This article is based on lengthy research and experiences. Please read before commenting, while also refraining from rudeness.

Black, white, or brown, humans are created equal; however, every person is unique, whether it stems from ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or religion. Should equals be seen as unequal simply because of a misconceived notation that what makes individuals unique is also a reason for any person to be provided better privileges? Discrimination has been a devastating issue for as long as the world has been spinning, causing unequal privileges, slavery, and war to erupt throughout every continent. A movement meant to create equality for all people, without regards to any perceived differences, first started gaining historical recognition in the early 1900s with the Women’s Liberation Fighters. This trend continued through the mid- to late twentieth century and into the twenty-first century with many other groups fighting for equality, including ethnic, religious, and LGBT groups. Because of the more open-minded aspects of the millennial generation, today’s society tends to capitalize on equality for all people, creating a politically correct and petulant youth. In recent years, reverse discrimination, the discrimination of those in the majority, has become an issue, primarily due to many in the minorities wanting comeuppance for the discrimination that their ancestors – but often not themselves – faced; furthermore, many believe that, because minorities have faced such harsh discrimination in the past, they should be given superior privileges in order to atone for the previous crimes against them.

My opposition would argue that because discrimination occurs in both developing and developed countries and at any time, minorities should receive special privileges. Sexism, racism, homophobia, and religious intolerance, though not the only forms, are the primary forms of discrimination in today’s society. Minorities, groups of people that make up less than 50 percent of the total population, often feel oppressed, or as if their rights are being infringed upon. This could be caused by the lack of either legal rights or societal tolerance. Women, for example, were prohibited from voting until the Women’s Liberation movement began in the early 1900s, which would continue even after women were given the right to vote in 1919. Women were seen as too fragile and emotional to work outside the home; consequently, many were without jobs and expected to marry in order to live a satisfying life. Even when women were given permission by society to go into the workforce, it was simply out of necessity, and they were not seen as equal to men in any form. An example of societal intolerance could also be seen in Muslim stereotypes, which are primarily due to the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and killed thousands of innocent people. Like this tragic incident, many hate crimes have been committed, despite efforts to thwart such attacks. The chances of being hired for a job are also greatly affected by religion, causing Muslims, as well as people from other religious groups, to fear unemployment. (Brannen; Schick)

The LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) community also continues its fight for equality after much discrimination has been laid upon them. Marriage between same-sex couples had not been legalized in the US until June of 2015, and it has yet to be legalized throughout all fifty states. They are, also, largely prevented from adopting, due to fears that they will corrupt any children in their care. Since the beginning of civilization, people have split themselves into groups based on, primarily, the color of one’s skin, causing much unrest and violence as of late. Ethnic minorities are not only less likely to be hired, but they are also paid less, causing minorities to be more likely to live under the poverty line. Though slavery is no longer an aspect of society, minorities face ignorance from those who cannot see past differing skin colors, which can cause cultural appropriation or, worse, violence. (“Racism.”; Miller)

Though sexists have made getting relative equality harder than necessary, feminists have made grand leaps in the movement. The passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, for example, will allow women more ease when suing employers for gender bias; however, the act will also produce issues for employers in the form of forcing them to provide evidence that no pay difference was caused by bias, unlike, now, when women are required to produce evidence that a difference in pay was caused by bias. This act would allow women to sue employers, even if the pay and/or compensation difference was caused by a male having higher education and skill levels, so long as the employer could not produce indisputable evidence that said skills were necessary for the job. This can create issues because, as studies show, the pay gap between males and females is almost nonexistent “among never-married individuals without children… (Biggs)”, in fact, women tend to earn 8% more than men, on average, because they also tend to have higher education than their male counterparts. The issue occurs when women begin to marry and have children, as they most likely will prefer more adjustable hours and, generally, more accommodations for child care. Women, during such a time, are more likely to work part-time than men because the jobs are more flexible, even though they may experience a pay-cut; however, if they do not proceed to part-time hours, they will be more likely to leave work for a short period of time in order to care for their child. Though these actions may cause a reduction in seniority, statistics show that unemployment rates for men are actually higher than those of women. The ever-present wage-gap mentioned by feminists is primarily because 79% of married women with children, a large portion of the workforce, often prefer to work fewer hours or not at all; in comparison, 72% of men in the same situation prefer to work full-time, and they tend to work longer hours at the workplace than women, on average. Relating to their success in the business world, women have also earned more high-school diplomas, bachelor degrees, master’s degrees, and doctorate degrees than men have in the last several years. Yet radical feminists proclaim that more “equality” should be required, and the government should continue its growing protection of women, perceived as a weaker class. Radical feminists seem to believe in an ideology called interchangeability, which says that women cannot be equal to any man unless one is unable to tell one sex from the other. This movement fights not only inequality but also science, as differences between sexes can be found throughout nature. During a study, which took place on the campus of the University of California- Santa Cruz, 277 students, both male and female, were asked if they would prefer for a woman to propose marriage rather than the man; however, the responses they received were unanimous, no one preferred for women to propose, not because discrimination nor fear prevented women from demolishing gender norms but, instead, the desire for men to show commitment, loyalty, and integrity when faced with a long term relationship. Feminists, of course, retaliated by announcing that women were programmed to believe that stepping into a male role was wrong and more cultural shaping was needed; however, their argument did not gain much ground and soon sputtered. Radical feminists do not know what they need anymore, they simply want more. As soon as women are given a privilege, the feminist expect for women to get more, not caring that in order to provide these privileges, men and women who do not believe in the same ideas will suffer. (Biggs; “Radical Feminism”; Will)

In today’s society, tolerance is only necessary for those who do not share the progressive beliefs of others. Though only about 1% of the world’s population is a member of the LGBT community, anyone else must be extremely careful not to offend anybody, while members of the community are seemingly allowed free reign to say and do whatever they wish. This issue has become more pronounced with gender fluidity, or the nonconformity of gender binaries, and the pronouns that come with it. This idea states that any person can choose what gender they want to be known as, and if anybody confuses or assumes said gender they can be persecuted; furthermore, in an effort to create easier communication between people, the debate to introduce gender-neutral pronouns to everyday English has begun. Another effort to introduce a more politically correct world, gender-neutral bathrooms, has become a hotly debated topic. Despite health and safety risks (such as rape), many believe that by not having to choose where to use the bathroom, gender-fluid people will be happier and less offended; however, this is not taking into account that men may not want to defecate in the same room as a girl who needs to change her period products, and vice versa. This creates a double standard where members of the LGBT community can feel safe and welcome, but only at the expense of heterosexuals’ feelings of safety. Yet another example of the double standard can be seen when GlamourMagazine named Kaitlyn Jenner, a transgender that had not finished the transition, Woman of the Year not even six months after said transition. Many were outraged, even other transgenders, because Jenner received the award only on the basis of going through the transition while in the public eye. Jenner in no way deserved what was given to her when there are women fighting for freedom, curing diseases, and giving to the poor, much more courageous tasks (“Readers write”).

Along with the inclusive mannerisms of society, churches are expected to not only allow LGBT members to join and become leaders of the congregation but also to accept and encourage their sexuality. Christians, in other words, are expected to hide their own beliefs in deference to a community that, though they are meant to love as brothers, they are not supposed to accept as right. When churches refuse to accept gays and lesbians into their leadership, the church could face the brunt of a petition to be classified as a hate group, as the Roman Catholic Church did. After the Roman Catholic Church refused to give leadership positions to members of the LGBT community, a group sent a petition to the White House, asking that the church be recognized as a hate group; however, the petition only received four thousand of the twenty-five thousand signatures needed. At the University of California Hastings College of the Law, the Christian Legal Society was refused funding and recognition because they would not allow atheists or homosexuals to become leaders in the society, taking the constitutional right to religion away from a religious group. British Airways, an airline, was part of a scandal when they gave an employee an ultimatum, she was to either remove her cross necklace or be transferred. Of the two choices, she chose to keep her cross proudly displayed and be transferred. The case went to court, as well as two others, a nurse who was fired for the same issue and a relationship counselor that refused to give sex therapy to same-sex couples. These cases are all discriminating against Christians simply because the companies and customers were offended, but they also infringe upon our right of religion. In this society, Christians are told to hide their faith and beliefs, while others are encouraged to proudly display theirs. (“An Assault”; “Christian Groups”)

Throughout history, minorities have been discriminated against heavily, but, in recent years, equality has become more of a goal; however, has giving minorities special privileges meant to help equalize ethnicities actually produced reverse discrimination? In an effort to prevent ignorance of other cultures, multicultural education has begun to become a standard for school curricula. Though there are advantages to multicultural education, there are also many disadvantages; for example, the textbooks and teachers often cause unfair guilt in white students by ignoring negative aspects of minority histories and negating positive aspects of Euro- American history. This causes reverse discrimination to appear because by teaching children in this manner, the students are influenced to believe only the best of “people of color (“Preface”)” while also believing the worst of majorities, inducing guilt. When applying for scholarships and financial aid, even if two applicants share the same test scores, GPAs, and other qualifications, minorities are far more likely to receive said financial aid, due to past grievances against their culture; furthermore, schools have even shown preference to minorities when an applicant from the majority has higher levels of qualifications. At the University of Bristol, in England, students forced the cancellation of a musical because they feared cultural appropriation, the adoption of one culture into another in a rude and ignorant manner, in the form of allowing whites to play the roles of Egyptians and Ethiopians. This fear of cultural appropriation has become so immense that it seems that no one can even appreciate different cultures without receiving backlash from society. How is a person meant to show appreciation and acceptance of the many different cultures without offending others in today’s society? In general, most areas in developed nations ceased to have a majority ethnic group in 2010, meaning that no one race makes up 50 percent or more of the population. Despite this, minorities are still considered to be “protected classes,” and one company even forces this idealism on its consumers. In the article “Real Life” by Melissa Kite, she explains and analyzes an email she received from Airbnb, a company that allows people to rent out extra rooms to travelers. In this email, she is expected to agree to new terms and conditions which state that no homeowner can choose tourists based on “race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age,” and hosts must treat their guests not only with hospitality but also without “judgement or bias.” The terms also state that, in the event of a traveler with a disability, the hosts must accommodate their guest with any adjustments needed to make their stay as easy as possible, meaning that a man in a wheelchair will expect his host to have ramps or elevators, otherwise there will be grounds for a lawsuit. If the author’s dog does not feel accommodating to any service dog, the owner would be forced to pay for her to stay in boarding, no matter the cost. Nowhere in the terms does it say that respect should be shown to the host, only that minorities will have any and all access to the property with respect to their wishes. In another form of reverse discrimination, a woman demonstrates to the world that she holds deep prejudice against whites, yet she was not condemned for this view. Natalie Hopkinson and her husband moved to Washington D.C., where she had never lived before, and bought an expensive house in the Bloomingdale section of the city; however, she did so only because she didn’t want a white person to buy it. She stated that she was tired of whites taking over the previously black neighborhoods of the city and sought to rectify the situation by buying the property herself. She and many others felt that, because the city was once primarily black, she had more of a right to the property than any white person, even if they have lived there their entire life. Discrimination of this sort continues to occur because of the double standard for prejudice in society. (Sullivan; “Preface”; “In England”; Kite ;)

Reverse discrimination has become an issue in recent years because society wishes to make up for any past grievances against minorities in order to keep them happy. Minorities, though they faced much discrimination in the past have been given so much leniency that, in a way, they are causing their own discrimination. Only a few can cause a major problem, though, and this can be easily seen in the few individuals who keep asking for more and more, causing anger to fester in those that work for their privileges. I believe that if no group had any advantage over another the world be a much better and more peaceful one. If humans could accept and tolerate that not every person agrees with them and that everyone is different, as a species humans would be much better off. I do not see discrimination of any sort ending soon, but I do believe that more good and accepting people exist than those who only want to destroy what good has created.

As the New Year approaches, I proclaim that we should all begin to work hard to keep our rights and work even harder to love everyone as a brother. No matter how a person treats you, reciprocate with love instead of hate, and I believe we will be able to see an incline in our tolerance levels. To those who sit around and do nothing but expect more and more in return, please take a step in the shoes of those who take care of you. This is where the cycle of intolerance begins, and it is a cycle. Those who do nothing and expect something cause those who do work and expect nothing in return to hold negative feelings, which then come out as discrimination, which then causes the cycle to continue. The cause of discrimination is simply the few in a group that are bad and the over generalization of the group, so let us not generalize. Let us not hate. Let us work for our liberty. Let us love. Let us group people only by their willingness to try.

Black, white, or brown, people are created equal, and the only thing that should cause animosity between others is the work ethic and merit of any one person, not trivialities.

Works Cited

"An assault on freedom of religion; Discrimination is wrong, even against traditional Christian beliefs." Washington Times [Washington, DC], 23 Jan. 2013, p. B02. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, goo.gl/vcCVvu. Accessed 20 Dec. 2016.

Biggs, Andrew. "Sex, workers: gender discrimination does not explain the male-female pay gap." National Review, 18 Oct. 2010, p. 24. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A238558695/OVIC?u=lap37ops&xid=b55e9811. Accessed 13 Dec. 2016.

Brannen, Daniel E., Jr., et al. "Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment." Supreme Court Drama: Cases That Changed America, edited by Lawrence W. Baker, 2nd ed., vol. 3: Equal Protection and Civil Rights (Part 1), UXL, 2011, pp. 699-706. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX1929200151/OVIC?u=lap37ops&xid=1d12d817. Accessed 13 Dec. 2016

"Christian groups have the right to be Christian; Discrimination against religion hastens the end of morality." Washington Times [Washington, DC], 26 Apr. 2010, p. B03. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A224911970/OVIC?u=lap37ops&xid=644f935a. Accessed 13 Dec. 2016.

”In England, the kids at the University of Bristol have forced the cancellation of the musical Aida.” National Review, 7 Nov. 2016, p.13. Gale Biography in Context, goo.gl/7qSTpy, Accessed 15 Nov 2016

“Kite, Melissa. “Real Life.” Spectator, 12 Nov. 2016, p.62t. Gale Biography In Context, goo.gl/6lthuW7, Accessed 15 Nov. 2016

Miller, Kenneth. "Bullying of Gay Teens Is a Serious Problem." Teens at Risk, edited by Stephen P. Thompson, Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010167412/OVIC?u=lap37ops&xid=d5097fe8. Accessed 13 Dec. 2016.

“Preface to ‘Are Claims Of Reverse Discrimination Valid?’.” Discrimination, edited by Mary E. Williams, Greenhaven Press, 2003, Opposing Viewpoints in Context, goo.gl/RSrsXJ, Accessed 16 Nov. 2016

“Racism.” Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2016. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, goo.gl/IRynYb. Accessed 16 Nov. 2016.

"Radical feminism waging the real war on women; Telling women what they really want." Washington Times [Washington, DC], 17 Dec. 2012, p. B03. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A312275129/OVIC?u=lap37ops&xid=bb308162. Accessed 6 Dec. 2016.

"Readers write: Need for non-gender pronouns, more needed for Congress, hate speech." Christian Science Monitor, 12 Nov. 2016. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A469881184/OVIC?u=lap37ops&xid=a093bbe9. Accessed 6 Dec. 2016.

Schick, Avi. "New Laws Are Needed to Protect Religious Freedom in the Workplace." Religion in America, edited by Mary E. Williams, Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, goo.gl/d1u0Dx. Accessed 20 Dec. 2016.

Sullivan, Andrew. “Minorities Should Take Responsibility for Reverse Discrimination.” Discrimination, edited by Mary E. Williams, Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Goo.gl/Sxlu4X. Accessed 17 Nov. 2016.

Will, George F. "A New Project for the Gender Police." Newsweek, 4 Oct. 2010, p. 24. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A238088693/OVIC?u=lap37ops&xid=a20e93b4. Accessed 6 Dec. 2016.