I am also confused by the argument that "reverse racism" doesn't exist.
For the most part, the context in which “reverse discrimination” claims are brought up doesn’t involve potentially day-to-day things like a minority business owner refusing to sell to Caucasians (real but illegal), but rather in response to programs that are trying to rectify past discriminatory practices (real but legal).
For example, my father was a student representative on his college’s admissions board. Each applicant was given points for a variety of qualities. So, because of an affirmative action policy, minority applicants were given 1 point.
However, there were admissions points available to Caucasian students that were, for the most part, not available to minority applicants, such as being a “Legacy”* applicant. Legacy points were not available to minority students because the school had a past history of barring minorities.
So the thing is, while someone may raise a “reverse discrimination” claim regarding school admissions because of an affirmative action program, the reality is, many of those same people would likely also decry eliminating favorable treatment of Legacy applicants.
Even though some affirmative action plans have been in place for decades, they’re combatting discriminatory policies that were in place for a century or more. Combine that differential in time with racial demographics in general, and the math still favors the Caucasian applicant.
Which is part of why those lawsuits almost always fail. (There’s more to it, yes, but I’m just pointing out one aspect of it.)
* for those unfamiliar, a “Legacy” applicant is one who has relatives- especially ancestors- who were also admitted to the school.