|Part of a series on|
Racial discrimination is any discrimination against individuals on the basis of their skin colour, or racial or ethnic origin. Individuals can discriminate by refusing to do business with, socialize with, or share resources with people of a certain group. Governments can discriminate in a de facto fashion or explicitly in law, for example through policies of racial segregation, disparate enforcement of laws, or disproportionate allocation of resources. Some jurisdictions have anti-discrimination laws which prohibit the government or individuals from discriminating based on race (and sometimes other factors) in various circumstances. Some institutions and laws use affirmative action to attempt to overcome or compensate for the effects of racial discrimination. In some cases, this is simply enhanced recruitment of members of underrepresented groups; in other cases there are firm racial quotas. Opponents of strong remedies like quotas characterize them as reverse discrimination, where members of a dominant or majority group are discriminated against.
Racial boundaries can involve many different factors (such as ancestry, physical appearance, national origin, language, religion, and culture), and may be set in law by governments, or may depend on local cultural norms.
Discrimination based on skin color (measured for example on the Fitzpatrick scale) is closely related to racial discrimination, as skin color is often used as a proxy for race in everyday interactions, and is one factor used by legal systems that apply detailed criteria. For example, the Population Registration Act, 1950 was used to enforce the apartheid system in South Africa, and Brazil has set up boards to assign a racial category to people for the purpose of enforcing racial quotas. Because of genetic variation, skin color and other physical appearance can vary considerably even among siblings. Some children with the same parents either self-identify or are identified by others as being of different races. In some cases, the same person is identified as a different race on a birth certificate versus a death certificate. Different rules (such as hypodescent vs. hyperdescent) classify the same people differently, and for various reasons some people "pass" as a member of a different race than they would otherwise be classified in, possibly avoiding legal or interpersonal discrimination.
A given race is sometimes defined as a set of ethnicities from populations in neighboring geographic areas (such as a continent like Australia or a subcontinental region like South Asia) that are typically similar in appearance. In such cases, racial discrimination can occur because someone is of an ethnicity defined as outside that race, or ethnic discrimination (or ethnic hatred, ethnic conflict, and ethnic violence) can occur between groups who consider each other to be the same race. Discrimination based on caste is similar; because caste is hereditary, people of the same caste are usually considered to be of the same race and ethnicity.
A person's national origin (the country in which they were born or have citizenship) is sometimes used in determining a person's ethnicity or race, but discrimination based on national origin can also be independent of race (and is sometimes specifically addressed in anti-discrimination laws). Language and culture are sometimes markers of national origin, and can prompt instances of discrimination based on national origin. For example, someone of a South Asian ethnicity who grew up in London, speaks British English with a London accent, and whose family has assimilated to British culture might be treated more favorably than someone of the same ethnicity who is a recent immigrant and speaks Indian English. Such a difference in treatment might still informally be described as a form of racism, or more precisely as xenophobia or anti-immigrant sentiment.
In countries where migration, unification, or breakup has occurred relatively recently, the process of ethnogenesis may complicate determination of both ethnicity and race, and is related to personal identity or affiliation. Sometimes the ethnicity of immigrants in their new country is defined as their national origin, and span multiple races. For example, the the 2015 Community Survey of the United States Census accepted identification as Mexican Americans of any race (for example including Native Americans from Mexico, descendants of Africans transported to New Spain as enslaved people, and descendants of Spanish colonists). In surveys taken by the Mexican government, the same people would have been described as indigenous, black, or white (with a large number of people unclassified who might be described as Mestizo). The U.S. census asks separate questions about Hispanic and Latino Americans to distinguish language from racial identity. Discrimination based on being Hispanic or Latino does occur in the United States, and might be considered a form of racial discrimination if "Hispanic" or "Latino" are considered a new racial category derived from ethnicities which formed after the independence of the former colonies of the Americas. Many statistical reports apply both characteristics, for example comparing Non-Hispanic whites to other groups.
When people of different races are treated differently, decisions about how to treat a particular person raise the question of which racial classification that person belongs to. For example, definitions of whiteness in the United States were used before the civil rights movement for purpose of immigration and ability to hold citizenship or be enslaved. If a race is defined as a set of ethnolinguistic groups, then common language origin can be used to define the boundaries of that group. The status of Finns as white was challenged on the grounds that the Finnish language is Uralic rather than Indo-European, purportedly making the Finns of the Mongoloid race. The common American notion that all people of geographically European ancestry and of light skin are "white" prevailed for Finns, and other European immigrants like Irish Americans and Italian Americans whose whiteness was challenged and who faced interpersonal if not legal discrimination. American and South African laws which divided the population into whites from Europe and blacks from sub-Saharan Africa often caused problems of interpretation when dealing with people from other areas, such as the rest of the Mediterranean Basin, Asia, North Africa, or even Native Americans, with classification as non-white usually resulting in legal discrimination. (Some Native American tribes have treaty rights which grant priviledges rather than disadvantages, though these were often negotiated on unfavorable terms.) Though as an ethno-religious group they often face religious discrimination, the whiteness of all Jews was also challenged in the United States, with attempts to classify them as Asiatic (Palestine being in western Asia) or Semitic (which would also include Arabs). The actual ancestry of most Jewish people is more varied than simply ancient Hebrew tribes. As the Jewish diaspora spread across Europe and Africa over time many Jewish ethnic divisions arose, resulting in Jews who identify as white, black, and other races. The reunification of diverse populations in modern Israel has led to some problems of racial discrimination against dark-skinned Jews by light-skinned Jews.
According to World Values Survey data, as analyzed by The Washington Post, the least tolerant country worldwide is Jordan. According to this study, racial tolerance is also low in ethnically diverse Asian countries, while Western and Central Europe and the United States are relatively racially tolerant.
More than 30 years of field experiment studies have found significant levels of discrimination against non-whites in labor, housing, and product markets in 10 different countries.
The constitution of Liberia renders non-Blacks ineligible for citizenship.
With regard to employment, multiple audit studies have found strong evidence of racial discrimination in the United States' labor market, with magnitudes of employers' preferences of white applicants found in these studies ranging from 50% to 240%. Other such studies have found significant evidence of discrimination in car sales, home insurance applications, provision of medical care, and hailing taxis. There is some debate regarding the method used to signal race in these studies.
Discrimination may occur at any point in the employment process, including pre-employment inquiries, hiring practices, compensation, work assignments and conditions, privileges granted to employees, promotion, employee discipline and termination.
Researchers Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, at the University of Chicago and MIT found in a 2004 study, that there was widespread racial discrimination in the workplace. In their study, candidates perceived as having "white-sounding names" were 50% more likely than those whose names were merely perceived as "sounding black" to receive callbacks for interviews. The researchers view these results as strong evidence of unconscious biases rooted in the United States' long history of discrimination (e.g., Jim Crow laws, etc.)
Devah Pager, a sociologist at Princeton University, sent matched pairs of applicants to apply for jobs in Milwaukee and New York City, finding that black applicants received callbacks or job offers at half the rate of equally qualified whites. Another recent audit by UCLA sociologist S. Michael Gaddis examines the job prospects of black and white college graduates from elite private and high quality state higher education institutions. This research finds that blacks who graduate from an elite school such as Harvard have about the same prospect of getting an interview as whites who graduate from a state school such as UMass Amherst.
Multiple experimental audit studies conducted in the United States have found that blacks and Hispanics experience discrimination in about one in five and one in four housing searches, respectively.
A 2014 study also found evidence of racial discrimination in an American rental apartment market.
Studies have shown an association between reported racial discrimination and adverse physical and mental health outcomes. This evidence has come from multiple countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand.
Racial bias exists in the medical field affecting the way patients are treated and the way they are diagnosed. There are instances where patients’ words are not taken seriously, an example would be the recent case with Serena Williams. After the birth of her daughter via C-section, the tennis player began to feel pain and shortness of breath. It took her several times to convince the nurse they actually took her self-said symptoms seriously. Had she not been persistent and demanded a CT scan, which showed a clot resulting in blood thinning, Williams might have not been alive. This is just one of hundred’s of cases where systemic racism can affect women of color in pregnancy complications.
One of the factors that lead to higher mortality rates amongst black mothers is the poorly conditioned hospitals and lack of standard healthcare facilities. Along with having deliveries done in underdeveloped areas, situation becomes complicated when the pain dealt by patients are not taken seriously by healthcare providers. Pain heard from patients of color are underestimated by doctors compared to pain told by patients who are white leading them to misdiagnose.
Many say that the education level of people affect whether or not they admit to healthcare facilities, leaning to the argument that people of color purposefully avoid hospitals compared to white counterparts however, this is not the case. Even Serena Williams, a well-known athlete, was not taken seriously when she described her pain. It is true that the experiences of patients in hospital settings influence whether or not they return to healthcare facilities. Black people are less likely to admit to hospitals however those that are admitted have longer stays than white people 
The longer hospitalization of black patients does not improve care conditions, it makes it worse, especially when treated poorly by faculty. Not a lot of minorities are admitted into hospitals and those that are receive poor conditioned treatment and care. This discrimination results in misdiagnosis and medical mistakes that lead to high death rates.
Although the Medicaid program was passed to ensure African Americans and other minorities received the healthcare treatment they deserved and to limit discrimination in hospital facilities, there still seems to be an underlying cause for the low number of black patients admitted to hospitals, like not receiving the proper dosage of medication. Infant mortality rates and life expectancies of minorities are much lower than that of white people in the United States. Illnesses like cancer and heart diseases are more prevalent in minorities, which is one of the factors for the high mortality rate in the group. however are not treated accordingly.
Although programs like medicaid exists to support minorities, there still seems to be a large number of people who are not insured. This financial drawback discourages people in the group to go to hospitals and doctors offices.
Financial and cultural influences can impact the way patients are treated by their healthcare providers. When doctors have a bias on a patient, it can lead to the formation of stereotypes, impacting the way they view their patient's data and diagnosis, affecting the treatment plan they implement.
Reverse discrimination is a term for allegations that the member of a dominant or majority group has suffered discrimination for the benefit of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.
In the United States, courts have upheld race-conscious policies when they are used to promote a diverse work or educational environment. Some critics have described those policies as discriminating against white people. In response to arguments that such policies (e.g. affirmative action) constitute discrimination against whites, sociologists note that the purpose of these policies is to level the playing field to counteract discrimination.
A 2016 poll found that 38% of US citizens thought that Whites faced a lot of discrimination. Among Democrats, 29% thought there was some discrimination against Whites in the United States, while 49% of Republicans thought the same. Similarly, another poll conducted earlier in the year found that 41% of US citizens believed there was "widespread" discrimination against whites. There is evidence that some people are motivated to believe they are the victims of reverse discrimination because the belief bolsters their self-esteem.
In the United States, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits all racial discrimination based on race. Although some courts have taken the position that a white person must meet a heightened standard of proof to prove a reverse-discrimination claim, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) applies the same standard to all claims of racial discrimination without regard to the victim's race.
Controlled experiments, using matched pairs of bogus transactors, to test for discrimination in the marketplace have been conducted for over 30 years, and have extended across 10 countries. Significant, persistent and pervasive levels of discrimination have been found against non-whites and women in labour, housing and product markets.