Does believing that 'Reverse Discrimination' is Wrong mean you're a racist?

[Standing Wolf]

DeVos Civil Rights Office Pick Once Claimed Discrimination for Being White

Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has appointed as the acting head of the department's Office for Civil Rights a woman who once complained of discrimination for being white. The appointment has civil rights advocates leery of the choice.
Attorney Candice Jackson, who was announced as the deputy assistant secretary in the Office for Civil Rights on Wednesday, spoke out about being discriminated against for being white as a college student, according to a report by ProPublica.



During her time at Stanford University in the mid-1990s, Jackson "gravitated towards a section of the class that provided students with extra help on challenging problems." After finding out it was for minority students, according to ProPublica, she wrote in the Stanford Review, "I am especially disappointed that the University encourages these and other discriminatory programs."

She added, "We need to allow each person to define his or her own achievements instead of assuming competence or incompetence based on race."

Jackson also penned an op-ed blasting affirmative action saying it "promotes racial discrimination," according to to the report.

"As with most liberal solutions to a problem, giving special assistance to minority students is a band-aid solution to a deep problem," she wrote. "No one, least of all the minority student, is well served by receiving special treatment based on race or ethnicity."

Jackson also has written extensively in favor of an economist, Murray N. Rothbard, who called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "monstrous" and "the source of all the rest of the ills," as well as denounced compulsory education, according to the report.

The revelations have drawn concern from civil rights advocates who feel Jackson's ideas on race may be at odds with the office's mission of ensuring "vigorous enforcement of civil rights" and serves "student populations facing discrimination and the advocates and institutions promoting systemic solutions to civil rights problems."

"It's not someone I would want to see in this position," said Theodore Shaw, director of the Center for Civil Rights at the University of North Carolina School of Law. "We have good reason to be deeply worried about the enforcement of civil rights at the Department of Education," he said, adding that Jackson's background doesn't indicate any strong experience in civil rights or education issues.

Jackson and the Department of Education did not return NBC News' requests for comment.

However, Jackson did say on her personal website that she was "honored by the opportunity to serve our nation's students and schools."

Liliana Garces, co-director of the Center for Education and Civil Rights at Pennsylvania State University, expressed concern. "I am deeply troubled that someone who has held an idea of reverse discrimination will be holding this role," she said.

"The idea of reverse racism equates being conscious of race with racial discrimination," Garces added. "Statements about reverse discrimination reflect a particular ideology that is detrimental to how we go about addressing racial inequality."

[Mister D]

Very interesting...

[Common]

"Statements about reverse discrimination reflect a particular ideology that is detrimental to how we go about addressing racial inequality."

That statement is telling, of course theres reverse descrimination and because someone is a victim of it and is vocal about it, thats no indication they themselves are racist.

I dont buy the lefts ideology that only white men can be racist

[Standing Wolf]

What that last quote says to me is, "If you question the premise that it's acceptable to treat individuals unfairly because their skin is White, you are part of the problem. 'Discrimination' should only ever be used to describe unequal or unfair treatment of racial minority members."

[Chris]

Laws against discrimination ought to be neutral with regard to race, for general welfare and not special to any.

I suspect calling some racist for invoking those laws is meant to deter such claims through shame.

[Mister D]

While I agree with you all the problem here is really this obsession we have with equality. We've committed ourselves to chasing a chimera and have done a great deal of damage to our society in the process.

[DGUtley]

My oldest was AA'd out of a Pharm D program in Ohio -- despite the official position that they didn't engage in AA. I sued the university and told them: 'If they were equally qualified, you'd have never heard from me. Just give me one reason why this man with a 3.2 was taken over her with a 3.9 and you'll never hear from me again." They couldn't. They paid. She transferred and finished in the top 10% of her class at a different university.

I'm against it. There was a time for it. I think that time has passed. I think the Court will agree with me. Disparate treatment on the basis of race is discrimination.

[Chris]

While I agree with you all the problem here is really this obsession we have with equality. We've committed ourselves to chasing a chimera and have done a great deal of damage to our society in the process.

Yes, there's that. I can understand equality before the law, iow, the government ought to treat everyone equally, it shouldn't discriminate. It's when that concept is forced on society that we head for trouble because it's impossible to achieve.

[Common]

What that last quote says to me is, "If you question the premise that it's acceptable to treat individuals unfairly because their skin is White, you are part of the problem. 'Discrimination' should only ever be used to describe unequal or unfair treatment of racial minority members."

I disagree discrimination is just that no matter who is the recipient

[Mister D]

Yes, there's that. I can understand equality before the law, iow, the government ought to treat everyone equally, it shouldn't discriminate. It's when that concept is forced on society that we head for trouble because it's impossible to achieve.

Right but, more precisely, the expectations and demands we raise people to have cannot be met. This leads to resentment, anger and a perception that society has somehow failed. I think we can all agree that the contemporary USA is filled with aggrieved individuals who think society as somehow failed them or, worse yet, kept them from what is rightfully theirs.