reverse discrimination

[quarrel]

A friend and coworker has fallen hard for the argument that any deliberate attempt to lessen any kind of discrimination is, itself, equally-unethical discrimination, and I don’t know how to convince him otherwise.

His argument is straightforward. If you intentionally do something that increases the number of people employed from Demographic Group X, and the total number of jobs doesn’t change, basic math says you’ve caused a decrease in the number of people employed from Demographic Group Not-X. And intentionally causing people to be employed less because of their demographic group is discrimination, which is always equally bad.

I tried pointing out that his reasoning produces the nonsense conclusion that even if discrimination is a serious problem, by his logic there are literally zero moral ways to do anything about it in short order. That didn’t phase him. The only ethical course of action, in his mind, is for everyone to hire the way they always have, teach our children that discrimination is bad, and trust that future generations naturally produce a more meritorious employee pool without the use of hiring quotas, variable entry requirements, targeted outreach, or any other intentional attempt to produce any outcome besides the status quo.

I’m not sure what to do next. I tried telling him not to read between the lines — not to interpret wishes for more diversity as personal attacks against him or as accusations that he himself is responsible for the male dominance in our society. He’s unconvinced. All I’ve managed so far is to caution him against reading forum comments and to take articles from non-mainstream viewpoints with a grain of salt when they appear in sensationalist form on mainstream websites.