The process of how discrimination is carried out by teachers, professors and those pretending to be someone's mentor

There used to be student in my class who would indulge in theft activities right in full view of everyone's eyes ,but of course by a very clever way of shielding himself in case he would get caught. He would freely pick things from other's school bag and if caught, he would say that he was only giving the person a practise in keeping his stuff nicely secured, as if only being a good mentor in training him to keep his guard fast.
And ofcourse, the other times if the person failed to notice, the object stealing mission would get successful.
This method of theiving was not a sure shot, targeted mechanism, but it was surely a more successful, more guarded path to doing a wrong, that too in full view of everyone, and  thus this method worked on a statistically higher bet of success.

Teachers, professors in college and the appraising officers in offices indulge in discrimination behaviour on the very similar lines. The easier method of indulging in discrimination is by pretending to be playing someone's Mentor and then giving the person more difficult and harder task so as to induce a wrong, a fault , a mistake or an accident by him. This way, the discrimination-doer manages to hide away his true intentions of whom he wishes to favour, as he works by fouling the prospects of the person whom he wishes to disfavor.

Such practitioners of discrimination tactics can be heard making accusations on the person of dislike of "not having enough confidence in him", and then subjecting the person to actions or task in order to "test his performance" while themselves departing from 'rule of law'. The instant defence available, if caught, is that "he is only testing his abilities".

The difficulty of victim in this method is that it is very difficult to report and convince his own peer of how he was not actually being tested for his performance and abilities, but truly being subjected to discrimination by being induced to making errors, mistake and an accident by being subjected to more difficult conditions than his other favoured colleague. The victim is not able to draw support of his true peers.

For many centuries, the teachers and professors and office senior managers alike , having ill- intentions of discriminating against someone, have acted like the above and thereof produced better "merit" in their favoured pupil as against "poor performance" in their disfavoured pupil.
And ofcourse , these people have then argued against the social-justice policies by calling it to be working against the "deserved" by promoting the "reserved"