I would never accept an invitation for tea with an asshole.
Motives are more important than results? I’m sure the people in an impoverished 3rd world nation that need clean water don’t care that much.
The idea that it’s more important to make sure everyone believes the right things than to accept their generosity scare the bejeebers out of me. The fact that some people can’t see how that leads to reeducation camps is scarier.
sorry for the duplicate line, but it wouldn’t post my edit.
I can’t imagine a scenario in which someone that entrenched in their racism would be swayed by anything I could say, so might as well leave him to hand out his money. If black people don’t want to take money from an overt racist, that is entirely their prerogative and I won’t think ill of them for either refusing it or taking it.
But insisting that people “not be racist” does not lead to re-education camps.
To be fair to BigT, on re-reading, I take his second paragraph to mean there is some assured level of expected success in making the challenge.
Although I think that’s still an interesting question: how sure of success do we need to be before we try? Should we try anyway, out of sheer principle, even when failure is guaranteed? Some would probably argue yes.
Okay, but saying this doesn’t address the paradox that the educated philantropist will somehow now believe black people merit zero charity.
To be persuasive, the presentation you’re hypothesizing would need to explain why the low socioeconomic status of black Americans is not a product of their innate abilities. Belief in this idea is what leads racists to conclude blacks are inferior, so if your arguments don’t directly counter this, then what could you possibly say that will suddenly change his mind? It would have to be some argument I’ve never heard of, let alone be capable of distilling into charts and puppet shows, as you’ve put it.
If your presentation actually does explain that the low socioeconomic status of black Americans isn’t a reflection of their innate abilities, then it logically follows you will then argue it’s the result of environmental factors. Why wouldn’t a philanthropist be motivated to mitigate those factors?
Your scenario is kind of like saying you’ve successfully convinced an anti-abortionist to accept a pro-choice position, but in doing so, they now don’t believe in subsiding contraception for the poor. It just doesn’t add up.
Whitey O’Richpants is eccentric?
So he’s sort of a latter-day John McDonogh then.
I guess maybe if the guy was really doing a lot of good, and convincing him not to be racist might actually cause him to quit doing this good, then I’d leave him alone.
What he doesn’t know won’t hurt him, but may well hurt someone else in this case.
I wouldn’t see it as my job to de-racist him. He’s doing more as a racist than most people who claim they aren’t racist. Why would I want to take funds away from education for people who need it just because it’s for trades? There’s nothing wrong with learning trades. Once you learn it you can go on to higher education. Even as a racist he’s helping people move up in the world financially, not holding them back.
Overt confirmed racists don’t get convinced otherwise. You might get him to concede in the moment, and then he’d go back to racism.
The only way to convince them is to show them how much it’s going to hurt them if they continue.
I can’t accept the premise. I can accept the part about a racist guy engaging in racism-based philanthropy, but I can’t accept the notion that I’ll actually be able to convince him of anything. If I’m meeting with him anyway, and if the topic comes up, I might still try, but I’m under no illusions about my chances.
So, almost 60% of us believe that what’s right has a price tag. Gee, that really cheers me up. 
As the punchline to the joke goes, we already know that - now we’re just dickering.
Regards,
Shodan
Or 60% believe that actions speak louder and matter more than words / attitudes.
If somebody offered to give you $100 every day, but only on the condition that they would fondly call you an incompetent lackwit as they handed it to you, do you take it? Why or why not?
If you WOULD take it, why would you then forbid a whole group of people of a different skin-hue than you to take it? Don’t you think they can make that choice themselves?
The actual actions of greatly helping many people have better lives far outweighs any non-hateful (as directly specified by OP) words / attitudes expressed.
I’d try to persuade him to open up his scholarships to people of all races. Anglos, Asians, Indians, native Americans, etc all need trade schools too.