Over 25 years ago, during my first year in a doctoral program, I recall having a conversation with one of my White male peers. We were part of a cohort of five students: 2 White males, 1 White female, 1 biracial (Black/White) female, and 1 Black male.
After feeling me out and apparently determining that I was safe, my White male peer disclosed that when he applied, he was afraid he wouldn’t be accepted because he was a White male.
While sympathetic to his fears, I didn’t understand why he felt this way given the fact that White students have made up the largest share of graduate students for the past 25 years.
His fears represent growing angst among some White people about reverse discrimination. Concerns about discrimination against White people, especially White males, are a central part of the Trump administration’s agenda.
The Rise of White Grievance Politics
The Trump administration’s recent letter about cancelling Harvard contracts claims that Harvard continues to engage in racial discrimination, with recent accusations that the Harvard Law Review discriminates against White men.
Contrary to the historical context of race discrimination in this country, the Trump administration has determined that White men are the group that is most disenfranchised.
The Trump administration’s zealous pursuit to eradicate all so-called “reverse” discrimination is based on Trump’s belief that anti-White racism is a problem in this country, which he has vowed to crush.
At the core of the anti-DEI crusade is the belief that embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion is reverse discrimination against White people.
Throughout his political career, Trump has relied on a politics of White grievance that mobilizes White people who believe they have been victimized because they are White.
Anti-DEI Rhetoric and Policy Moves
Accordingly, the Trump administration has engaged in selective outrage about discrimination, focusing disproportionately on a supposed rampant anti-White racism problem in this country that is not supported by data, while remaining silent about prevalent discrimination against racial minorities.
For example, a recent large, nationally representative survey on racism and discrimination across racial and ethnic groups found that Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, American Indians, and Alaska Natives experience higher rates of police mistreatment, are more likely to experience discrimination that is attributed to their race or ethnicity, and report higher rates of unfair health care treatment compared to White adults.
To give the pretense that their crusade of eradicating all discrimination is grounded in an ethics of morality and justice, the Trump administration has compared institutional attempts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion to the history of discrimination in this country.
At one point, the Dear Colleague Letter sent by the Department of Education to educational institutions characterized the embrace of DEI as “a shameful echo of a darker period in this country’s history.”
This was a shameless attempt to equate the policies and practices intended to make colleges and universities more inclusive with Jim Crow segregation and discrimination.
That this analogy could be made with a straight face belies its intellectual dishonesty and is indicative of the Trump administration’s disingenuous anti-discrimination crusade.
Ignoring Real Discrimination
While the Trump administration has been vocal about supposed rampant discrimination against White people, their silence about high-profile discrimination cases involving racial/ethnic minorities has been deafening.
Last month, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NHFA) and 19 fair housing associations filed a landmark housing discrimination case against Deutsche Bank et al., alleging discrimination against Black and Latino properties.
A seven-year investigation found that homes in White neighborhoods were meticulously maintained and marketed while homes in Black and Latino neighborhoods were left in severe disrepair, which contributed to declining property values.
Experts presented data documenting that race played a statistically significant role in the disparities.
The Selective Nature of the Trump Administration’s Crusade
If the Trump administration’s pursuit to eliminate all discrimination were rooted in good faith, the enforcement of discrimination laws would be made easier and not more difficult.
Instead, the Trump administration has made it harder for local and state agencies to enforce workplace discrimination laws.
Additional evidence of the Trump administration’s selective outrage about eliminating racial discrimination is the fact that investigating discrimination in schools is almost impossible because of the closing of civil rights offices.
What the Data Actually Says
Polling data indicates that the majority of Americans believe that racial minorities face some or a lot of discrimination but are much less likely to say there is a lot of discrimination against White people.
The Pew Research Center recently found that views about how much discrimination racial and ethnic groups face have remained largely the same, with racial minorities being viewed as experiencing more discrimination than White people.
Research has also consistently found that employers, landlords, professors, and Airbnb hosts discriminate against Black people and favor White people.
Not surprisingly, the Trump administration ignores the overwhelming amount of evidence that contradicts its narrative about increased discrimination against White people.
To be sure, discrimination against White people does exist. Approximately 50 percent of White adults say that there is some discrimination against White people.
However, scientific data does not support the existence of systematic discrimination against White people that perpetuates disadvantage across all domains of life (such as opportunities, networks, education, wealth, health, legal treatment) relative to other racial/ethnic groups.
Simply put, with few exceptions, on most objective indicators, White people are doing better than racial minorities.
Accountability Over Ideology
Discrimination is morally wrong, and Americans have every right to want to be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. However, selective outrage about rampant reverse discrimination against White people is not grounded in reality.
As the Trump administration continues its reckless crusade to eradicate reverse discrimination, we should hold them accountable for engaging in policies that are supported by facts on actual discrimination rather than ideology.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Globe Post.
