Over 25 years ago, during my first year in a doctoral program, I recall having a conversation with one of my White male peers. We were part of a cohort of five students: 2 White males, 1 White female, 1 biracial (Black/White) female, and 1 Black male.

After feeling me out and apparently determining that I was safe, my White male peer disclosed that when he applied, he was afraid he wouldn’t be accepted because he was a White male.

While sympathetic to his fears, I didn’t understand why he felt this way given the fact that White students have made up the largest share of graduate students for the past 25 years.

His fears represent growing angst among some White people about reverse discrimination. Concerns about discrimination against White people, especially White males, are a central part of the Trump administration’s agenda.

The Rise of White Grievance Politics

The Trump administration’s recent letter about cancelling Harvard contracts claims that Harvard continues to engage in racial discrimination, with recent accusations that the Harvard Law Review discriminates against White men.

Contrary to the historical context of race discrimination in this country, the Trump administration has determined that White men are the group that is most disenfranchised.

The Trump administration’s zealous pursuit to eradicate all so-called “reverse” discrimination is based on Trump’s belief that anti-White racism is a problem in this country, which he has vowed to crush.

At the core of the anti-DEI crusade is the belief that embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion is reverse discrimination against White people.

Throughout his political career, Trump has relied on a politics of White grievance that mobilizes White people who believe they have been victimized because they are White.

Anti-DEI Rhetoric and Policy Moves

Accordingly, the Trump administration has engaged in selective outrage about discrimination, focusing disproportionately on a supposed rampant anti-White racism problem in this country that is not supported by data, while remaining silent about prevalent discrimination against racial minorities.

For example, a recent large, nationally representative survey on racism and discrimination across racial and ethnic groups found that Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, American Indians, and Alaska Natives experience higher rates of police mistreatment, are more likely to experience discrimination that is attributed to their race or ethnicity, and report higher rates of unfair health care treatment compared to White adults.

To give the pretense that their crusade of eradicating all discrimination is grounded in an ethics of morality and justice, the Trump administration has compared institutional attempts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion to the history of discrimination in this country.

At one point, the Dear Colleague Letter sent by the Department of Education to educational institutions characterized the embrace of DEI as “a shameful echo of a darker period in this country’s history.”

This was a shameless attempt to equate the policies and practices intended to make colleges and universities more inclusive with Jim Crow segregation and discrimination.

That this analogy could be made with a straight face belies its intellectual dishonesty and is indicative of the Trump administration’s disingenuous anti-discrimination crusade.

Read the full article on The Globe Post.