Scholarships for whites TOO?

[Libsmasher]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/education/14minority.html

FINALLY, and end to racist anti-white discrimination by tax exempt universities and colleges? If this is really happening, it's way overdue. There are thousands and thousands of minority-only scholarships on the net. In looking for months, I found only two scholarships for whites only. If they are just going against universities, that would leave in place such as Bill Gates no-whites-need-apply racist Millenium Scholars fund, but all such racist scholarship offerings should lose their privileged tax status.

 

[top gun]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/education/14minority.html

FINALLY, and end to racist anti-white discrimination by tax exempt universities and colleges? If this is really happening, it's way overdue. There are thousands and thousands of minority-only scholarships on the net. In looking for months, I found only two scholarships for whites only. If they are just going against universities, that would leave in place such as Bill Gates no-whites-need-apply racist Millenium Scholars fund, but all such racist scholarship offerings should lose their privileged tax status.

There is a balance needed by giving minorities that were discriminated against for years... even at one time kept away from higher education altogether some limited preferential treatment for some scholarships.

I do agree that as time goes on generation after generation this becomes less necessary because the deficit is being made up.

I have some problems with anyone regardless of race getting a scholarship over someone else with higher marks. However, if two people have equal marks and the University in question does not have a minority enrollment that reflects the percentages of that minority in the country. Then I have no problem at all with them enrolling the minority candidate.

I also think that to be "consistent" if all scholarships were to be based on just academic or athletic grounds then the preferential "Legacy Enrollment" which by a huge percentages goes to White candidates because one of their parents were alumni of a particular college should also be dissolved.

 

[UShadItComing]

There is a difference between affirmative action and racism. Scholarships for whites only must be racism unless some other valid reason can be offered for excluding others.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

There is a difference between affirmative action and racism. Scholarships for whites only must be racism unless some other valid reason can be offered for excluding others.

Why must it be? And don't make me ever said with liberalsmasher, it hurts my heart when I have do to it. But its not racism by default, though I think its dumb and pointless.

 

[SW85]

Oh lord.

Racism is the belief that the races are characterized by inherent differences that allow them to be categorized hierarchically, with superior races arrayed above inferior races.

Discrimination, even discrimination on the basis of race, does not necessarily constitute racism.

And universities and scholarship funds cannot (reasonably) be accused of racism merely because some favored minority fails to meet their high admission standards.

 

[UShadItComing]

Oh lord.

Racism is the belief that the races are characterized by inherent differences that allow them to be categorized hierarchically, with superior races arrayed above inferior races.

Yes, in part.

Discrimination, even discrimination on the basis of race, does not necessarily constitute racism.

You are undoubtedly a racist based on that alone. Discrimination based on race is racism unless there is a valid reason to exclude some race. Perhaps you can think of one to bail your miserable a-s out now.

And universities and scholarship funds cannot (reasonably) be accused of racism merely because some favored minority fails to meet their high admission standards.

If any individual person fails to meet a high admission standard then to exclude that individual is not racist. However, when a country still practices racism then it is legitimate and not racist to resist with an opposite reaction toward that racism.

 

[SW85]

You are undoubtedly a racist based on that alone.

Actually, I'm a racialist, but nice try. I don't believe in the "racial hierarchy" bit that separates racism from, you know, science.

Discrimination based on race is racism unless there is a valid reason to exclude some race. Perhaps you can think of one to bail your miserable a-s out now.

Sure: personal preference. There are mountains of sociological and psychological evidence pointing to the fact that people prefer the company of people who are more like them.

This is why no one lambasts the Congressional Black Caucus as racist even though it famously refuses to induct non-black members. It's not because they believe non-blacks are inferior, it's because it's simply a caucus for blacks.

If any individual person fails to meet a high admission standard then to exclude that individual is not racist.

And black individuals largely underperform on measures of scholastic aptitude and cognitive ability compared to whites. But society notoriously frowns on such discussions because they are "racist."

 

[Libsmasher]

]There is a balance needed by giving minorities that were discriminated against for years... even at one time kept away from higher education altogether some limited preferential treatment for some scholarships. [/B]

(sigh - here we go...) Blacks who enter college (18 years old) weren't discriminated against for years - the full implementation of what can rationally be called civil rights goes back over 40 years. Furthermore, young white students are absolutely not responsible for any discrimination - to penalize them is stupid and unjust.

I do agree that as time goes on generation after generation this becomes less necessary because the deficit is being made up.

I have some problems with anyone regardless of race getting a scholarship over someone else with higher marks. However, if two people have equal marks and the University in question does not have a minority enrollment that reflects the percentages of that minority in the country. Then I have no problem at all with them enrolling the minority candidate.

How often are any two people precisely exactly equal? One of a billion times? But even in your imaginary case, such a policy is racist.

I also think that to be "consistent" if all scholarships were to be based on just academic or athletic grounds then the preferential "Legacy Enrollment" which by a huge percentages goes to White candidates because one of their parents were alumni of a particular college should also be dissolved.

Such a policy is not irrational as is the racist policy of "affirmative action" and in any case is a drop in the bucket compared to the unjust effects of "affirmative action", which privileges every single minority person and many white females.

 

[Libsmasher]

There is a difference between affirmative action and racism. Scholarships for whites only must be racism unless some other valid reason can be offered for excluding others.

This is the ol' ridiculous notion that racism against whites isn't racism. In fact racism is racism is racism.

 

[Libsmasher]

Oh lord.

Racism is the belief that the races are characterized by inherent differences that allow them to be categorized hierarchically, with superior races arrayed above inferior races.

Discrimination, even discrimination on the basis of race, does not necessarily constitute racism.

And universities and scholarship funds cannot (reasonably) be accused of racism merely because some favored minority fails to meet their high admission standards.

Lawd have mercy.

Yeah yeah yeah - racial discrimination against whites is somehow, uh, er - OK, because libs say it's, uh,er, wellllllll.... OK. You can take that self-serving corrupt politically tweaked Pee See definition and shove it where the sun don't shine.

 

[SW85]

Lawd have mercy.

Yeah yeah yeah - racial discrimination against whites is somehow, uh, er - OK, because libs say it's, uh,er, wellllllll.... OK. You can take that self-serving corrupt politically tweaked Pee See definition and shove it where the sun don't shine.

I didn't say it was OK, much less because liberals said it is. It's discriminatory, and under a simple and plain construction of the language of the constitution, unconstitutional. (Too bad the courts don't care about what the constitution says).

It's wrong and it's undesirable. But it's not racism.

And my definition is hardly PC; besides being the dictionary definition of the word, it also precludes 99% of the cases where liberals scream racism just because their favored constituencies suffer from this or that fundamentally unchangable aspect of society. Not to mention the fact that I just pointed to the existence of racial differences on tests of academic and cognitive ability would get me arrested and thrown in jail if I were, say, a Canadian.

 

[Libsmasher]

I didn't say it was OK, much less because liberals said it is. It's discriminatory, and under a simple and plain construction of the language of the constitution, unconstitutional. (Too bad the courts don't care about what the constitution says).

It's wrong and it's undesirable. But it's not racism.

And my definition is hardly PC; besides being the dictionary definition of the word, it also precludes 99% of the cases where liberals scream racism just because their favored constituencies suffer from this or that fundamentally unchangable aspect of society. Not to mention the fact that I just pointed to the existence of racial differences on tests of academic and cognitive ability would get me arrested and thrown in jail if I were, say, a Canadian.

Why does anti-white discrimination exist? Because the SELF-HATING white establishment supports it. Also, are you SURE that the blacks who support it aren't people who HATE whites? If you support something that screws over people because of their race, that would seem to be a reasonable conclusion. Dictionary.com DOES include racial discrimination as a definition. And reducing racist anti-white discrimimination to merely "undesirable" is mind-f__king - it changes many white peoples' whole lives -for the worse.

 

[SW85]

Why does anti-white discrimination exist? Because the SELF-HATING white establishment supports it.

OK. I've already agreed that publicly-funded scholarships for minorities only are irrationally discriminatory, wrong, and unconstitutional in principle. I'm just saying they're not racist.

Diction matters. As USHIC's hopeless inability to think for himself amply demonstrates, leftists are wrong when they say anything about race they disagree with is racist. Rightists ought not to be co-opting that tactic.

Also, are you SURE that the blacks who support it aren't people who HATE whites?

No, but is a thing racist because we are unsure of the motivations of the people advocating it?

If you support something that screws over people because of their race, that would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.

Only it's not, because racism is not merely a consequence but a motivation.

Dictionary.com DOES include racial discrimination as a definition.

A concession to leftists whose systematic manipulation of the word has rendered it almost meaningless. If "discrimination on the basis of race" were sufficient to constitute racism than advising blacks to be tested for sickle cell would constitute racism, no?

Racial discrimination is not the problem. Irrational racial discrimination is.

And reducing racist anti-white discrimimination to merely "undesirable" is mind-f__king - it changes many white peoples' whole lives -for the worse.

I've already said it's wrong, it's unconstitutional, it's bad policy, it's irrational -- what more do you want from me? An inchoate scream of rage? Mindless chanting like USHIC?

 

[top gun]

This is the ol' ridiculous notion that racism against whites isn't racism. In fact racism is racism is racism.

It's not that your point is not well taken. I just think your delivery is bad.

There definately should come a time when admissions should be basically grade based. You get the grades and there's a spot open it's pretty much first come first served.

The thing is there probably will always be some preferential points given for things like income levels (trying to help bring the less fortunate up) or as I spoke of before Legacy Enrollments (you want to go to school where your father or mother went).

Right now I think we are sort of nearing the end of making up for the past. I'd guess in another generation or two that will be gone and the only real quota will be just trying to keep percentages along the lines of the national population.

Hey here's some good news for ya Lib...

Once there's a President Obama that's got to help make the case that all races are catching up with the White standard. Gives less reason for needing special consideration.

 

[Libsmasher]

OK. I've already agreed that publicly-funded scholarships for minorities only are irrationally discriminatory, wrong, and unconstitutional in principle. I'm just saying they're not racist.

Diction matters. As USHIC's hopeless inability to think for himself amply demonstrates, leftists are wrong when they say anything about race they disagree with is racist. Rightists ought not to be co-opting that tactic.



No, but is a thing racist because we are unsure of the motivations of the people advocating it?



Only it's not, because racism is not merely a consequence but a motivation.



A concession to leftists whose systematic manipulation of the word has rendered it almost meaningless. If "discrimination on the basis of race" were sufficient to constitute racism than advising blacks to be tested for sickle cell would constitute racism, no?

Racial discrimination is not the problem. Irrational racial discrimination is.



I've already said it's wrong, it's unconstitutional, it's bad policy, it's irrational -- what more do you want from me? An inchoate scream of rage? Mindless chanting like USHIC?

You mention motivation. What is the "motivation" you are talking about? Does deliberately and knowingly implementing a widepread policy that will harm a particular race not count as racism? And would you identify the deliberate systematic negative portrayals of white males in the media (movies, TV, ads) that range from insulting to vile merely "discrimination"?

You mention manipulation of words by the left, and you're correct - they do that all the time, but they've SUCCEEDED at it. About the middle of the 20th century, lexicographers changed their philosophy. Formerly, the words and usages and definitions that appeared in the dictionary were those of informed, educated, highly literate people. But they changed to a philosophy that the dictionary is merely descriptive of language is it is spoken by everyone. By the new process, misuses of words become new definitions.

I use the word because it has resonance in american society (again, thanks to the left,) and something has to be done to break through the peculiar intellectual blankness and silence that ignores the widespread evil deliberate policy of discrimination and defamation against whites (of course primarily white males). I'm more interested than that than lexicographical fine points.