Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

let's have a calm, rational discussion about scholarships for minorities


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#51 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,711
  • Reputation: 2,351
Moderators

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:31 PM

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.

#52 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 44,830
  • Reputation: 13,363
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:33 PM

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.

#53 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,783
  • Reputation: 535
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:49 PM

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.

#54 Hawk

Hawk

    Banned

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 15,399
  • Reputation: 1,894
Moderators

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:56 PM

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

#55 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,501
  • Reputation: 3,467
SUPPORTER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:10 PM

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.

#56 King Taharqa

King Taharqa

    The Panthers Quarterback

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,774
  • Reputation: 322
  • LocationBobcat Country
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:48 PM

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.

#57 Hawk

Hawk

    Banned

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 15,399
  • Reputation: 1,894
Moderators

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:56 PM

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.

#58 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 24,875
  • Reputation: 5,780
Moderators

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:05 PM

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

#59 King Taharqa

King Taharqa

    The Panthers Quarterback

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,774
  • Reputation: 322
  • LocationBobcat Country
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:05 PM

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.

#60 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 24,875
  • Reputation: 5,780
Moderators

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:09 PM

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.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users