randomWalks

Money from fraternal organizations and churches aren't scholorships. And correct me if I'm wrong but people of color have fraternal organizations and churches too, don't they? That argument holds no water.

Money from fraternal organizations and churches aren't scholorships.

You must have a funny definition of "scholarship". They're giving money for school to students, right? And how does what you call it really make a difference? If the question is basically "Can Caucasians get money for higher education?", the answer is yes. But no, there's no United Whitey College Fund if you insist on being indignant.

Also: DU can get shrill sometimes, but their weekly top ten list is great, as is Auntie Pinko.

I also thought this was important (from the link):

For white people, the 'unfairness' of affirmative action, or minority preferences, or highly publicized discrimination suits, is only worthy of attention when it is brought to their attention, or when it affects them personally. The overwhelmingly vast majority of their time, they are free to forget about the skin color, religious practice, language, and the various physical qualities they share with rest of the group that controls the largest share of America's wealth assets, political power, social influence, media attention, etc. Because they personally may not feel wealthy or privileged, they do not perceive the privilege they enjoy simply by not having to be 'different.'

i wasn't being indignant, i was logicaly refuting the point. don't people of color have churches and fraternal organizations? the answer is yes, the question rhetorical. if the fact that caucasians have churches and fraternal organizations is an argument for racialy segregated scholorships, then it's no argument at all. personaly, i think the United Negro College Fund is a wonderful thing, i dont think it has to be defended at all. and one shouldn't bandy words like "whitey" around, it isn't polite.

I am on the side of affirmative action. However, I often wondered in high school why they had a hard time finding african americans to give the 'black only' scholarships or grants to. My school was ~50/40/10 (black/white/asian) and so few blacks applied for these highly publicized awards that the administration would have to go around persuading people to apply. I hate using anecdotes in debates because they are anecdotes but I'm curious if people have thoughts on such phenomena.

And...Just because I'm a stickler at some things...there is a difference between scholarships and grants and alot of fraternities and churches do not base awards solely or predominately on scholarship/academics.

i was logicaly refuting the point

No, you were playing word games. All you demonstrated was that maybe the word 'scholarship' was used inappropriately. The linked article isn't arguing for racially segregated scholarships--where do you get that from?

And yeah, I was being oversnarky with the whitey thing.

the artical is arguing for afirmative action, therefore it is arguing for certain monies to be set aside specificaly for people of color, non? as to the word scholarship, under the second definition the artical did use it correctly, my bad. my issue was more with the argument that the word usage, but really was ment only to be a small point.

I think the point of the article is that inequities don't tend to address themselves, especially in the unique situation in the U.S. where the racial majority holds the power. Objections to affirmative action on principle are a sideshow; how would you address the inequity?

in meetings all afternoon but i wanted to jot a quick...read quick....reply to adam who, as usual, cuts down to the heart of the matter neatly skirting the semantics i enjoy so much. perhaps its overly idealistic but i have to believe that any answer to the inequality issue has to begin on a community level, not with large non-profits and not with government programs but with community based movments to improve the world around you and foster understanding. it has to be about changing things on a very small, personal level first. this is part of why the blog culture is so interesting, as long as whats on the screen eventualy gets somehow transfered to the street.

I'm white and claimed as a dependant. I am having a horrid time trying to find a scholarship for myself. Financial Aid is not applicable because of the dependant problem, parents are a not going to help, and every scholarship says for MINORITIES or must show financial need through FASFA. Back in a circle because FASFA looks at my parents information. What can I do?

We ought to be against affirmative action because it is anti-merit. If it were not anti-merit in its effects, there would be nothing to be obtained by using this system. The political interest in using these preferences is present only insofar as it is anti-merit in its effects; therefore we should be anti-affirmative action and anti-quota policies. Being anti-merit is immoral.

We ought to be against affirmative action because it is anti-merit. If it were not anti-merit in its effects, there would be nothing to be obtained by using this system. The political interest in using these preferences is present only insofar as it is anti-merit in its effects; therefore we should be anti-affirmative action and anti-quota policies. Being anti-merit is immoral.

Your examples of scholarships weren't white in the same sense as the black scholarships were black. This sort of reasoning is called equivocation, and when it is intentional, implies attempted deception. I assume there was no intent to deceive; though it is clear that affirmative action has to use deception. If not, why don't they just call them racial quotas? Why is it called a temporary, break-a-cycle program, when it has been going on for thirty or more years? Why is it called anti-racist when the policy is racist, assuming a monolithic racial bloc that inherits power of oppression on racial lines? Let's be anti-affirmative action, anti-quota and anti-privilege all at the same time, it is possible.

Your examples of scholarships weren't white in the same sense as the black scholarships were black. This sort of reasoning is called equivocation, and when it is intentional, implies attempted deception. I assume there was no intent to deceive; though it is clear that affirmative action has to use deception. If not, why don't they just call them racial quotas? Why is it called a temporary, break-a-cycle program, when it has been going on for thirty or more years? Why is it called anti-racist when the policy is racist, assuming a monolithic racial bloc that inherits power of oppression on racial lines? Let's be anti-affirmative action, anti-quota and anti-privilege all at the same time, it is possible.

how do you get a scholorship from the American Legion or VFW?

I would love to see some empirical work supporting affirmative action, especially on the gender side. All I have ever seen in support of such "initiaves" are anecdotes and the shame accorded to one who questions its validity.