Are You A Racist? Then You Should Support The United Negro College Fund!

The United Negro College Fund is an insult to minorities. It treats them like token trophies. If you look at their website, (here), (Opens in a new window.) the majority of what is talked about consists of famous, (and not so famous), black people who have attended 'Historically Black Universities'.

My question to you is, if "A mind is a terrible thing to waste", why are they so concerned with just the ones in a dark brown wrapper? It's racism!

This is legal only because it is a private fund and not federally regulated.

A friend of mine told me that it was very difficult to recieve a grant from the UNCF, so I did some research. The following is a direct unedited quote from the UNCF website:

To be considered for a UNCF administered scholarship, you must meet certain basic eligibility requirements:
1. Students must have a minimum grade point average of 2.5 on a 4.0 scale
2. Students must have unmet need as verified by the university financial aid office
3. Students must complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FASFA)
4. Students must request that the Student Analysis Report (SAR) be sent to the financial aid office at their college or university

It looks to me that you must have a passing GPA, fill out a form, request that a report be sent to the financial aid office where they want to attend school and finally have some ambiguous 'unmet need' as determined by the finance department at the university that you are applying to... like not being able to afford tuition on your own perhaps?

In fairness, the UNCF is only one of -many- such scholarship programs that serve minorities exclusively. That being said, I still think that racism is racism. Awards of scholarship should never be administered based on ethnicity, creed, sex or sexual preference. In other words, if you're too stupid to make dumping tens of thousands of dollars in grant money on worthwhile, then you shouldn't be enrolled in college.

I posted this at this site (Opens in a new window.)

in response to this article:

"A student group at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island is offering a $250 scholarship to which only whites can apply. [Article] Applicants must write an essay on "why you are proud of your white heritage." Pictures must accompany the essay to verify the applicates white skin color. The group fronting the scholarship, the College Republicans, initally offered only $50 until two donors came up with $100 each. The scholarship is being offered to protest affirmative action. The group president called it a parody of minority scholarships. "We think that if you want to treat someone according to character and how well they achieve academically, then skin color shouldn't really be an option," he said. "Many people think that coming from a white background you're automatically privileged, you're automatically rich and your parents pay full tuition. That's just not the case." While the scholarship has naturally upset many, the university refuses to intervene."

[EDIT: The following paragraph was posted by another user which touched off a massive debate that I got involved in the latter half of.]

If this is what it takes to fight the biased and racial predjudice of affirmative action and minority scholarships, let's do it. I don't see how minorities can be upset. It's only $250 dollars, they're already qualified for hundreds of scholarships white students can't even apply for, and they already benefit from institutionalized affirmative action. How hypocritical is this? If you feel that a white-only scholarship is unfair, then I think you've tasted your own medicine. Personally, I don't care about minority scholarships. I don't really care if someone tries to offer a white-only scholarship. But if minorities and their wanna-be-minorities liberal buddies are taking offense, I can't stand by without mocking them. Minorities are starting to act like whites used to in the pre-emancipation days. Do they expect us to take them seriously? They can have their raced-based scholarships, but we can't? What are they out? They aren't paying for it. It's money they wouldn't have had anyway. They just want in on everything and don't want the majority race to have the same benefits guaranteed the minorities. It's hypocrisy in its purest form and it's sadly laughable.

My post, (and the ensuing argument it ignited), follows:

**********************************************

**********************************************

#13 Alan - 3.28.2004 @ 03:17
Hello all,

I believe that we can all agree that a group being qualified for a scholarship due to skin color is not only discriminatory, but by it's very definition racist.

The goal of a so-called 'colorblind society' can not be achieved if we constantly expound upon our differences in this manner. If the minorities of this country want to be treated the same as "everyone else", stop loudly pointing out how you are different. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Fair play is a two-way street.

Alan

#14 chimx - 3.28.2004 @ 04:47
i think the point is that "minorities" are faced with a more difficult time entering into a system of upward social/economic mobility due to some forms of prejudicial forces at work as can be shown by the disproportionate economic classes based on racial distinctions, or the lack of racial diversity within the prison system. white-only scholoarships are just a means of spitting on the idea of upward social mobility for non-white american citizens.

#15 K1 - 3.28.2004 @ 05:48
I'll play that game, chimx. Minority only scholarships are just a means of spitting on the idea of upward social mobility for white Americans. Your a hypocrit if you disagree.

#16 chimx - 3.28.2004 @ 14:43
statistically speaking, white americans aren't in need of upward social mobility. they're already the cream of the crop. i would that thought that was self-explanatory.

#17 K1 - 3.28.2004 @ 18:40
So you condone denying opportunity to people based on their perceived socio-economic status as well as their skin color?

#18 Alan - 3.29.2004 @ 00:59
I would like to know from where you get your statistics, Chimx. K1 has an excellent point in post 15: If fair is fair, then fair is fair. Personally I find scholarships based on skin color to be an insult to everyone. Unfortunately they are legal to dispense in this manner due to their being meted out by private institutions, not government funds.

Alan

(Why does this sound like a freshman sociology 101 debate?)

#19 Comment by chimx on 3.29.2004 @ 02:25 Removed by Administrator

#20 MrAnonymous - 3.29.2004 @ 09:35
Here is chimx's comment, cleaned up a little bit:

"So you condone denying opportunity to people based on their perceived socio-economic status as well as their skin color?"

why is this so complicated for you to understand? i'll say it slowly. Stastically, there is a disproportionate amount of impoverished people of color in the united states compared to the socio-economic levels of white people. The very nature of scholarships is to give underprivileged people a chance to goto higher education institutions. If people of color tend to be more underprivileged than other social classes (ie. white men), creating a means for them to obtain upward social mobility would provide a means of balancing out the economic discrepencies based on race in the united states.

So to answer your question: yes. Is it perhaps a bit of a generalization (though not at all baseless!)? Yes, but to be honest, I'm probably not going to shed any tears tonight for all those poor oppressed white guys in America. Call me cruel or unsympathetic, but I just don't [really care].

#21 MrAnonymous - 3.29.2004 @ 09:35
The very nature of scholarships is to give underprivileged people a chance to goto higher education institutions.

Then how come only the best students get them? The best students are not, statistically speaking, generally "privileged."

#22 chimx - 3.29.2004 @ 09:40
skill and ability is a lesser secondary reason. economic necessity remains the primary reason for the existence of scholarships. why? because rich folk don't need help payin' for school.

#23 Alan - 3.29.2004 @ 19:20
Then shouldn't all scholarships be based solely on income and academic potential without regard to skin color?

#24 chimx - 3.30.2004 @ 00:15
do you really want me to reiterate everything that i have already said. the answer is above.

#25 K1 - 3.30.2004 @ 17:11
You seem pretty clear chimx. Let me make sure I got this down.

White people are evil. They are the cause of all societal woes, especially minorities. Only whites can be racist. The poor/downtrodden can not be held responsible for their situation, it's whitey's fault. Blacks will amount to nothing until whitey gives them his money. In other words, blacks are not capable of achieving success on their own.

I think I nailed it, what do ya say chimx?

#26 Alan - 3.30.2004 @ 17:17
No chimx, I do not. I merely wish to see some consistency in these arguments concerning scholarship based on skin color. I feel that future historians will look back at our society and view color based scholarships with the same distaste as we currently view segregation and slavery.

Item: Two individuals possessed of the same I.Q., same ACT scores, are in identical economic situations, same number of siblings... everything, wish to attend the same university in the same town. The only difference between these two people is that one is black, (hey, if we're going to play the tokenism game, we might as well just own up to it instead of talking all around it), and the other is white. These two hypothetical people have the same scholastic aptitude, but one will be arbitrarily denied a particular scholarship based solely on the amount of pigment in his skin.

This is not only discriminatory, it's disgusting. The very idea that I share genetic material with beings capable of rationalizing such drivel makes me want to hang my head in shame.

My question to you is, if a 'mind is a terrible thing to waste', and the mind is the thing that we are ultimately concerned with, why is it more acceptable to let one guy rot because of the spectrum of light his skin reflects?

I submit to you that fair and unbiased treatment must be meted out even, (and especially), when it is not convenient if we are truly a democracy and a free society. The 'White Only' scholarship, while admittedly a mockery, is no more mocking or insulting than any other racist program.

In the end, I believe that such programs and organizations hurt us all.

#27 chimx - 3.30.2004 @ 17:56
alan: in a word, political (civil) and economic equality (or at least the potential for it) doesn't mean anything if social equality is not present. You are maintaining a sociological rigidity when looking at the problem. I'll be the first to say that race doesn't exist, and that are laws are in fact color blind. But that does says nothing to explain the disproportional spectrum of classes based largely on "race".

Your argument largely ignores this issue. Civil liberties for black americans, despite being around for decades, has yet to provide a means of solving the racially defined economic stratification in our society. The only viable explanation for this is that upward social mobility is still often defined, though illegally, on race.

If you can provide me with an alternative explanation and consequently, an alternative solution, than be my guest. But don't be surprised that your attacks (without alternatives) on the attempts to solve the racial discrepencies in our society comes off to many as inherently racist - whether it is conscious or unconscious.

#28 MrAnonymous - 3.30.2004 @ 18:55
alan: in a word...

Huh?

#29 Alan - 3.30.2004 @ 20:25
Chimx: As it happens, I do have an alternate explanation. You've been using the wrong word. When you say 'social equality', what you appear to mean is 'social homogenity'. I submit to you that the discrepencies you speak of are not racial, but cultural. Hear me out.

Take the Navajo Nation tribes in New Mexico as an example. Nothing forces them to stay on the reservation. No laws have been made to oppress them during either of our lifetimes. In fact, they are entitled to more goodies and legal recourse than most people will ever be, and yet they complain that they are being treated unfairly.
A Native American living on a reservation is entitled to the following benefits:

*200 pounds of free prime beef per household per month
*Free medical care on demand
*Free dental care on demand
*Free optical care on demand
*Free housing
*Exempt from taxes

They stay because they don't want to leave. Would you? Legally they are on equal footing with everyone else in the country and have the same oppertunities for education and advancement, but the few that leave are looked down upon by the ones who stay. They use such phrases as 'abandoning their heritage' to put a guilt trip on the ones with ambition enough to strike out and get a good education.

If anything, Native Americans have been so over-compensated that they have lost the drive to better themselves.

While we're at it, how many white guys work at Death Row Records, much less sit on the board?

You said: "... don't be surprised that your attacks (without alternatives) on the attempts to solve the racial discrepencies in our society comes off to many as inherently racist - whether it is conscious or unconscious. "

This phrase makes me more than a little angry. I thought I did offer an alternative: Absolutely equal treatment. Abolish scholarships based on skin color. The reason that this gets under my skin so is this quote from post 19-20:

"So to answer your question: yes. [I] condone denying opportunity to people based on their perceived socio-economic status as well as their skin color. Why is this so complicated for you to understand?"

We understand you just fine, we just can't accept that.

#30 chimx - 3.30.2004 @ 21:02
out of everything you have said, you have not presented any alternatives.

also, comparing the struggle of american indians and with those of african decent makes little to no sense. I fail to see any correlation let-alone a causation.

#31 MrAnonymous - 3.30.2004 @ 21:19
30: I'd say that's pretty disrespectful of what many Native Americans went through. Just because they aren't black, they never suffered?

#32 Alan - 3.30.2004 @ 21:48
The American Indian reference was an example of how culture can restrict this 'upward social mobility' you speak of, and a suggestion that a similar mechanism could account for a portion of this discrepancy in other groups. There is your correlation.

I can not frame this any more clearly.
>>>>
If you abolish special privileges for special interest groups, you reduce their incentive to remain complacent about their 'socio-economic status'. This is not a 'magic bullet' for all of society's woes, but it is a place to start. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day.
>>>>

Race specific scholarships are a special privilege, not a right, and an unearned one at that. They do nothing more than magnify how people are different, downplay how we are alike, and suggest that they cannot better themselves without special help. (This is why I say they are an insult.) Since the scope of this debate is regarding scholastic merit and funding for the same, I shall not give further examples in support of this assertion, though I am tempted.

I shall say this once and only once, "Scholarships, all of them, should be open to all in need."

Alan

#33 chimx - 3.31.2004 @ 00:59
ugh... y'all still aren't getting it. i blame myself (and partially the medium of discussion) for being unable to articulate this very simple fact fact.

#34 Alan - 3.31.2004 @ 02:57
Well chimx, for what it is worth, I have enjoyed sparring with you. But please, do not feel misunderstood. I do understand your point of view, I merely disagree.

Well played!

Alan

#35 Comment by chimx on 4.01.2004 @ 11:02 Removed by Administrator

#36 MrAnonymous - 4.01.2004 @ 13:19
chimx's comment, cleaned up:

your argument rests on the fact that black folk culturally want to stay poor. that's [messed] up.

end.

#37 Alan - 4.01.2004 @ 17:29
End huh? Says who?

Putting words in my mouth is dirty pool. You asked for an alternative explanation and a solution to go along with it. I have given you these things.

Explanation:
Culture can be a straightjacket.

Solution:
Begin by eliminating incentive for complacence.

You say that I am wrong, therefore, the burden of proof, (should you care to accept it), lies with you. By your own admission the system has tried it your way for several decades without satisfactory result.

We all want to go to heaven Chimx, but not everybody wants to do what's neccessary to get there.

Alan

#38 Oscar - 4.04.2004 @ 23:09
I agree very much so with Alan, I've seen it firsthand as I grew up on an Indian Reservation and those who actually leave decide to explore the world rather than stay on the rez seem to do so much better (imo). Just because you get all you're things provided for you doesn't insure happiness. Happiness only comes from within. Yes racism happens (both ways) it's something you either just take it as it comes or "ignore" it. One's own success is determined by themselves.
**********************************************

**********************************************

I like to think that I made my point and came out ahead on this one, but you never can tell. A lot of people who think I'm wrong will continue to do so here everafter, but I console myself that a lot of people are really fucking stupid too.