You’ll be shocked to find I absolutely agree. I also think their parents should get vouchers to send their kids to the school of their choice. (So should all parents.) In the meantime, it doesn’t hurt to let some of their parents or soon-to-be parents into college now.
I have to address one point of your argument, though. In one direction, you argue that equality doesn’t mean that every person gets the same thing, and that individuals differ in ability and achievement. In the other direction, you argue against affirmative action on the basis that it harms some white individuals; seems to me that you should agree that not all white individuals will have the same things. This seems to me to be a contradiction, but I’m in a position to be corrected.
Actually, that’s all I view myself as, because I don’t know from what other country my forefathers came from. Yes, I HAVE researched it and it’s about as difficult as researching the last name of Jones or Smith. My living family only goes back to my grandparents and they were born in the Midwest, where I live now. So, that’s why I view myself as “white”. I doubt I’m alone in that.
Actually, I don’t like racism in any form and I have spoken out before (no, not on this board, at school and church) both in defense of “whites” and minorities. My community and school have a large percentage of minorities. Would you agree that race-blind policies would eventually “level the playing field”?
So, in summary of the thread: Yes, people would protest if there was a specifically “white” scholarship, but they’d be justified in doing so. Right?
Hm, I have a question. Do you think that scholarships specifically for women are sexist? Do you feel outraged that you (if you are a male) cannot apply for these scholarships?
What about athletic scholarships? Not only are they giving good money to many SAT-substandard former criminals that can dunk a basket (I’m looking at you, Latrell Sprewell) or catch a pass, but they are robbing universities of much needed funds for kids that could really use it. I’d love to see minority kids that could put that money to use actually get it. The world needs more minority doctors, accountants, and scientists-role models for their communities that show obtainable goals (what’s the percentage of college hoops players that make it to the NBA? Not very high, IIRC).
Back to the OP, while a black-specific scholarship is pretty common, and white-specific (under other names) is rather common, what about Asian folks? Are there a lot of Asian-specific scholarships? And what are our responses to that concept?
As far as athletic scholarships go, that is comparing apples to oranges in this thread. Certainly, a case can be made for overhauling how athletes are compensated at our universities; however, here you are talking about an ability or achievement.
Race or sex is something you are born with; not something you practice to get better at until you are in a position to stand above your peers.
…
From personal experience: I attended a large public state university for my undergraduate program. I came out of HS with a 31 ACT (which I believe was in the top 2% before they restructured the scoring system). GPA right at 4.0, etc… I did not get an offer of financial aid from the school based on my academic acheivement. I later found out that blacks could get a full-paid scholarship based on an ACT of 22.
My understanding was that the situation at the time I applied was that the pool of money granted by the state legislature for scholarship purposes ran out or was lower than expected. But I contend that one of the reasons the pool ran short by the time they got to me is that they were giving out the money in an unfairly-weighted manner. Whites one threshhold; blacks another. “We ran out before we got to you? To bad.”
I found this to be unfair, but since I was able to get financial aid through other avenues (GI Bill; Pell Grant), it didn’t make much of a difference to me as far as outcome goes. And I’m sure, based on some of the posts I have read, that someone will pop up to tell me that this actually was a fair policy based on societal justice, evening the playing field, or rectifying past discrimination.
MrZ: So, it was a private school, and you don’t know whether or not it received federal funds? I thought you were on the admissions counsel. Wouldn’t someone in a position such as that have a better idea whether or not federal funds were received? Or is it far more likely that any monies doled out came from the school itself?
As has been pointed out, there are scholarships that are, for all intents and purposes, for white students. But when someone starts bitching about the fact that there exist scholarships that are for blacks only, I can usually expect the following, or something similar, to appear in their post:
And it’s the above attitude that I find reprehensible.
I have to agree with Garfield on this one…I don’t understand why a black only scholarship would be OK…but a white only one would be “racist.” That sounds like a double standard to me.
In reference to the “level” playing field not being a reality…I would be ok with the notion of NEED based scholarships that are race-neutral. If people of a certain racial group were most in need (say African-Americans) they would likely get most of the scholarships, however the scholarships would still be open to any white (or other group) of students who were in need. Could people actually agree that this might be fair?
Also a quick note to Kimstu and Mikehardware (hope I got your names right)
Those scholarships you mention are exceptions to the rule. No one is saying that there aren’t ANY white-only scholarships in the whole wide world, but you gotta search for them with a fine-tooth comb. Students of all races should have equal opportunity at all colleges, not just a select few who hope to recruit some white students. I fail to grasp how equality is such an alien concept to so many people.
Oh and someone mentioned the idea of improving inner-city schools so that various ethnic groups do not need “hand-outs” This seems to me to be the actual solution to this problem, not discriminatory college-level finances.
Also a thing to consider that “lowering the bar” as some have called it (which frankly, if you do not believe that this occurs, you are being naive) does have repercussions when these folks get into the real world and find that the bar gets raised again. It also has a general effect on the productivity of society.
Lets say you have an individual who is advanced to a position of power for racial reasons (be it black, white, hispanic, whatever). If that individual does not really have the ability, do you want him/her in charge of NORAD?
Incidentally, in reference to questions about sex and athletic based scholarships, actually I do agree sex based scholarships are generally in the same boat as racially based scholarships. As far as athletic scholarships, while I do not personally think someone with an 85 IQ ought be given full tuition and a Porsche while good students struggle under thousands of dollars in loans, I could POSSIBLY see where this could be argued as “merit-based”.
This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but not completely. How “black” do you have to be to receive a “black” scholarship? Say I have an African great-great-great-great-grandparent. That enough? Do you have to “look black?” What about if your mother is usually considered “black,” but you had a white father. Do you get half a scholarship? I bet I can find some black blood somewhere in my family, will that allow me to get one of these nice scholarships everyone is talking about?
I grew up in Appalachia, and attended a small-town public high school. I had a couple of friends who were juniors when I was a senior. Both of these guys were very smart, with good grades and strong test scores. They had similar economic backgrounds, which is to say that both were born to lower-end blue collar families, One was black, the other white. The black kid got a full ride to MIT. The white kid (whose grades and scores were slightly better) wound up getting a partial scholarship to a small state college, where he struggled with his finances, and took out loans to make ends meet.
Now, except for the color of their skin, these two guys were as much alike as any two guys could be. Both came from economically deprived backgrounds. We hung out in the same crowd. Both attended the same high school. Can anyone out there give me a rational justification for the wildly different outcomes? Why does one kid from an economically deprived background get an advantage over another based solely on the color of his skin?
I am all for helping those who come from underprivileged backgrounds, whether they are black or white (or any other color of the rainbow). I don’t think the playing field is level. It is an uphill struggle for poor folks, whatever their color. Scholarships should be color-blind, and based upon need, IMHO.
I won’t even address this story about your two high school buddies that has already been discussed if you will read the thread. But to reiterate…I is simply not logical to I did find this little article this morning. While not being exactly what we are talking about here it does demonstrate that the shoe also fits the other foot.
Ga. Appeals Court Rules in Favor of
Plaintiffs in Admissions Suit
ATLANTA — Atlanta lawyer Lee Parks says the Board of Regents
has met its “Gettysburg” in a federal appeals court ruling on a lawsuit claiming discriminatory admission practices at the University of Georgia. Parks predicts that U.S. District Judge Avant Edenfield of Savannah will reinstate 11 White and Black plaintiffs and find that the University System of Georgia has unconstitutional policies, including a failure to attract more White students to historically Black colleges. In a unanimous decision, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court Appeals ruled that Edenfield must reconsider his decisions that dismissed the plaintiffs on the basis that they lacked standing to file the federal lawsuit. “This is Gettysburg for the Board of Regents. They will either decide to fight on or realize it’s over,” Parks says.
In November, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that cases attacking race-based admissions policies can go forward even if race did not play a role in the rejection of a plaintiff’s college application. The 11th Circuit judges say Edenfield needs to consider that reasoning. Regents spokeswoman Arlethia Perry-Johnson declined to comment saying the board had yet to read the ruling.
The lawsuit, filed in March 1997, demanded the regents upgrade the state’s historically Black colleges — Albany State, Fort Valley State and Savannah State — and work out a way to attract more White students to them. It also called for an end to policies used by the University of Georgia that use race as a factor in admissions.
Edenfield says any racial preference in admissions “stigmatizes” minority students. After reviewing the evidence before him, the judge decided last summer that “UGA cannot constitutionally justify the affirmative use of race in its admissions decisions.”
Garfield thoughtfully inquired (incidentally disproving my snippy insinuation that s/he hasn’t been reading the posts carefully):
A very good question. I hope so, and if I were forced to bet money one way or the other, I’d go with the prediction that over the course of a few hundred years, they would in fact do so. But I’d keep my fingers crossed. White racism of varying degrees of intensity and virulence is still very much a force in this society. And since our culture is fundamentally consumerist (that is, largely based on encouraging exchanges of money and goods), there are strong financial motivations to pander to that racism. If large numbers of people don’t really like or feel comfortable with the notion of a truly integrated and egalitarian society, the media, for example, are less likely to portray one in books and films and TV. And if people don’t see images of society, or the real society around them, as being truly integrated and egalitarian, they are more likely to accept various forms of racial discrimination as being “normal” or “right” or “just the way the world is.” So, to borrow MetallicAsh’s very useful terms, I feel that significant doses of “substantive justice” are still desirable to make our cultural self-image less white-dominated, before we can devote ourselves strictly to “procedural justice.”
Oh, you don’t catch me that easily. What I would assert is that given the history and current status of racism and affirmative action, there’s a high probability that an attempt to institute a specifically “white” scholarship would be uninformed, silly, or even racist, and that I would have to scrutinize it carefully before concluding that it was morally okay. I freely admit, though, that 1) my opinion of its morality doesn’t matter to anyone but me, 2) the morality issue doesn’t affect its legal validity, and 3) many people would probably protest as a sort of knee-jerk reaction instead of giving the issue careful scrutiny and clear thought. Fighting ignorance always takes longer than you think!
(By the way, I think it’s kind of cool that your family has such a high level of assimilation that you really don’t have a more specific ethnic self-image than “Euro-American.” Do you have local or regional loyalties that sort of fill the gap? that is, do you identify very strongly as a Kansan or Nebraskan or Midwesterner or Badgers fan or whatever? I wonder if there are scholarships for Badgers fans and how one proves oneself qualified for them…whoops, there goes the off-topic alarm again.)
It looks as if the bar may have been lowered in the real world too. I look at the problems NASA has had in the past few years and it makes me wonder . . .
That is possible, but I don’t know. Much of the problem has to flow from unqualified people at the very top. Bureaucrats rather than scientists. The bar being lowered can apply to everyone, I guess.
spoke, I do think it’s a shame that your white friend didn’t get a better deal for his higher education, and I hope it didn’t end up hurting their friendship. But I think if you want to understand the outcomes, you have to pay some attention to what the colleges and their customers are trying to do. It can’t have escaped your notice that when colleges are making pitches to attract good applicants, “diversity” is one of their big selling points. Selective colleges put a good deal of emphasis on their claims to have a racially and culturally diverse student body—because they’ve seen that that’s what their customers (even, or especially, the white ones) want!
Smart young people tend to be an idealistic lot (as you can see even on this thread), and they don’t want to hang out for four years in a setting that looks like a pre-WWII staging of Charley’s Aunt. Most of the selective colleges’ biggest market sector—well-educated, well-off white kids—don’t want to spend their college years just with other well-off white kids, being taught by patrician white professors. They don’t like the idea of social and educational advantages being disproportionately allocated to white people, and they don’t want to choose such a skewed environment for their college education.
And since many factors, such as the race/wealth/academic performance correlation, not to mention “alumni-brat” admissions preferences (and why hasn’t anyone mentioned that as an example of effectively favoring whites in higher education?), make the qualified-applicant pool disproportionately white, selective colleges have to offset that with special advantages for non-white applicants if they want to provide the cultural diversity that keeps their enrollments high. (They also want the chance to train more minorities, and women, to become future college professors, because cultural diversity among the faculty is also important to their customers.)
So there you have it, spoke. Believe me, if non-diverse college environments would sell as well in their preferred markets, most colleges would be happy not to spend so much money and effort trying to attain proportional representation. Look at all the prestigious institutions that specifically excluded minorities, or capped them with restrictive quotas, before the middle of this century. But now the market wants egalitarianism and racial diversity in their college environments, so good minority applicants are a valuable commodity. Your black friend got a scholarship to MIT probably at least partly (after all, we didn’t see their applications or hear their interviews, and we have to allow for the possibility that he just made a better impression) because he could offer them something your white friend couldn’t: a higher level of racial diversity on their campus. If you say that ideally that shouldn’t be a consideration in a true academic meritocracy, I won’t argue with you. Just note the paradox that it is just those meritocratic ideals that have made college customers uncomfortable with the notion of lily-white, butter-rich college campuses, and consequently have made “diversity” such an important commodity. You wanted a rational explanation, and this is it.
Funny you should mention it, because I was mulling over this exact contradiction last night. Yes, it is a contradiction of sorts. But the situation is not entirely analogous. People will not get equal outcomes in life. Bu tthere should not be governmentally imosed barriers leveled at a certain class based on something other than ability.
But you are right. Arguing that individuals are harmed is not valid in my system. You got me. And I thought you didn’t read my posts…
I had a minor revelation in the shower regarding our disagreement here:
It seems to me that we are simultaneousluy arguing 3 issues: 1) race based scholarships are discriminatory
2) Such discrimination is just because of the plight of certain minorities
3) the playing field is unlevel
Can we agree that the race related scholarships, based on their own merits are discriminatory while disagreeing whether or not such discrimination is for the greater good of society?
I recall that they did, but I don’t want to promise anything because it was 15 years ago. Either way, their was discrimination in admittance policies and scholarship funds.
And, why on earth is this reprehensible? Why can’t I, as a manager, manage based on performance alone. It seems to me that the opposite situation was what spawned the EEOC.
What I would assert is that given the history and current status of racism and affirmative action, there’s a high probability that an attempt to institute a specifically “white” scholarship would be uninformed, silly, or even racist, and that I would have to scrutinize it carefully before concluding that it was morally okay. I freely admit, though, that 1) my opinion of its morality doesn’t matter to anyone but me, 2) the morality issue doesn’t affect its legal validity, and 3) many people would probably protest as a sort of knee-jerk reaction instead of giving the issue careful scrutiny and clear thought. Fighting ignorance always takes longer than you think!