The discrimination of majority groups, also known as reverse discrimination, is a lousy myth; it’s a poor attempt at victimizing privileged people.

However, the Supreme Court hasn’t seemed to get the memo. They’ve recently been reviewing a case made by Ohio resident Marlean Ames who claims that she was a victim of reverse discrimination because she, a heterosexual woman, was demoted by her lesbian boss while her gay coworker was promoted.

Not only does she have no evidence to suggest that she was demoted because of her sexuality, but the assessment of her boss and coworker is based upon her own perception of their skills, showing bias and entitlement towards herself. She is convinced she is better than them.

People who believe that reverse discrimination is a real phenomenon, such as Ames, have a false definition of what it means to be discriminated against.

Discrimination is the prejudiced treatment of a certain group of people, most notably around sex, race or religion. 

What’s important to realize is that the people being discriminated against are people who are considered the “other” in a culture dominated by a powerful majority. The treatment that they receive is a direct result of prejudices that are perpetuated by that culture.

The economic, political and social system is against them, and the discrimination they face is a reflection of that.

For example, a wheelchair user can be discriminated against in the workplace by being refused safe pathways for them to access their work, such as a ramp.

The concept of reverse discrimination throws all the prejudice and systemic issues away in favor of victimizing the people who benefit from the system.

It is true that it may seem like discrimination to a sensitive white person when a person of color makes fun of white people, but it is not actual discrimination. 

Usually, when a minority group pokes fun at a majority, they’re doing so to combat the inequalities of modern culture and society, not because they actually have some internal belief that they are superior to them. 

Even if they do have some negative preconceived notions about a majority, it’s usually out of their own experience with being discriminated against themselves, such as being denied equal representation in government or equal wages. 

With this in mind, it seems silly that the Supreme Court would unearth a case as nonsensical as Ames’. 

But, in this current political climate, cases like these will unfortunately appear.

This is due in part to sensationalist conservative rhetoric about diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). DEI has recently been demonized in the media, one example being when Donald Trump blamed plane crashes on hiring pilots because of their gender rather than their ability to control an aircraft.

Essentially, those who argue against DEI believe it gives unfair advantages to minorities and makes majorities feel bad for having privileges. What these people fail to understand is that DEI programs and procedures are meant to give equal opportunity to those who, for the longest time, were not viewed as equal. 

This way, more people who are qualified for a certain position can get that position despite being non-white and or part of a minority group. This is not erasing the white, male, cisgender, heterosexual workforce, but rather just including other people who then are able to progress financially and socially.

Ames does not see it like this, and apparently neither does the Supreme Court. They see inclusion as an oppressive force that takes power away from them. They just cannot accept that minorities can be qualified for the same position, because all they see in them is that minority.

For all we know, that lesbian who demoted Ames is also Christian, but Ames would not attack her on it because Christianity is viewed as the default rather than the deviation. 

The issue here is that Ames and conservatives automatically believe that minorities can only get a powerful position if there’s some sort of privilege that they’re being given, propagating conservatives’ own sense of superiority.

This is blatantly untrue and it’s a disgrace that the Supreme Court gives a platform to such prejudiced beliefs. 

Reverse discrimination is not real.

You’re just worried that your privilege will be taken away.