I posted an example of it earlier in the thread. All the white guys who didn't get scholarship offers for the 30 years John Thompson coached Georgetown and recruited exclusively black players in order to promote opportunities for them, but not white guys. Post 205 FYI
African Americans, despite being a racial minority, have made up the majority of NCAA and NBA players since the 1970s and 1980s. In 2023, they represented 14% of the U.S. population but accounted for 70% of the NBA, a fact that is unrelated to preferential hiring or reverse racism. Thompson's preferential recruiting could be interpreted as virtue-signaling, affirmative action, or discrimination. However, it was arguably in effect a self-serving strategy that benefitted the Hoyas' win percentage to target talented Black players for recruitment—most of whom probably would have been selected anyway based on merit alone, making this an imperfect example.
Another contemporary example that is perhaps cleaner to use is
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious university admissions policies discriminated against White and Asian applicants. I'll also point out that studies on affirmative action highlight the fact that race alone can be an overly simplistic factor for determining who is underprivileged versus privileged or powerful. These studies indicate that, contrary to their intent, affirmative action policies largely benefit economically advantaged African Americans or privileged first and second-generation immigrants from African or Caribbean countries, rather than African Americans who are socio-economically disadvantaged, descendants of enslaved individuals, and/or victims of systemic racism.