rememeber that this entire argument, to be taken in its proper context, must be juxtaposed against the history of race relations in the united states and the economic and educational disparity remaining as a legacy of centuries of institutionalized racism. the question at hand is ultimately one of how social justice is arbitrated... should society collectively move towards racial egalitarianism as it relates to those factors, or are we looking at things diachronically and justifying things based on the legal system in this moment in time?
in other words should society as a whole be making necessary sacrifices of fairness in the micro-scale - like this scholarship - to achieve an overall equal society in the marco scale, or is the past the past and things are just the way they are and we should simply move forward as if society is and always has been equal?
this is the question i pull out of the debate, and it's fundamental to many other societal conflicts.
On the idea of overall approach (not the individual scholarship discussion)
One suggested approach is to say that since the scales were tilted toward one race in the past, we should now tip them against that race in the present. Thus, equality.
The problem with that: Such "scale tipping" doesn't affect a collective race. It affects individuals. And the individuals affected had nothing whatsoever to do with the inequity of the past.
Essentially, you'd be trying to make two wrongs make a right.
Past injustice is an extremely difficult thing to quantify. And making people in the present pay for if is a pretty tough thing to justify.
Bottom Line: Vengeance doesn't create equality, especially when it's carried out on people that have nothing to do with the original injustice.
That's the macro answer.
The micro answer: I have no problem with targeted scholarships. If people have issues with them coming from the government via a public school, seek out private sponsorship and continue them under that umbrella.