Is anti-white racism a problem in Australian workplaces? Or is “reverse racism” simply a myth, as some universities and media commentators claim? What is certain is that the topic has come to the forefront in many Western nations, particularly due to the anti-DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) rhetoric of Donald Trump’s presidency.
In this article, we look at the main claims of anti-white racism in workplaces and the most prominent legal cases and government actions that aim to combat it. We also explore the topic from the other side, looking at arguments from the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding what it calls the systemic racism of “white supremacy”.
Since his reelection in November 2024, Trump has taken an active stance against what his administration believes is rampant workplace racism against white workers. His administration has framed DEI initiatives not as tools for inclusion, but as “radical” mechanisms that have led to systemic anti-white racism.
As such, it has sought to dismantle the DEI infrastructure that became standard in American workplaces over the last decade. In early 2025, Trump ordered all US federal agencies to shut down their internal DEI programs and offices. He also abolished equity-related government grants and introduced requirements for federal contractors to certify they are not engaging in DEI programs.
The president’s anti-DEI actions have also extended to the private sector. The US Department of Justice was tasked with identifying and investigating the “most egregious” DEI practitioners among publicly traded corporations and large nonprofits. Similar scrutiny has been placed on prominent law firms that were accused of using “racial quotas” for hiring and promotion.
Perhaps the most significant action against a company is the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s investigation into Nike. Launched in early 2026, the probe aims to determine whether the sportswear giant discriminated against its white employees and job applicants.
What makes the investigation different is that the Commission usually investigates discrimination against minority groups. Also, it was not triggered by individual worker complaints. Instead, it was initiated by the Commission’s chair, Andrea Lucas, who is a Trump appointee. This came after a 2024 complaint from America First Legal; an organisation founded by a key advisor to Trump. One of the main goals of America First Legal is “dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion.”
The Commission has petitioned a federal court to compel Nike to produce extensive records going back to 2018. The central question is whether Nike’s DEI programs led to intentional “reverse discrimination.” The investigation is focusing on the company’s “2025 Targets,” which were established in 2021. According to Nike, these goals included achieving 45% representation of racial and ethnic minorities in its US corporate workforce.
Its other goal was for 35% representation of racial and ethnic minorities at the director level and above in the US. In response to the Commission’s investigation, Nike maintained that its targets were simply targets, intended to broaden recruitment efforts and remove bias from the hiring process. The Commission, however, argued that they may have effectively functioned as illegal quotas. It claimed that these may have pressured managers to factor race into employment decisions and thereby violate the US Civil Rights Act.
The Commission is looking into whether white applicants and employees were systematically overlooked by Nike for roles or advancements to meet specific diversity numbers. The investigation is also looking into whether white employees were disproportionately targeted or selected for layoffs during Nike’s recent workforce reductions.
In addition, the Commission will investigate if Nike’s executive bonuses were directly linked to achieving diversity targets, which it claims could create an incentive to make race-based decisions. It will also shine a light on Nike’s mentoring, leadership and career development programs to see if they illegally restricted participation based on race.
Nike responded to the probe by stating that it will cooperate and has provided thousands of pages of records. However, it has resisted further data demands, calling the Commission’s action a “surprising and unusual escalation.” It maintained that it was committed to “fair and lawful” employment practices. Nike described its participation in the inquiry as “good-faith” and noted that it has already provided thousands of pages of documentation.
The company called the subpoena for its records an “impermissible fishing expedition.” It argued that requests for data were vague, overly broad and sought irrelevant information. Meanwhile, the Commission said that Nike has not fully honoured requests for records about its hiring practices and hiring goals for racial minority groups. It said that this non-compliance has “delayed and hampered” the investigation.
The investigation into Nike is a test case for the Commission’s new direction under the Trump administration. The agency has embraced a “colorblind” approach to anti-discrimination enforcement, a cornerstone of the administration’s anti-DEI agenda. In December 2025, Commission chair Andrea Lucas posted a video on X in which she compelled any “white male” who has experienced anti-white racism at work to make a complaint to the agency “as soon as possible.”
Just a few hours before she posted that video, Ms. Lucas had responded to an X post by US vice president JD Vance. He had shared an article which he believed “describes the evil of DEI and its consequences.” Mr. Vance also wrote that the Trump administration was dedicated to “eradicating racist discrimination” by eliminating funding for DEI and firing DEI employees in the US government. Mr. Vance later posted that DEI was a “deliberate program of discrimination primarily against white men.”
Ms. Lucas responded to Mr. Vance’s X thread by saying “Absolutely right @JDVance,” and adding that DEI has led to widespread and immoral workplace practices that primarily “harmed white men.” She said that the Commission “won’t rest until this discrimination is eliminated.” Ms. Lucas has defended these statements by arguing that for too long, the Commission operated under a “fundamental misunderstanding” that civil rights laws only protect certain groups.
She has frequently used the phrase “the gaslighting ends now” when discussing corporate DEI initiatives. By linking her public call-out to a formal “DEI-related discrimination” fact sheet on the Commission’s website, Ms. Lucas effectively turned her social media presence into a direct intake portal for anti-white racism or reverse discrimination claims.
Australia’s equivalent of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the federal Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). Its current leadership has a very different stance on reverse racism compared to its US counterpart. The crux of the AHRC’s position is the distinction between individual racial prejudice and systemic racism.
The current Race Discrimination Commissioner, Giridharan Sivaraman, has stated that racism in Australia is fundamentally tied to historical power structures. He argues that Australian institutions were “built to ensure white privilege and white supremacy.“ Therefore, white Australians do not experience racism in the same systemic way that First Nations or “negatively racialised” people do.
In a March 2025 opinion piece, Commissioner Sivaraman said that the nation’s education system is “built for white knowledge.” He also said that Australian workplaces “elevate white people into leadership by default.” In public comments, the Commissioner has specifically called out the “white Anglo race” as the “dominant” race in Australia. He has frequently used the term “white privilege” to describe the “unearned advantage” of knowing that societal institutions were built “by people like you, for people like you.”
The AHRC claims that policies aiming to dismantle this default advantage, like its National Anti-Racism Framework, are not reverse racism but necessary “corrective actions.” Despite these views, Commissioner Sivaraman has also clarified that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 protects every person in Australia, ensuring we are all “equal before the law” regardless of race. This means that an employer can’t legally use race as a basis for a negative employment decision against a white employee any more than they could against a minority employee.
One way DEI is being implemented in Australian workplaces is via training that aims to address white privilege. Some argue this is anti-white racism in the workplace, while others contend it’s needed to address systemic racial injustice. Many Australians may have experienced or heard of others who have undergone this type of workplace training.
One high profile example of such training is taking place at the Victorian Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS), which in 2024 launched a cultural awareness program for its workforce. Developed with the University of Melbourne, the program features a module centered on the concept of “white privilege.” While the program’s overarching cultural safety training is mandatory for Department employees, the specific module regarding white privilege is voluntary.
The program’s rollout came as the Victorian government prepared for the commencement of Indigenous treaty negotiations. This resulted in the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 becoming law in November 2025. The Department stated that the program is to deliver the Treaty Education Program. It said that the training is necessary to “ensure the workplace is culturally safe and inclusive for Aboriginal Victorians.”
The program has faced critics who argue that race-based training is inherently divisive. Much of the criticism contends that the Department’s white privilege training focuses on collective identity rather than individual merit. The argument is that this can undermine the neutrality of the public service.
John Storey, director of law and policy at the Institute of Public Affairs, argued that such initiatives risk damaging the public’s trust in the legal system. He stated that the government has a “habit of seeking to divide the community by race,” which he believes leads to a “deterioration of social cohesion” within Victoria.
Brian Marlow, executive director of the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance, slammed the use of public funds for what he described as “far-left courses.” He claimed the workshops are “deliberately designed with the express purpose of dividing our culture” and fostering resentment among the workforce.
Victorian premier Jacinta Allan said that criticism focussing on the program’s white privilege module was “a bit rough” when viewed against the broader goal of making workplaces “safe and respectful for everyone.” She emphasised that the module is optional for staff.
Meanwhile, Victoria’s Corrections and Youth Justice Minister Enver Erdogan acknowledged the friction caused by the white privilege module. He stood by the training’s intent, though he conceded the module “probably could have been rebranded” to avoid the immediate controversy associated with the term “white privilege.”
On the other side of the political aisle, Victorian shadow justice minister Brad Battin believed the Department’s training program was part of a “woke agenda.” He formally pledged that a Coalition government would “scrap the white privilege module.” He argued that Victorians do not pay taxes to fund training that “discriminates on race.”
Turning back to the United States, there have been several legal cases involving workers who have successfully sued for anti-white racism. In 2021, a federal jury in North Carolina awarded $10 million to David Duvall, a former senior vice president at Novant Health. Mr. Duvall argued he was dismissed so the company could meet its diversity goals by replacing him with a woman and a black man. In 2024, an appeals court vacated the punitive damages. Mr. Duvall still received approximately $3.37 million in back and front pay.
Then, in 2023, a former Starbucks regional director was awarded $28 million after she successfully argued that she was sacrificed as a scapegoat in the company’s attempt to manage a national public relations crisis.
The regional director, Shannon Phillips, oversaw around 100 Starbucks stores and had been with the company for around 13 years. The incident that sparked her dismissal took place in April 2018, when two black men were arrested at a Starbucks in Philadelphia. The men were waiting for a business meeting and had not made a purchase when a store manager called 911. A viral video of the arrests sparked nationwide protests and forced Starbucks to close 8,000 stores for a day of racial bias training.
In the aftermath, Ms. Phillips claimed she worked tirelessly on crisis management. She organised roundtable meetings with Starbucks’ then-CEO and coordinated management teams to staff Philadelphia locations. Workers at these locations stated that they feared for their safety amid the protests.
According to court filings, Starbucks quickly sought to prove its commitment to racial equity. Ms. Phillips alleged that the company began taking steps to punish white employees who had not been involved in the arrests. She claimed this was an effort to convince the community that it had properly responded to the incident. Starbucks subsequently ordered Ms. Phillips to place a white district manager on administrative leave due to alleged discriminatory conduct.
Ms. Phillips objected, noting that the manager had been with the company for 15 years and did not oversee the Philadelphia store. She also claimed the allegations against the manager were factually incorrect. Ms. Phillips also pointed out that the manager of the store, who was black and had promoted the store manager who made the 911 call, faced no disciplinary action. Less than a month after the arrests, Ms. Phillips was dismissed by Starbucks. The only explanation provided to her at the time was that “the situation is not recoverable.”
During Ms. Phillips’ federal trial, the jury found that Ms. Phillips’ race was a determinative factor in the company’s decision to dismiss her. The court awarded her $25 million in punitive damages and $600,000 in compensatory damages. It later decided to award her an additional $2,736,755 to cover back pay, front pay and tax gross. This brought the total dismissal payout to more than $28.3 million.
Read more: When DEI Backfires: Dismissed After Gender Equity Pay Cut
Under Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Fair Work Act 2009, discrimination is illegal regardless of the race of the victim. The law protects every Australian worker from being treated less favourably due to their race. This means that an employer cannot legally use race as a basis for a negative employment decision against a white employee any more than they could against a minority employee.
Any employee who feels they have been treated unfavourably can lodge an unfair dismissal or general protections claim with the Fair Work Commission. Or they can lodge a formal racial discrimination complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission.
If you have faced discrimination, unfair dismissal, forced resignation or any other workplace violation, our team can help. Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives has decades of experience helping workers across the country take action through the Fair Work Commission.
With our help, you can get the compensation you deserve and hold your employer to account. We offer a no win, no fee service, and your first consultation with us is private and free. Strict deadlines often apply when making a Fair Work Commission claim, so contact us now on 1800 333 666 to get started.
