Hopefully High Court Hammers Final Nail in DEI's Coffin

Hopefully High Court Hammers Final Nail in DEI's Coffin

If court watchers are correct, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to put an end to so-called reverse discrimination, that is, acts that discriminate against the majority, such as white straight men.

If true, this may mark the end of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

The high court recently heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, in which Marlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied a promotion in favor of a lesbian employee and was later demoted and replaced by a gay man.

She’s now earning considerably less pay as a result.

In each instance the gay person was less qualified than Ames, so she filed a lawsuit, claiming reverse discrimination given the that she was straight.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Ames’ claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, because she failed to demonstrate "background circumstances," as required in reverse discrimination cases in that circuit.

"Background circumstances" would include evidence that a member of a minority group made the allegedly discriminatory decision, or lacking that, evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.

Ames was unable to prove or offer evidence of either.

However, more than half of all U.S. circuit courts of appeal do not require proof of "background circumstances" to prevail in a reverse discrimination case.

They treat discrimination and reverse discrimination cases alike.

Even Justice Elena Kagan, a Barack Obama nominee, questioned the necessity of additional requirements in reverse discrimination cases.

The question before the court, she said, "is whether a majority-group plaintiff has to show something more than a minority-group plaintiff — here, whether a straight person has to show more than a gay person."

Similarly, Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, wondered what would be wrong with placing plaintiffs in discrimination and reverse discrimination cases on an equal footing — treating everyone equally.

Gorsuch remarked that he and liberal-leaning justices appeared to be in "radical agreement" on the issue of equal treatment.

And it was on that basis — the quest for equal treatment — that the Equal Protection Project (EPP), a non-profit "devoted to the fair treatment of all persons," filed an amicus curiae, or "friend-of-the-court" brief with the Supreme Court in support of Marlean Ames.

"EPP argues . . . that even if the 'background circumstances' rule had been correct when invented by the D.C. Circuit . . ., it is no longer applicable or useful because discrimination against so-called 'majority' citizens is no longer 'unusual,' but rather has become common," the EPP brief said, and listed numerous examples of reverse discrimination.

Quoting Gorsuch, the left-leaning Vox reported that "The Supreme Court is in 'radical agreement' that a bizarre DEI rule needs to go."

Veteran SCOTUS blog writer Amy Howe predicted that the court was "likely to side with [the] straight woman" — Marlean Ames.

Two legal commentators concluded that if these predictions are correct, the Supreme Court’s Aimes decision could very well be "the final nail in DEI’s coffin."

And while the Supreme Court pounds the final nail in the coffin of DEI — diversity, equity, and inclusion — maybe we can bury the phrase "reverse discrimination" along with it.

Whether you’re discriminating against whites or Blacks, men or women, straights, or gays, it’s all discrimination — there’s nothing "reverse" about it.

Although equality is a basic tenet of America’s Founding, concepts like DEI and "court rules for one group but not another" violate that principle, and getting rid of them in the interest of equality may not be easy.

As economist, historian, philosopher, and social commentator Thomas Sowell observed, "when people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination."

They’ll just have to get used to it when the Supreme Court hands down its decision in the summer, and we replace DEI and "rules for thee and not for me" with equality.

(A related story may be found here.)

Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to Newsmax. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and a Second Amendment supporter. Read Michael Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.