TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- White Only Scholarship Fund at BU
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

White Only Scholarship Fund at BU

Link 1

Forum Link

Am in a rush, will write more later.

I think they've got a point. I'm white and didn't come from a wealthy home and went to a shitty public school up until I was 18, yet I wasn't eligible to apply for certain scholarships because I wasn't a minority.

The method is a bit tactless, but it's obviously generating some debate and discussion, which is their intention.

If it's as cut and dry as the post sounds, I say why not? If it's OK to discriminate based on race, why is it so hard to swallow something just because it flies in the face of political correctness? This should spark an interesting debate, though it will be a debate that caucasians will have a hard time "winning."

Why is it society can kowtow to all minorities but as soon as anything 'white' appears, images of KKK start flashing up everywhere?

Multiculturalism just divides us further when we all bleed red anyways.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with an only white scholarship going forward, but like others have said, at least this puts this whole 'Multiculturalism' under a spotlight for once.

This is retarded. I really hate when people get scholarships because of their ethnicity or color of their skin.

Might as well seperate ourselves even more.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers This is retarded. I really hate when people get scholarships because of their ethnicity or color of their skin. Might as well seperate ourselves even more.

I think that's exactly the point of the debate, and exactly why I said I wouldn't have a problem with it. But in agreement with you, I think we'd all be better off if scholarships based on ethnicity were non-existent (unless they are provided by a private party that wants to use their money in whatever bigotted way they choose).

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka (unless they are provided by a private party that wants to use their money in whatever bigotted way they choose).

That's what's happening here.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy That's what's happening here.

Well, above all, I believe that private parties should be able to spend their wealth as they see fit. PC aside, it is their property to dispose of as they choose, provided they are not infringing upon anyone else's rights. I thought it was the university that was offering the "white only" scholarship. I did not read very far into the links, however.

Edit: Okay, that was in the first sentence and I didn't pick up on it at first. Yeah, it's stupid and should cause a stir, but if there are publicly funded scholarships for minorities, I hardly see where one can complain when a privately funded group wants to fund a scholarship for a non-minority.

Scolarships should be based on two things only- ability and economic circumstances, that way you only get people who can do things and people who wouldnt otherwise have an financial chance to do things at university even though they have the talent.

If scholarships where race blind there would still be a disproportionate amount going to minorities because they are the ones that conform the lower echelons of socio-economic status. And seriously this whole, 'omg its so unfair to whites' thing is presupposing that whites are at the same unprivileged level that minorities are. It's the whole illusion the we actually live in a meritocracy when we don't. I do agree that the scholarships should be race blind, but even at that they will still keep going to minorities because minorities are poorer in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX If scholarships where race blind there would still be a disproportionate amount going to minorities because they are the ones that conform the lower echelons of socio-economic status.

That's fine and may be true, but it's not the issue here.

quote:

And seriously this whole, 'omg its so unfair to whites' thing is presupposing that whites are at the same unprivileged level that minorities are.

Who said that? In that sentence you have managed to comingle economic status and race when the point of the argument was to isolate the two issues and toss out the race-based portion.

quote:

I do agree that the scholarships should be race blind, but even at that they will still keep going to minorities because minorities are poorer in the US.

That's an incredibly broad generalization.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX If scholarships where race blind there would still be a disproportionate amount going to minorities because they are the ones that conform the lower echelons of socio-economic status. And seriously this whole, 'omg its so unfair to whites' thing is presupposing that whites are at the same unprivileged level that minorities are. It's the whole illusion the we actually live in a meritocracy when we don't. I do agree that the scholarships should be race blind, but even at that they will still keep going to minorities because minorities are poorer in the US.

In some areas whites ARE the minority though.

And how does the anti-affirmative action crowd feel about legacy entrances such as Bush and the like?

I have to admit that my views are slowly moving away from being pro-affirmative action for so many years, but it is a slow process. However, I do think it would only be fair that legacy entrances (i.e. your mommy and/or daddy are alumni) should be equally crossed out as much as race or ethnicity. Would anyone care to disagree, and if so, why?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And how does the anti-affirmative action crowd feel about legacy entrances such as Bush and the like? I have to admit that my views are slowly moving away from being pro-affirmative action for so many years, but it is a slow process. However, I do think it would only be fair that legacy entrances (i.e. your mommy and/or daddy are alumni) should be equally crossed out as much as race or ethnicity. Would anyone care to disagree, and if so, why?

Mixed views. I can certainly see the side of the argument that claims that students are getting into schools that they otherwise might not be accepted into. I can say that I got accepted to a school that would've otherwise been quite a stretch for me had it not been for the fact that a sibling was already attending. I think at the end of they day, provided a student can hack it at a school academically, I do not have any serious problems with legacy programs.

Now, with respect the legacy program and its difference between scholarships--a couple of points:

1. Colleges and Universities obviously have a vested interest in taking in money, building their endowments, etc., so that they can continue to improve their ranking and the quality of the education they can offer. Given that their alumni are generally their most dependable and significant contributors, it makes obvious sense to pander to them a bit, even if it means accepting a student who might've been on the fence, or just on the other side of it. It's like a good business relationship--you maintain your network and it is mutually beneficial.

2. Colleges and Universities have a vested interest in maintaining/improving their overall ranking (as stated above), so it does not behoove them to just accept a second-rate student just because his/her family may have donated a few extra bucks. Obviously as more money is on the line, more exceptions will be made, but a university isn't going to dilute their classes with bad apples in any pervasive manner that I could see. If they do, why would anyone want to go there? Isn't the prestige in the quality of the education, not the names of the people who attend?

3. If a college or university is private, do they not reserve the right to admit who they please? If they are public, can anyone show a study that shows that the amount of legacy admissions that otherwise might not have been accepted are significant or material relative to the number of non-merit, non-need based scholarships available?

4. Edit: I'd add that legacy programs are, in theory, color blind/race blind, so it's not exactly and apples-to-apples comparison, though I still think it's a relevant debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Who said that? In that sentence you have managed to comingle economic status and race when the point of the argument was to isolate the two issues and toss out the race-based portion.

True, you can strike the first part. My point was that minorities tend to be underprivileged. Also Caucasians being the majority of the population in the US (in general even if they are the minority in a few places), if scholarships were to be race blind the proportions of scholarships would not be balanced due to the fact that by default there are more whites than minorities. So even if we turn the scholarships into race blind grants the minorities would once again be on the losing side of things.

I understand you're argument that they should earn they're scholarships but minorities tend to have lower income than even poor white people. Now i can't find the numbers at the moment, and i'm sleepy and just finished an exam, ill look for them later. But on average even when a white family is poor they have more benefits than minorities. Due to this it's is usually harder for minorities to 'achieve' enough to earn a scholarship by merit. This is why there is affirmative action. Even if in principle i think it's a good idea to have race blind scholarships, due to the overrepresentation of caucasians in the US it would be unfair to the minorities.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX True, you can strike the first part. My point was that minorities tend to be underprivileged. Also Caucasians being the majority of the population in the US (in general even if they are the minority in a few places), if scholarships were to be race blind the proportions of scholarships would not be balanced due to the fact that by default there are more whites than minorities. So even if we turn the scholarships into race blind grants the minorities would once again be on the losing side of things.

More scholarships, numerically, should go to white people than minorities, because they are the majority. If 60% of college aged people are white, white people should get roughly 60% of the scholarships. Just because minorities get less as a number doesn't put them on the "losing side of things." It puts them equal, not behind. What you're advocating is giving them additional benefits, which requires you to take them from the majority simply based on race. Also, I have no idea where you're getting this notion that poor minorities are worse off than poor whites. Maybe it's based on where poor minorities live compared to poor whites (rural vs. urban), but other than that, I don't know how you can make that statement.

Lastly, you guys are combining need-based financial grants with scholarships, which are merit based.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Lastly, you guys are combining need-based financial grants with scholarships, which are merit based.

Right. Except when you have merit based scholarships that are targeted at specific races/ethnicities (or limit their applicant pools to said groups).

I see nothing wrong with it....in 20 years Hispanics will be damn near take over! Sooooooooooo like i said, I see nothing wrong.









Viva la Raza!!

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy More scholarships, numerically, should go to white people than minorities, because they are the majority. If 60% of college aged people are white, white people should get roughly 60% of the scholarships. Just because minorities get less as a number doesn't put them on the "losing side of things." It puts them equal, not behind. What you're advocating is giving them additional benefits, which requires you to take them from the majority simply based on race. Also, I have no idea where you're getting this notion that poor minorities are worse off than poor whites. Maybe it's based on where poor minorities live compared to poor whites (rural vs. urban), but other than that, I don't know how you can make that statement.

Yes, i say it because i believe that white people are still more privileged in the US than minorities. The playing field is not leveled so minorities need an little extra help. And as far as where i draw my comparison from, poor whites suffer less from stereotyping than do minorities, because even though they're poor they're not as salient as minorities. You may think that this is not a big deal, and that they should just suck it up and get to it, but it's been shown that being the target of stereotypes can cause decrease in performance on tests causing minorities to loose out on 'merit' based financial aid (Stereotype Threat). I think this bit of extra help will in the long wrong help the states more than do it any harm.

quote:

Lastly, you guys are combining need-based financial grants with scholarships, which are merit based.

Wasn't aware that there was this difference. If so the need base grants should cover the extra help needed by minorities that i argue for.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Yes, i say it because i believe that white people are still more privileged in the US than minorities. The playing field is not leveled so minorities need an little extra help. And as far as where i draw my comparison from, poor whites suffer less from stereotyping than do minorities, because even though they're poor they're not as salient as minorities. You may think that this is not a big deal, and that they should just suck it up and get to it, but it's been shown that being the target of stereotypes can cause decrease in performance on tests causing minorities to loose out on 'merit' based financial aid (Stereotype Threat). I think this bit of extra help will in the long wrong help the states more than do it any harm.

Don't you think that being on the side where you don't benefit from affirmative action could have a similar negative psychological effect on white people, who as mentioned in LazFX's comment, will be the minority in a short matter of years? Also, at that point, will we completely reverse affirmative action to help whites who have become the minority?

quote:

Wasn't aware that there was this difference. If so the need base grants should cover the extra help needed by minorities that i argue for.

The school that I went to only gave out need based financial aid and any scholarships that my fellow classmates may have had came from private foundations, not my school.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Don't you think that being on the side where you don't benefit from affirmative action could have a similar negative psychological effect on white people, who as mentioned in LazFX's comment, will be the minority in a short matter of years? Also, at that point, will we completely reverse affirmative action to help whites who have become the minority?

But that's the thing, people don't realize affirmative action has been around for ages, only it's been for white people. It's only recently that other races have been benefiting from affirmative action. I think it will get to a point where it will not be necessary anymore but you have to remember that minorities in the states are playing catch up in an environment ridden with disadvantages. And as far as negative psychological effects from whites not getting affirmative action there could be some, but whites are in general not subjected to stereotype threat, unless they belong to some salient group (fat, 'white trash', etc...).

quote:

The school that I went to only gave out need based financial aid and any scholarships that my fellow classmates may have had came from private foundations, not my school.

Well im not very well versed as to how this system works in the US. Certainly i think that a mix of both need based and merit based financial aid would be optimal.

Actually, I know tons of people, who go to school with me, that told me how much harder it is to get into school/get aid if you're white. I'm not sure what my views on affirmative action are, as I'm not sure if there really is a need for it anymore, but I think it's pretty damn unfair to have a much harder time getting an education/funding for it just because you're white. Don't know about you guys, but I know I'd be pretty pissed off about it if I were white.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX I see nothing wrong with it....in 20 years Hispanics will be damn near take over! Sooooooooooo like i said, I see nothing wrong. Viva la Raza!!

you shouldn't be proud. Those people coming from Mexico are of the inferior kind. They will ruin the US. And as a result, the US will have a surge in hate crimes. Thank you, mexicans.

And another thing. It isn't in twenty years, it is in 44yrs, when the US will have more people of hispanics.

quote:

Originally posted by BiG-_BoSS you shouldn't be proud. Those people coming from Mexico are of the inferior kind. They will ruin the US. And as a result, the US will have a surge in hate crimes. Thank you, mexicans. And another thing. It isn't in twenty years, it is in 44yrs, when the US will have more people of hispanics.

Wow i can't believe you just said that. I hope you're being sarcastic. People being inferior? So you're presupposing that some other people are superior no? Good thing modern racism was supposed to be subtle.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Wow i can't believe you just said that. I hope you're being sarcastic. People being inferior? So you're presupposing that some other people are superior no? Good thing modern racism was supposed to be subtle.

Actually, that was old fashion slavic sarcasm. No need to get offended.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.