94 replies to this topic

[g5jamz]

i didn't say it did... I was curious what people thought.

Well the answer is yes.

There still can be scholarships that do that in addition to inticing the best/brightest to their university.

[Mr. Scot]

I prefer using the term "targeted scholarships" myself. Doesn't necessarily have to be race based but it has some criteria other than just academics. And in the interest of disclosure, I went to college on a full ride academic scholarship (tuition, room and board, book allowance) and my family couldn't have paid for it otherwise.

Reality: When the scholarship comes from a public university (which means it's coming from the government) adding race as a criteria is going to mean issues. You're always going to wind up with a case where someone's kid meets all the criteria except race, and that's a bad spot. And there's the rightful argument that you don't become "color blind" by considering color.

Money that comes from the university/government should be portioned by as objective a set of criteria as possible. If you're going to consider anything at all in the demographics, the one that'll get the least argument is income. Though there'll be some with issues there too, scholarships based on income are the easiest sell.

(I'm honestly not a big fan of giving scholarship advantages to in-state kids over out-of-state either, though I get why it's done)

But if you still wanna keep some targeted scholarships - and I'd be fine, with that, would encourage it, honestly - maybe the thing to do is privatize them.

There are plenty of businesses, foundations, endowments, and other entities who sponsor educational grants and such. If you want to have scholarships and such that are targeted to race, gender, religion, or whatever, have them be sponsored by private entities. The selection process can still be administered by the school, but the money can be paid and the criteria set by the entity that's sponsoring it.

When the funding comes from a private source, you lessen the "challengability" because a private entity can do whatever it wants with it's money. Government could even encourage this sort of thing by offering tax breaks, though to avoid issues, the tax breaks shouldn't have particular criteria attached (puts you back to square one). Could people still boycott or sue those entities? Yeah, but again, since they're private entities, who's to tell them how they can spend their money?

So in the end, my best suggestion for continuing to offer targeted scholarships would be to privatize them, thus taking the focus off the government but still allowing the school to benefit and administer. Issues to be worked out? Sure, as there are with anything, but I think it could work.

[PhillyB]

so is eliminating this scholarship a victory for anyone? is this truly a step towards a colorblind future?

[thefuzz]

Nope but it should be need based.

This is just another way that republicans want to keep the income gap growing

Andrew Luck didn't need that scholarship money, his Dad is a pretty well to do fella.

What the fug does family income have to do with it.

[carpantherfan84]

Interesting how those opposed to minority scholarships are taking an incredibly socialistic view of the distribution of scholarship money by suggesting that the correct thing to do would be centralize the money and redistribute it to eliminate any "unfair advantages"

Where as the truth is, Scholarships are primarily from private firms, organizations or colleges. There is no central fund for scholarship money and while it is regulated it does not exclude people from contributing money to whatever their heart desires. The government does participate in minority scholarships but has not done so by eliminating any other scholarship they already have. Meaning there is no disadvantage. Not everyone is going to qualify for the children of farm workers scholarship, but you cant get mad unless that scholarship is actually going to replace one you would otherwise get.

The introduction of minority scholarships did not eliminate other scholarships. Meaning that there is generally the same amount of merit-based or non minority scholarships as there was before its introduction. So this is a moot point. Seriously, what is the problem. You want to eliminate a scholarship because you dont quailfy? There should be no say so by any non-contributor about where the money is going, until the introduction of one scholarship means that another one can no longer exist. All scholarships are inherently biased and the people who win them likely had some advantage over their competition.
Academic scholarships are predominately won by a certain demographic, Minority scholarships have their own demographic, as does union scholarships, athletic scholarships, needs based, religious etc... Literally dozens of categories and THOUSANDS of scholarships.

It truly is a sad and pathetic individual that is so jealous and hateful they they feel that they need to remove a scholarship from the pot as opposed to adding another one.

[Delhommey]

So you would have still gone to college regardless. Not everyone can go to Harvard....there is already a brain drain. Not sure how this would escalate it.

It was only for students from SC that stayed in SC for college. I was the only one out of my 4 siblings to stay in state, and the scholarship was a big part of it.

[Mr. Scot]

so is eliminating this scholarship a victory for anyone? is this truly a step towards a colorblind future?

It's hard to view eliminating a scholarship as a "victory" of any sort.

The better goal would have been to continue the scholarship but remove the racial component, or they could have done what I mentioned above and put it under a private sponsor. I'd suggest they still could do that; bring it back but as a privately sponsored scholarship if they could get a business or other entity to sign on.

In the strictest sense, putting color as a criteria means it isn't color blind. You could argue that having it that way is a step toward equality, but having color as a criteria means by definition it isn't color blind.

Color blindness means equal access, not equal outcome.

It's worth asking which of those two things is really the ultimate goal.

[natty]

Interesting how those opposed to minority scholarships are taking an incredibly socialistic view of the distribution of scholarship money by suggesting that the correct thing to do would be centralize the money and redistribute it to eliminate any "unfair advantages"

Where as the truth is, Scholarships are primarily from private firms, organizations or colleges. There is no central fund for scholarship money and while it is regulated it does not exclude people from contributing money to whatever their heart desires. The government does participate in minority scholarships but has not done so by eliminating any other scholarship they already have. Meaning there is no disadvantage. Not everyone is going to qualify for the children of farm workers scholarship, but you cant get mad unless that scholarship is actually going to replace one you would otherwise get.

The introduction of minority scholarships did not eliminate other scholarships. Meaning that there is generally the same amount of merit-based or non minority scholarships as there was before its introduction. So this is a moot point. Seriously, what is the problem. You want to eliminate a scholarship because you dont quailfy? There should be no say so by any non-contributor about where the money is going, until the introduction of one scholarship means that another one can no longer exist. All scholarships are inherently biased and the people who win them likely had some advantage over their competition.
Academic scholarships are predominately won by a certain demographic, Minority scholarships have their own demographic, as does union scholarships, athletic scholarships, needs based, religious etc... Literally dozens of categories and THOUSANDS of scholarships.

It truly is a sad and pathetic individual that is so jealous and hateful they they feel that they need to remove a scholarship from the pot as opposed to adding another one.

Well said. You can approach this issue from different a million different ways but the fact remains this is much ado about nothing.

[Hawk]

interesting topic on many levels...

first...it's always bothered me when I see stuff that is blatantly racist, programs like the United ***** Foundation or BET etc...you'd never get away with doing that other way around, but I know many minorities probably think it happens anyway, just in a more subtle way. I understand the intent though. Makes it hard to say we truly want to eliminate racism when these programs are right there!

I like the idea of demographic based programs...as mentioned earlier...if your population is 50% white, 25% black and 25% other, then why shouldn't your programs try to match that a little???

As for scholarships...I think they should be based on academic achievement and family income should never be a part of the equation. When I graduated high school, I was not eligible for student aid because of my fathers income, but they never took into account that there were 6 kids and that we lived very poorly. It wasn't my choice or fault that I had so many siblings!!!

People also need to be realistic too I think. I don't think it's reasonable for a kid from a poor family with average grades to expect to go to Harvard Medical School. Same poor kid with straight A's though should have the opportunity to get scholarships or other aid.

just my two cents worth

[Happy Panther]

Wanted to point out that Davidson College was the first school in the country to meet 100% of needs based financial aid through endowments and employment. No student leaves with debt.

This is another example of private entities doing it better than government entities.

[King Taharqa]

interesting topic on many levels...

first...it's always bothered me when I see stuff that is blatantly racist, programs like the United ***** Foundation or BET etc...

Please explain what makes those institutions blatantly racist. Do the UNCF and BET oppress white people? Do they not hire white people? Do they organize lynchings?

you'd never get away with doing that other way around,

Yes you do. The NFL went decades only hiring white people for coaching and executive jobs. You even argued with me in that other thread that was their right and didnt see anything wrong with only looking out for white people and only selecting them for coaching jobs. They dont have to call themselves the White People's Football League, because its understood. If you are a majority, why would you need "minority titles" or specialization?

but I know many minorities probably think it happens anyway, just in a more subtle way. I understand the intent though. Makes it hard to say we truly want to eliminate racism when these programs are right there!

So the best way to eliminate racism is for black people to make themselves totally dependent and totally reliant on whites to create and put them in institutions when they deem necessary? That sounds awfully close to slavery and jim crow.

I like the idea of demographic based programs...as mentioned earlier...if your population is 50% white, 25% black and 25% other, then why shouldn't your programs try to match that a little???

The old "we're the majority so our needs should ALWAYS come first" ideology.

As for scholarships...I think they should be based on academic achievement and family income should never be a part of the equation. When I graduated high school, I was not eligible for student aid because of my fathers income, but they never took into account that there were 6 kids and that we lived very poorly. It wasn't my choice or fault that I had so many siblings!!!

I agree they should be based on academics.

People also need to be realistic too I think. I don't think it's reasonable for a kid from a poor family with average grades to expect to go to Harvard Medical School. Same poor kid with straight A's though should have the opportunity to get scholarships or other aid.

just my two cents worth

Not sure what this part has to do with the topic.

[Hawk]

there went the calmness!!!

did I say any of those groups oppose white people? no. Would you ever find a Whities Only Foundation in today's day and age?

I never once said anything about the NFL and they should only look at white people...I said that they have the right to hire who they feel is the best person and shouldn't be forced to consider someone solely on the color of their skin.

the demographics was just an example...don't get hung up on the numbers because it fits your agenda.

wow...we agree on academics

and the final statement has to do because there were previous posts that discussed whether scholarships should be merit based and have anything to do with family income. This entire thread wasn't just about race.

[Panthro]

there went the calmness!!!

did I say any of those groups oppose white people? no. Would you ever find a Whities Only Foundation in today's day and age?

I never once said anything about the NFL and they should only look at white people...I said that they have the right to hire who they feel is the best person and shouldn't be forced to consider someone solely on the color of their skin.

the demographics was just an example...don't get hung up on the numbers because it fits your agenda.

wow...we agree on academics

and the final statement has to do because there were previous posts that discussed whether scholarships should be merit based and have anything to do with family income. This entire thread wasn't just about race.

It's one of the perks to being a majority

[King Taharqa]

there went the calmness!!!

did I say any of those groups oppose white people? no. Would you ever find a Whities Only Foundation in today's day and age?

BET is not a blacks only foundation. The owner of BET is an rich old white man named Sumner Redstone. They have whites working for them since the 80s. Now please tell me, what makes those institutions "blatantly racist"?

I never once said anything about the NFL and they should only look at white people...I said that they have the right to hire who they feel is the best person and shouldn't be forced to consider someone solely on the color of their skin.

And if the "best person" is always a white person I don't think that would raise an eyebrow with you Hawk. You said the NFL is not racist in anyway and the lack of minorities is due to intelligence and not being qualified. In one breath its "being inclusive is such an unfair burden', the next "why do you blacks need your own TV stations and institutions? Thats racist! You should have to depend on whites for that and what we want you to have!" If you dont want to be inclusive Hawk, you dont get to cry about what we build specifically for us, fair?

the demographics was just an example...don't get hung up on the numbers because it fits your agenda.

A very "self serving" example.

[Panthro]

I wonder if people are up in arms about telemundo too

Hell they have a jewish television station. It's about providing a product/service to a segment of the population.