Racism in Reverse Argument
“Racism in reverse” generally refers to the policies, such as preferential hiring and admissions (PHA), that provide minority groups with additional benefits in employment. It is called “in reverse” because such regulations might result in hiring a less qualified individual due to their race, making a white person lose their opportunity for getting a job. Hence, some scholars suggest that these policies are racist toward white people since they strip majority groups of their chances of employment or education. Hausman disputes the first premise of “racism in reverse,” which states, “it is wrong in hiring or admissions to take into account anything other than the applicant’s qualifications.” To prove this point, he reveals that there is nothing inherently wrong with considering other factors besides qualifications in hiring. For instance, people do not question the benefit programs for veterans, although the funding for these policies could be spent on other initiatives. It implies that other factors besides qualifications might be significant, depending on social context. Ultimately, it means that PHA is not racism in reverse because it only focuses on helping minority groups and not on oppressing the majority.
Personal Perspective
I agree with Hausman’s criticism of the “racism in reverse” argument, and I believe that his explanation of the first premise’s faults is logical. In my opinion, the concept of social context is crucial in this discussion because it reveals why PHA is not inherently wrong. It is easy to confuse it with racism since white people or males (the majority groups) might experience some inconveniences because of the program. In turn, it is understandable that they redirect their anger at the minority groups who get the job, partially because of their race. However, this line of thinking is illogical since the collateral damage of PHA is similar to those negative consequences of veteran programs. Both PHA and veteran benefits have the objective of assisting minority groups, and none of them are racist in this sense. It is crucial to take social context into account to determine how unjust or potentially “racist” policies are. Ultimately, I do not state that PHA programs are good or effective since there is little evidence, but I do agree with Hausman that PHA is not “racism in reverse.”
Argument Modification
I think it is possible to modify the argument to avoid Hausman’s criticism by adjusting the first premise. For instance, “it is wrong in hiring or admissions to take into account anything other than the applicant’s qualifications if the company explicitly states so” is a better premise. Consequently, other premises should be adjusted as well to show that HR departments might consider other factors besides qualifications. It will help people to understand PHA better and draw parallels with other benefit programs, such as veteran support policies. Moreover, this approach will add transparency to PHA and help avoid situations when executives promote their own beliefs (which might be racist) in the hiring process. In this case, PHA still pursues its primary objective to assist minority groups, but it also addresses the “racism in reverse” argument by explicitly stating its values. It will most likely not make PHA more effective in eliminating inequality in society, but it might improve the public image of the policy. In summary, I believe that this modification to the premises will make PHA’s objective more transparent and convey the message that helping minority groups is not racism.