaged in general This seems a bit disonest Pedro Prada Carciofi (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on what? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear I was refering to my personal experience with the topic

In my experience the term is mostly used in the way defined in the opening, that color-concious legislation is racist for disadvantaging certain ethnic groups over others, but none of the sources atempting to debunk it seem to even ackowlege that definition Pedro Prada Carciofi (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:V; users' personal experience is largely irrelevant, let alone in accusing published sources of bad faith. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Not to make this a WP:FORUM, but what is the effect of privileging certain racial groups over others supposed to be if not making some racial groups disadvantaged in general? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You can simultaneously understand that the goal is to help disadvantaged groups but that the result is a sistematic disadvantage for groups not benefitted

While obviously there is no widespread racism against white people in the US, they (along with Asians) are directly disadvantaged by afirmative action, for example, as it makes it harder for them to enter college than it would be otherwise

While adressing the claims of widespread racism against whites in the US is important, the article shouldn't imply that's the only kind of belif under the unbrella of "reverse racism" when several other, more reasonanle, views also fall under it. Such as the view that color-concious legislation is racist for directly disadvantaging certain ethnic groups over others

The article ackowleges this view in the opening, but none of the sources seem to even mention it when atempting to debunk reverse racism Pedro Prada Carciofi (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Ansell (2013) specifically mentions this on p. 46. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review

In the History section, you could definitely elaborate more on the history of reverse racism. Historically, there has been preconceptions by many white supremacists and supporters of slavery that the advancement of black people directly undermined the superiority of white people. There is a very long history regarding anti-white racism that dates back to the beginning of slavery that could be delved further into. Furthermore, in the Public Attitudes section, you could incorporate information regarding the fact that many white people associate black people protesting racial injustices with being anti-white. You could also elaborate more on how racism towards black people is deeply rooted in the concept of reverse racism. All in all, you did a great job of explaining the concept! Butterflies&rainbows (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide sources WP:RS along with proposed text to add to the article. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Update to the "Legal challenges" section

Any issues updating this section to reflect SFFA v. Harvard/UNC? Something that just focuses on the ruling and doesn't editorialize? I don't want to make edits just for them to get deleted, but this section needs an update. Gumbear (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm wary of WP:SYNTH here. The issue in SFFA v. Harvard was discrimination against Asian Americans, not anti-white (i.e. "reverse") racism. A better article to update would be Affirmative action in the United States. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Asians were the plaintiffs that suffered reverse discrimination in SFFA, but the ruling against racial discrimination in college admissions clearly applied to all races--including whites. No one seriously disputes that. The cases cited to here are no longer good law. Gumbear (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a courtroom; whether the cases mentioned (not "cited") are good law is moot. What independent, published sources say the SFFA plaintiffs suffered reverse discrimination? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a neutral source of information. The lede equates reverse racism/discrimination to affirmative action, which you seem to concede this case directly impacts. Here's Reuters' synopsis: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-university-race-conscious-admissions-policies-2023-06-29/. It also directly impacted the cases cited in the "Legal challenges" section which, by itself, deserves mention. If you want people to take this page seriously, it needs to include relevant information and updates in an impartial manner--even if it cuts against certain narratives. Gumbear (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The lede does not say that reverse racism is affirmative action, or even the belief that affirmative action is bad--it says specifically that reverse racism is the belief that affirmative action is a form of anti-white racism. I don't see anything in the article you linked that talks about reverse racism. It does, very briefly, mention discrimination against white people in the context of UNC's policies, though notably not Harvard's, which is what the article is mainly about, but not anti-white racism. (Incidentally, here is my periodic reminder that reverse discrimination also exists as an article, separate from this one.) I should hope it's obvious that a court can rule something unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean that they ruled that it's "anti-white racist". As always, you are welcome to propose specific changes to the text of either the lede or the Legal challenges section, and certainly it's possible that such changes could be made, but you'll need sources that tie this case to specifically the reverse racism belief, not just to affirmative action, since the two are not synonymous. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The lede says "Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are forms of anti-white racism." I agree AA is only one form of Reverse Racism, but the editors on here insist on the current definition. That definition clearly synonymously links Reverse Racism to Reverse Discrimination and Affirmative Action, and SFFA is VERY relevant to those issues.

On a more basic issue, how do you justify discussing Bakke and Bollinger in this article but not discuss the case that overrules them? Gumbear (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

First, the sentence you quote does not say that affirmative action is a form of reverse racism, but rather that one use of the term is to express the "concept" (that is, the idea or belief or viewpoint) that it is. That should be obvious, since the people who believe that affirmative action is a form of reverse racism are the opponents, not supporters, of affirmative action.

Second, the Bakke and Bollinger cases involved different arguments and focused on somewhat different issues (for example, not anti-Asian discrimination), and the coverage by reliable sources, which is what Misplaced Pages is guided by, was also different. So bringing other cases into this discussion is Whataboutism. NightHeron (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

To add to what NightHeron rightly says, let me just reiterate that the lede also says that reverse racism is not real. It is a belief that some people hold about affirmative action, but that belief is based on no observable evidence. Affirmative action is not a form of reverse racism; there is no such thing, outside of the unsubstantiated beliefs of affirmative action's opponents. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Look--I'm just trying to help this page out. It cites to 2 cases that were recently overruled. A serious page would acknowledge that they were no longer good law. I don't care if you believe in reverse racism, or gravity for that matter--just an acknowledgement on a public page that SCOTUS recently ruled on something that critically affects the subject. Even this professor acknowledged the connection to "reverse racism"--even if she disagrees with the plaintiffs. https://www.american.edu/cas/news/the-upcoming-supreme-court-ruling-on-affirmative-action-why-it-matters.cfm

But, do what you guys will do. Gumbear (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

In that source, professor Sara Clarke Kaplan shares her opinion that opponents of race-conscious admissions have used accusations of "reverse racism" (with scare quotes) as just one of several tactics. This is mentioned once, in the middle of a much much longer interview, and the term is not expanded-upon or otherwise contextualized. Kaplan is likely a topic expert for several relevant areas, but per this interview she specifically says she is not a legal scholar. The entire point of the interview is to provide context, not to bolster the use of buzzwords. This is not a useful source for this particular article. Grayfell (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in her opinion--only the fact that a professor that subscribes to the ideology permeating on this page acknowledges the connections between SFFA and "reverse racism." Hard to deny SFFA doesn't affect the substance of this page but, unsurprisingly, there are no lack of deniers here. Gumbear (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Once again, the cases are not cited to, they are mentioned as being challenges to affirmative action. That has not changed at all. The citations are to independent, reliable sources dealing specifically with the concept of reverse racism. Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger are not even that central to the topic itself, only being mentioned briefly in a couple places. One says that SCOTUS ruled in Bakke that racial quotas for minority students were discriminatory toward white people. That part of the ruling was never overturned. In short, if SFFA v. Harvard critically affects the subject then it should be easy to find a reliable source that directly says so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you looking at the right opinion? A basic search finds 94 references to Grutter--with significant discussion. And that's not counting "Id" references. For Bakke, it was 74 references--again, with significant discussion. In fact, the first question presented was literally:

"Should this Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions?"

It's too soon for law review articles, but it is easy to find sources confirming it critically affected them both. Justice Thomas' concurrence: "The Court’s opinion rightly makes clear that Grutter is, for all intents and purposes, overruled."

Sotomayor's dissent: "Overruling decades of precedent, today’s newly constituted Court singles out the limited use of race in holistic college admissions. It strikes at the heart of Bakke, Grutter, and Fisher by holding that racial diversity is an “inescapably imponderable” objective that cannot justify race-conscious affirmative action...even though respondents’ objectives simply “mirror the ‘compelling interest’ this Court has approved” many times in the past."

Also here: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10893

CRS notes SFFA didn't explicitly overrule Bakke and Bollinger, but it "leaves in doubt how much room exists under equal protection principles for any form of race-based admissions program." There are MANY reliable, easy-to-find references to confirm this. Perhaps more difficult would be reliable references that say SFFA DOESN'T significantly affect Bakke or Grutter. I'll let you find those.

What's your next reason SFFA doesn't belong here? I'm sure you'll conjure something up. Gumbear (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with reverse racism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

RfD notice(s)

"Anti-white racism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Anti-white racism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Anti-white racism until a consensus is reached. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Anti white racism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Anti white racism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Anti white racism until a consensus is reached. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Definition of Racism

Mariam-Webster defines "racism" as

: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

also : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice

: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another

specifically : WHITE SUPREMACY sense 2

: a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles

Whilst the article meets the criteria for the second definition it disregards the first definition. This leads to a article where only one view of the word is represented. The first definiton does not require a majority population nor the control of the "system" by an particular race.

Even meeting the second definiton this article disregards any non american view on the topic. To meet the definiton the writers of the article must assume the state/country/region where the racism takes place is majority and systemically white.

Reverse racism is persay just racism according to the first definiton as seen on Mariam-Webster. I therefore suggest rewriting this article to represent a broader view of the topic including but not limited too a less american standpoint, I further suggest changing the headline to something like "Racism against white people" if you don't agree that this is actually a thing we should ad a sub-section for criticism like it is done in most articles. But the truth remains the term "racism" meets the first definition on Meriam-Webster.

I understand this is a hot topic, but either this article is rewritten too meet Misplaced Pages standards or it should be deleted in its entirety. Superpig05 (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want to fundamentally rewrite this article, you will need way more in the way of reliable sources than a Merriam-Webster definition of one-half of the article title. More importantly, you will need reliable sources that actually discuss the specific concept or phrase "reverse racism", not just extrapolate from the word "racism" just because it happens to be in the article title. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Well its not only the definition on Mariam-Webster but every lexicon you can find. And still my point stands, this article has an america centric view of the concept. Peoples opinions on what the meaning of a word is changes rapidly, thats why we have lexicons and defined definitions. As an educational platform that is supposed to be impartial to opinions its appropriate to use lexicon definitions. Superpig05 (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. The article is about the concept of reverse racism, not just the term. The most reliable sources are the ones that examine the topic in depth, not just give the literal meaning of the word(s). Making any inferences about the topic from a dictionary entry on "racism" (not "reverse racism") would be textbook improper synthesis. Both the dictionary issue and the US-centric issue have been discussed at length several times; for instance, see Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 8#POV issues. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Many articles are US-centric because the topic itself and/or the available sources are concentrated in the US. The article already addresses this: While the U.S. dominates the debate over the issue, the concept of reverse racism has been used internationally to some extent wherever white supremacy has diminished. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Change to anti-white racism

Apart from this being written and titled exclusively from an American or– more generally– a Western perspective; reverse racism infers that racism is a characteristic of white people; that it originates from white people; that it's mainly white people who are racist; thus the 'reverse' has connotations that the racism against White people is different from racism. I suggest changing the article name to match and similarly reflect the 'anti-black' article. 90.247.86.238 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't have the power to change language. We only document. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edit

@Generalrelative has reverted my edit, my edit making the article read, describing "Reverse racism" in the lede:

"is a term which describes situations where typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities. The concept holds that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are forms of anti-white racism, with accusations thereof seen in countries such as the United States and South Africa."

This user's sole reasoning is that this has been "discussed" "extensively" on the talk page. Now, it is clear that my wording here is sourced. To spell the first source out quite simply (Yee, Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society), it reads outright,

"he term reverse racism (or reverse discrimination) has been coined to describe situations where typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities".

This is a source that has been used in this article in describing reverse racism's similar relationship to reverse discrimination, but strangely editors here insist that "reverse racism" is solely the concept referring to reverse-racism in examples of claimed "anti-white racism". It is clear that Yee's description is much more definitive, referring to the concept of "typically advantaged people", as opposed to just white people, outright, which is indeed where the term is more commonly used. I have quoted almost word-for-word of Yee's quote in my reverted first sentence.

Secondly, if there is emphasis on "anti-white racism" accusations in the first paragraph, that can only be improved by adding context. Again, it is clear that the term "anti-white racism" is linked - but not definitively so - with "reverse racism", and so the context I added was simply, "accusations thereof seen in countries such as the United States and South Africa", which are mentioned extensively throughout the article.

Who here seriously believes that reverse-racism is fundamentally the concept that "affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are forms of anti-white racism."? Indeed this refers to the concept contextually, e.g., in the US and South Africa (which most sources write of), but their wording is never exactly as fundamental as Yee's definition. I am reverting my edit back as it is much clearer. Zilch-nada (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages policy, if you want to edit against the current consensus, you first need to seek a new consensus, keeping in mind that other editors are not favorably disposed toward relitigating an issue that has already been extensively discussed, unless something fundamental relating to the topic has changed. NightHeron (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok. What is your opinion of my reasoning? Zilch-nada (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The first problem with your proposed change in wording is that it accepts the premise of the white-grievance conservatives that there are common situations where whites are put at a disadvantage compared to Blacks and other minority groups. The consensus of editors that's reflected in the current wording is that "reverse racism" is a belief system of conservatives, not a description of reality. NightHeron (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition to being a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the Yee source, your edit also cherry-picks the paraphrased content from the middle of a longer paragraph. That entry specifically contextualizes the term contrary to your own summary. The elided beginning of the sentence starts with for example... because it is expanding on a more complicated point, and continues with However... because it explains that scholars do not generally accept this as a starting premise. Decontextualizing a source in this way is not appropriate, but as NightHeron said, you will find very little appetite for re-litigating this yet again. Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Cite error: The named reference Yee 2008 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Cite error: The named reference Ansell p135 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Categories: