I concur with the argument in relation to reverse discrimination. This, in my view, is one of the flipsides of affirmative action. It is not justifiable or at least at this juncture, to wholesomely reject affirmative action. Nonetheless, sufficient evidence suffices to show that some qualified and competent employees lost opportunities because they belong to the majority. This has especially affected the White men seeking employment opportunities. As noted in the discussion, it is imperative to follow the letter and spirit of Title VII. To that extent, discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and or national origin should not be entertained. Further, it should be the case that minorities are encouraged to work to the best extent possible.
However, such must only be done without compromising the rights of the majority. As it stands, in the obsession to meet the Title VII requirements, employers have gone overboard. This has been seen as an affront to the rights of the majority. However, as intimated in the discussion, not much of these cases have found their way in the courts. This is primarily because of the weight of proof as the burden of proof is often placed on the alleger (read employee discriminated reversely). Such evidence may not be within the purview and control of the employee hence the inability to discharge the burden. That notwithstanding, the notion is building up in the industry that the majority are at a disadvantage. This notion may easily mutate into a bigger mole and lead to a disgruntled employee base that pits the majority against the minorities. It is imperative for stakeholders to take some action and see to it that such concerns are addressed. That is the only cure for what may soon become the industry’s biggest menace.
References
Nelson, D., & Quick, J. (2010). Organizational Behavior.: Science, the Real World, and You. New York: Cengage Learning.
Wagner, J., & Hollenbeck, J. (2009). Organizational Behavior: Securing Competitive Advantage. New York: Routledge.
