"If she wins, the flood of reverse discrimination claims will be like nothing we’ve ever seen. Straight, White people everywhere could be filing."

Said Johnny C. Taylor Jr., chief executive of the human resources association SHRM.

Quoted in "Her claim of anti-straight bias could upend discrimination law/The Supreme Court will hear a case that could unleash a wave of workplace bias claims by Whites, men and people who are straight" (WaPo).

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in [Marlean] Ames’s bid to revive her case, which was stymied in the lower courts because of past rulings that set a higher legal bar for men, straight people and Whites to prove bias in the workplace than for groups that have historically faced discrimination. That higher standard is unconstitutional, her suit says.... 

Some worry a ruling for Ames could chill workplace diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs at a moment when President Donald Trump has made it a priority to roll back such initiatives across the country and squash “anti-White feeling.”

I went to that internal link and didn't see the phrase "anti-White feeling." Why is that in quotes? I can only infer that Trump said it, but it's odd to put it in quotes — and odd to capitalize "White" and to use the verb "squash" here. You know, I stick closely to mainstream news reports, especially The NYT and The Washington Post, and I believe I'm seeing an abrupt decline in quality, and it feels like an effort to get Trump.

I do my own research and find the quote in a Trump interview that occurred last April, in this interview with TIME. Here's the full exchange that contains that quote:

So you have spoken a lot about “woke-ism” on college campuses. Polls show a majority of your supporters have expressed the belief that anti-white racism now represents a greater problem in the country than anti-Black racism. Do you agree?

Trump: Oh, I think that there is a lot to be said about that. If you look at the Biden Administration, they're sort of against anybody depending on certain views. They're against Catholics. They're against a lot of different people. They actually don't even know what they're against, but they're against a lot. But no, I think there is a definite anti-white feeling in this country and that can't be allowed either.

How would you address that as President?

Trump: I don't think it would be a very tough thing to address, frankly. But I think the laws are very unfair right now. And education is being very unfair, and it's being stifled. But I don't think it's going to be a big problem at all. But if you look right now, there's absolutely a bias against white and that's a problem.

TIME prompted Trump to talk about "anti-white racism" and he didn't take the bait. Not only did he soften the term to "anti-white feeling," he forefronted other forms of discrimination — viewpoint discrimination, anti-Catholic discrimination, and discrimination in general ("they're against a lot"). But he tagged on "anti-white feeling." And yet, his antagonists today are recycling that one phrase, quoting it out of context, and not linking to the TIME interview or even citing anything that helps the reader see that he was responding to an interviewer's prompt and wasn't especially excited about the issue. He didn't — as WaPo put it — make it a "priority" or vow to do anything as brutal as "squashing."

In that interview, asked what he would do, he's entirely vague: He wants fairness and he thinks the problem will be easy to solve. Why it's supposedly so easy, who knows? He often adds a rhetorical flourish, asserting that a problem can be solved very quickly and easily. Presumably, he thinks it will be easy to solve the perceived bias against white people because he wants to eliminate all discrimination — including the purportedly benevolent discrimination that is motivated by a desire to remedy past discrimination.

Anyway, the mainstream media need to recommit to professional values. Speaking of bias.

And that Supreme Court case argued today looks interesting. It's Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. Here's the SCOTUSblog write-up. Excerpt:

[B]ecause Ames is straight, the court of appeals also required her to show “background circumstances” that would “support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." Plaintiffs usually make this kind of showing, the court of appeals explained, with evidence that a member of a minority group made the allegedly discriminatory decision, or with evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.

But Ames cannot show either of these things, the court of appeals contended. The decision-makers in her case – the people who hired someone else for the bureau chief job and who demoted her – were also straight, and the only “pattern” she can point to is her own case....

In a brief filed by Elizabeth Prelogar, who served as the U.S. solicitor general during the Biden administration, the federal government agrees with Ames that the “background circumstances” requirement imposed by the court of appeals “has no basis in Title VII’s text.” What’s more, she tells the justices, the requirement also “contradicts this Court’s precedent, including the Court’s assurances that all plaintiffs may proceed according to the same standards.”

The Ohio Department of Youth Services pushes back against any suggestion that the court of appeals held Ames to a higher standard because she is straight. The “background circumstances” requirement, the department contends, is simply a “method of analysis” for courts to use in cases like Ames’s rather than “an additional element” for plaintiffs to show....