The Supreme Court Takes a Welcome Stand against Reverse Discrimination
Jonathan Church, a long-standing critic of the excesses of the critical social justice movement, examines how a recent ruling dismantles the legal double standard that required some Americans to meet a higher burden of proof in discrimination cases.
In what seems like another chapter in the “great un-awokening” currently unfolding in America, the Supreme Court of the United States recently decided in favor of a white woman who sued her employer for job discrimination. In a welcome development, the Court determined that it was not necessary for a straight white woman, or anyone else from a “majority group” who sues an employer for discrimination, first to prove that the employer’s hiring preferences were intrinsically biased against members of a majority group. The plaintiff needs only to prove that discrimination occurred, without jumping through the additional hoop of proving that the employer had a pre-existing propensity to discriminate against members of a majority group.
In the ethos of social justice activism over the last ten years, it felt almost sacrilegious to suggest that a straight white man (or woman) could be a victim of discrimination. More generally, in America and in Western societies as a whole, it often seemed that, in the minds of social justice activists, it was virtually inconceivable that a white person could be the victim of discrimination by a hiring manager who was a person of color; that a man could be the victim of sexual harassment by a female boss; that a Christian community could be the victim of discriminatory policies promoted by a Muslim political leader; or that a straight man or woman could find himself or herself marginalized in a community of people who identified as gay or transgender.
Timeless reading in a fleeting world.
