Reverse Discrimination

Who better to ask and discuss this with than fellow ACJS-ers?

I define this term as being held back, or being looked over in preference of another individual or group due to one's 'lack of diversity'. In the United States, I'm thinking that diversity means those that are not white (and possibly not male?), since Caucasian is the majority race, nationwide.

I was reared in the United States, and I feel especially lucky that my hometown hosts 4 universities that I believe are the reason that allowed me to grow up in an especially diverse community; and today I consider SLU quite a diverse community.

Now, maybe it is only my imagination or "seeing what I believe" and not what is actually there, but I wonder if some of the laws and policies that have been put in place over the years in the United States have not developed an environment that has made reverse discrimination visible. I am white and have always lived in a chiefly white community (barring my time in South America), with a bit of diversity thrown in here or there.

Anyway, this topic has come to my attention only because of conversations I have had, listened in on, and experiences I have been party to. My first year at SLU: Fall 2007, I applied for a scholarship program, and was immediately interviewed by the directors for my candidacy. Upon the conclusion of my interview, I was told that I was not eligible for this program because a) my mom made too much money --I was not impoverished, and b) I was not of a community that is under-represented --I am white.

I might be completely mistaken: maybe I did not have as outstanding an interview as I thought, or clearly my grades were not stellar, and so that disqualified me. Honestly, I have no idea what it is like to be impoverished or under-represented so I cannot identify, but in that particular situation, I felt discrimination for factors uncontrollable. Some programs are installed to give just persons the possibility of equalizing their chances against others, do I necessarily have an equalized chance? Or maybe I'm looking at this completely wrong.

In another instant, I had a conversation with a professor from my previous college discussing his interviewees for a faculty position. He was telling that three people were interviewing for the position, one was Indian, and the other two were white. He was telling me that most likely the Indian was going to be hired "for diversity". He did complain that this person had a very strong accent, and did not exhibit the greatest of teaching skills. He did not mention the potential teaching capacity of the other two candidates. That made me curious about whether that institution would hire just to fill a diversity quota, or because they thought an individual's competence as a faculty member would be beneficial to the college and students.

Are there incentives in place that spur companies to hire for diversity? Do they have to? Do they get benefits from the government? Is it because it looks good to the public? Is competence second to ...idk..."globalization"?

I even hear my cousin who works for a newspaper fear for her job: she has seniority over a few other individuals, and those that have seniority over her are all old, white men, but she fears it is most likely going to be her that gets the boot because the other few she has seniority over--the newer hires at her firm--are non-white females, and she believes that the company will not dismiss them in spite of her longer-standing position with the company, for diversity's sake.

I hope I am making sense to anyone who might see this. And I hope that I can get some commentary so that I might become better informed on this topic, if for no other reason as it is very interesting to me. I want to work and live in a community that is as diverse as possible, given that I love other peoples and cultures practically more than i do my own, but I also want to be assured that persons are hired and accepted based off of competence and not off of need to fill diversity quotas.