Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Racist?

Seems like if the rationale for affirmative action is based on diversity, then there's no problem with this scholarship. If whites are under-represented at some schools, then it would be rationale to include a scholarship for whites. Alternatively, if the proportion of whites at a school isn't proportionate to the population in a given area (e.g. UC Berkeley is only 32% white, while California is 59.5% white), shouldn't there be an outreach towards white students?

Just for fun, substitute "black" or "hispanic" for "white" above.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for there to be any stigma towards one race getting a race-based scholarship over another, but there is. Why do we immediately think "RACIST" when we see a whites-only scholarship, but "totally OK" when there's a blacks-only scholarship.

* yes, I realize that Huffington Post is generally biased and one article was, to quote a Slate.com editor, "the greatest example of SEO whoring of all time." But hey, they were first on google (wait...)

Background information:
http://www.blacknews.com/directory/black_african_american_scholarships.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/19/us/judge-upholds-blacks-only-scholarship-at-university-of-maryland.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tompkins_v_Alabama_State_University

This... will not end well.

I don't see what's wrong with celebrating your lineage, just because your lineage doesn't include a skin color which is a different color from normal. And one can't have equality between races if a race is penalized for the same reason.

Melissa wrote:I don't see what's wrong with celebrating your lineage, just because your lineage doesn't include a skin color which is a different color from normal. And one can't have equality between races if a race is penalized for the same reason.

...Huh?...Please forgive me,but I'm having a bit of difficulty trying to determine exactly what it is your trying to say here..

Not racist if its justified.

FITZZ wrote:

Melissa wrote:I don't see what's wrong with celebrating your lineage, just because your lineage doesn't include a skin color which is a different color from normal. And one can't have equality between races if a race is penalized for the same reason.

...Huh?...Please forgive me,but I'm having a bit of difficulty trying to determine exactly what it is your trying to say here..

...?

I meant exactly what I said... equality between races can't exist if one races (whites) is penalized for being the majority. So to me the scholarships are perfectly fine.

There are a lot of poor white kids out there in poverty unable to move up, and they have fewer opportunities than poor black kids because they themselves aren't black or they aren't hispanic or they aren't asian or whatever other minority.

IMHO they should do away with any and all scholarships that include race, religion, or creed. In addition, I think that scholarships for athletic ability should be bases of the students abilities in academics, as should all scholarships.

Race has zero influence on a persons abilities to become educated, and thereby should not be a factor.

Athletic prowess has zero influence on educational ability either.

It is time that we bring school of higher learning back to what they should be, institutions for higher learning. Not social clubs that want to make sure they are being PC by have the right percentage of blacks/whites/hispanic/asian so on so forth.

biccat wrote:
Seems like if the rationale for affirmative action is based on diversity, then there's no problem with this scholarship

It isn't just based on diversity though. That's part of it, but there's also questions of things like relative opportunity and the legacy of oppression; both of which have be covered many times by people that are paid to do so.

biccat wrote:
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for there to be any stigma towards one race getting a race-based scholarship over another, but there is. Why do we immediately think "RACIST" when we see a whites-only scholarship, but "totally OK" when there's a blacks-only scholarship.

You're far from the first person to ask this question, and the various answers that have provided throughout history are sufficiently wrote as to make be believe that you're not actually asking a question here, but attempting to make a point regarding your beliefs with respect to affirmative action. If that's the case, then you should probably just go ahead and do so in clear fashion.

Also, as far as I know, there is no such thing as a blacks-only scholarship. There are scholarships that are limited to minorities (where minority isn't clearly defined), but not scholarships that are limited to blacks.

Any and all scholarships should be awarded on ability or need, not on race or gender.

The same as jobs should be given based on qualifications and experience rather than if you are in a wheelchair or your religion.

Melissa wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Melissa wrote:I don't see what's wrong with celebrating your lineage, just because your lineage doesn't include a skin color which is a different color from normal. And one can't have equality between races if a race is penalized for the same reason.

...Huh?...Please forgive me,but I'm having a bit of difficulty trying to determine exactly what it is your trying to say here..

...?

I meant exactly what I said... equality between races can't exist if one races (whites) is penalized for being the majority. So to me the scholarships are perfectly fine.

There are a lot of poor white kids out there in poverty unable to move up, and they have fewer opportunities than poor black kids because they themselves aren't black or they aren't hispanic or they aren't asian or whatever other minority.

Ok..I get you,your initial post was a bit vague in wording that's all.
...And I'm inclined to agree,racial "equality" can't exist if whites are excluded/penalized simply because of skin color.

Phototoxin wrote:Not racist if its justified.

That doesn't make any sense.

If its racist, then it racist regardless of any circumstance.

I think you meant to say that it is racist, but racism isn't necessarily bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:Any and all scholarships should be awarded on ability or need, not on race or gender.

The same as jobs should be given based on qualifications and experience rather than if you are in a wheelchair or your religion.

If I'm white, then I certainly lack the ability to be black just as if I'm an atheist I cannot be a priest.

SilverMK2 wrote:Any and all scholarships should be awarded on ability or need, not on race or gender.

The same as jobs should be given based on qualifications and experience rather than if you are in a wheelchair or your religion.

Exactly...I support the idea of "Best/most qualified person" for the Job/scholarship...

When I was in school in undergrad I had to pay out of state tuition for a year. Meanwhile foreign students were bing permitted to pay in state tuition rates, and so were illegal immigrants. And the school wonders why I don't donate...

Agreed, no equality until race/creed/sex are stricken from the requirements for any scholarship.

dogma wrote:If I'm white, then I certainly lack the ability to be black just as if I'm an atheist I cannot be a priest.

Whilst an atheist would most probably not apply to be a priest, if they have the qualifications and experience, as well as the desire to do the job, I see no reason for excluding them from applying and even being employed, assuming there is not someone who is more qualified with more experience.

And if I am white and fulfill the criteria of need and have the appropriate grades/pre-requisites, why should I be excluded from gaining a scholarship simply because I am white? (replace "white" with your colour, race, gender, or other tag of choice.

dogma wrote:It isn't just based on diversity though. That's part of it, but there's also questions of things like relative opportunity and the legacy of oppression; both of which have be covered many times by people that are paid to do so.

Yup.

Money quote:

the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

Wikipedia put in the "United States Constitution." IIRC, she was referring to the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

dogma wrote:You're far from the first person to ask this question, and the various answers that have provided throughout history are sufficiently wrote as to make be believe that you're not actually asking a question here, but attempting to make a point regarding your beliefs with respect to affirmative action. If that's the case, then you should probably just go ahead and do so in clear fashion.

Actually I saw it linked to on another website. But I really do appreciate your default position that I'm racist. Seriously, nice job.

dogma wrote:Also, as far as I know, there is no such thing as a blacks-only scholarship. There are scholarships that are limited to minorities (where minority isn't clearly defined), but not scholarships that are limited to blacks.

Here's just one. Wonder where I found it? Here's a hint.

So, given that there are blacks-only scholarships (or African-American, which is a discussion for another day), do you think whites-only scholarships are racist?

biccat wrote:
Yup.

Money quote:

the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

Wikipedia put in the "United States Constitution." IIRC, she was referring to the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Since when do legal opinions entail the sum of all support for a given institution?

biccat wrote:
Actually I saw it linked to on another website. But I really do appreciate your default position that I'm racist. Seriously, nice job.

I didn't say that you were racist, I said that it appeared as though you were trying to make a statement and not ask a question because this topic has been covered, at length, in the public sphere.

biccat wrote:
Here's just one. Wonder where I found it? Here's a hint.

That website hasn't been seemingly updated since 2007 (aside from the Obama reference), and when I run a Google search for the organization the only thing that returns is the website in question. There is no application attached to the site, and there is no mention of such a scholarship on any financial aid page at any historically black college, there aren't even any emails attached to it, so....

biccat wrote:
So, given that there are blacks-only scholarships (or African-American, which is a discussion for another day), do you think whites-only scholarships are racist?

What do you mean by "racist"? There's almost no agreement regarding what the word means.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:When I was in school in undergrad I had to pay out of state tuition for a year. Meanwhile foreign students were bing permitted to pay in state tuition rates, and so were illegal immigrants. And the school wonders why I don't donate...

The in-state out-state tuition thing is weird. Some schools don't really charge anyone out-state tuition, others charge everyone they can (to the point where campus residency is not considered proof of residence).

You actually got pretty lucky.

dogma wrote:What do you mean by "racist"? There's almost no agreement regarding what the word means.

To be honest, I have no intention of engaging in another stupid thread where I spend four pages trying to explain what a certain term means to your repeated attempts to obfuscate and confuse the issue. Maybe you can find someone else to play.

If you don't have an opinion relevant to the topic, why bother posting?

It's pretty silly to ask whether or not a given thing is adjective and not have a definition for adjective so that it's known what the question actually is.

If you're not prepared to engage with criticism, why bother posting?

Thread re-opened for further participation. Please keep it civil, everyone!

biccat wrote:
To be honest, I have no intention of engaging in another stupid thread where I spend four pages trying to explain what a certain term means to your repeated attempts to obfuscate and confuse the issue. Maybe you can find someone else to play.

What the term means, or what you believe the term means? They're different things.

biccat wrote:
If you don't have an opinion relevant to the topic, why bother posting?

My opinion is that there is no collective agreement on what constitutes racism, or even if racism is bad. These are relevant to the topic.

If you're looking for someone to make declarative statements, then I'm probably not your guy.

Melissia wrote:I don't see what's wrong with celebrating your lineage, just because your lineage doesn't include a skin color which is a different color from normal. And one can't have equality between races if a race is penalized for the same reason.

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it this way and that this is just an example of poor wording. That said, I just wanted to point out that quite a few people could take serious issue with the implication that white skin is "normal" and that other skin colors are all somehow "a different color from normal." Just something you might want to be careful of, if you engage in a lot of this type of discussion and would prefer to keep things civil.

BICCAT - there is an IGNORE function when you post. You might avail yourself of that option.

Hordini wrote:

Melissia wrote:I don't see what's wrong with celebrating your lineage, just because your lineage doesn't include a skin color which is a different color from normal. And one can't have equality between races if a race is penalized for the same reason.

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it this way and that this is just an example of poor wording. That said, I just wanted to point out that quite a few people could take serious issue with the implication that white skin is "normal" and that other skin colors are all somehow "a different color from normal." Just something you might want to be careful of, if you engage in a lot of this type of discussion and would prefer to keep things civil.

There are only two skin colors that matter; pink and blue.

Hordini wrote:

Melissia wrote:I don't see what's wrong with celebrating your lineage, just because your lineage doesn't include a skin color which is a different color from normal. And one can't have equality between races if a race is penalized for the same reason.

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it this way and that this is just an example of poor wording. That said, I just wanted to point out that quite a few people could take serious issue with the implication that white skin is "normal" and that other skin colors are all somehow "a different color from normal." Just something you might want to be careful of, if you engage in a lot of this type of discussion and would prefer to keep things civil.

I'm sure Melissia was refering to blue, green, and hot pink skined people

Hordini wrote:I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it this way and that this is just an example of poor wording. That said, I just wanted to point out that quite a few people could take serious issue with the implication that white skin is "normal"

In the U.S., white skin is "normal" becuase "whites" are the majority. If someone can't handle simple facts, I can tell them where they can shove their "moral" outrage.

Just because something isn't normal doesn't mean it's bad...

Melissia wrote:

Hordini wrote:I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it this way and that this is just an example of poor wording. That said, I just wanted to point out that quite a few people could take serious issue with the implication that white skin is "normal"

In the U.S., white skin is "normal" becuase "whites" are the majority. If someone can't handle simple facts, I can tell them where they can shove their "moral" outrage.

Oh dear... I'm sensing something beginning with 'hypo' and ending with 'crite'.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Melissia wrote:I don't see what's wrong with celebrating your lineage, just because your lineage doesn't include a skin color which is a different color from normal. And one can't have equality between races if a race is penalized for the same reason.

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it this way and that this is just an example of poor wording. That said, I just wanted to point out that quite a few people could take serious issue with the implication that white skin is "normal" and that other skin colors are all somehow "a different color from normal." Just something you might want to be careful of, if you engage in a lot of this type of discussion and would prefer to keep things civil.

I'm sure Melissia was refering to blue, green, and hot pink skined people

Well to be honest...the use of the word "Normal" is one of the things that gave me pause to begin with..
However..Due to previous post content..I'd never think of Melissia as having "Racist" leanings.

Right, I'm heavily biased against peoples's ideologies, personalities, and actions, not against their physical traits.

Hordini wrote:

Melissia wrote:I don't see what's wrong with celebrating your lineage, just because your lineage doesn't include a skin color which is a different color from normal. And one can't have equality between races if a race is penalized for the same reason.

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it this way and that this is just an example of poor wording. That said, I just wanted to point out that quite a few people could take serious issue with the implication that white skin is "normal" and that other skin colors are all somehow "a different color from normal." Just something you might want to be careful of, if you engage in a lot of this type of discussion and would prefer to keep things civil.

I assume that she meant the norm as in the most common