White student returns scholarship intended for black students

[dust1n]

Does that take into account differences in population number? Or differences in applying for them?

It takes into account the differences in population number. Here was the link posted a few pages ago by Kathryn, and this is what I was using for my statistic (should have put it up again earlier).

Scholarships Go Disproportionately To White Students | ThinkProgress

 

[Panda]

It takes into account the differences in population number. Here was the link posted a few pages ago by Kathryn, and this is what I was using for my statistic (should have put it up again earlier).

Scholarships Go Disproportionately To White Students | ThinkProgress

Cheers, sorry didn't see that a few pages back. I wonder how that would look if it was arranged in a socio-economic way.

 

[dust1n]

Cheers, sorry didn't see that a few pages back. I wonder how that would look if it was arranged in a socio-economic way.

It's all good. After 10 pages, you can't really blame anyone for not seeing the post, lol. I can't seem to find any info about class distribution, I wish I could. It is plausible that a removal of 'race' based scholarships for replacing them with economic inequality scholarships would work out better for minorities, but I am skeptical of the claim, especially since there doesn't seem to be much empirical data regarding it. I wouldn't want to instigate such a chance without first seeing how relevant info, because if it didn't work, things would be a lot worse of for minorities who are already at a disadvantage.

 

[Panda]

It's all good. After 10 pages, you can't really blame anyone for not seeing the post, lol. I can't seem to find any info about class distribution, I wish I could. It is plausible that a removal of 'race' based scholarships for replacing them with economic inequality scholarships would work out better for minorities, but I am skeptical of the claim, especially since there doesn't seem to be much empirical data regarding it. I wouldn't want to instigate such a chance without first seeing how relevant info, because if it didn't work, things would be a lot worse of for minorities who are already at a disadvantage.

Yea that is true. Also I take it those numbers don't represent percentages that actually apply for scholarships do they?

 

[dust1n]

Yea that is true. Also I take it those numbers don't represent percentages that actually apply for scholarships do they?

Probably not.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

My point was never really addressed I notice. If whites still get 10% more of the scholarship funds even when blacks have scholarships just for them, then what harm is the black specific scholarships causing? If the black specific scholarships suddenly become socioeconomic scholarships, why would you not expect whites to get 10% more of those than blacks also?

Oops my apologies dust1n.

To answer your first question, consider some examples. Women are horribly under-represented in the Senate. Does that mean there would be "no harm" in giving female candidates an extra bonus number of votes in each election vs. male candidates? Men are over-represented in prison, does that mean there would be "no harm" in having men-only pardons for which women are ineligible?

Not necessarily, and for two important reasons. First, a a fair outcome for a group at the national level is not all that matters. We also want fair outcomes for individuals, at the individual level. It is concern for the individual person in their own individual case, after all, which is supposed to supersede considerations of group membership, if we believe that all people are basically equal. For example, if most of the voters in state X voted for the male candidate, and yet the female wins due to having "bonus votes", it is of little comfort to the voters of state X to contemplate that, elsewhere in the country, their gender is still "winning" overall. The voters still got hosed. If a female prisoner does not have access to all the same legal rights and protections as male prisoners, that wrong is not righted by the knowledge that her gender, at the national level, spends less time in jail. That prisoner is still in jail. Secondly, there are arguably other methods which would encourage gender equality over time, without compromising principles of fairness for individuals.

So notice that we don't necessarily rectify group-level inequality in politics and law by using methods which contradict democracy and justice at the individual-level. Similarly, I don't think we rectify group-level inequality in education by methods which contradict equal opportunity and non-discrimination at the level of individual people. If a person is ineligible for an educational opportunity due to their skin color, I think harm has been done. The idea that a person's race is over-represented on a national scale does not change this, unless we regard people as members of a group rather than as individuals.

To address your second question: remember that there are merit-based scholarships, as well as minority and need-based scholarships. I suspect whites are 10% over-represented for all scholarships, because they outperform on the merit-based scholarships (since they tend to be lucky enough to come from better socioeconomic backgrounds). I would not expect this to be the case for need-based scholarships since, as the ThinkProgress article pointed out, minorities have disproportionately greater need.

 

[dust1n]

Oops my apologies dust1n.

To answer your first question, consider some examples. Women are horribly under-represented in the Senate. Does that mean there would be "no harm" in giving female candidates an extra bonus number of votes in each election vs. male candidates? Men are over-represented in prison, does that mean there would be "no harm" in having men-only pardons for which women are ineligible?

Not necessarily, and for two important reasons. First, a a fair outcome for a group at the national level is not all that matters. We also want fair outcomes for individuals, at the individual level. It is concern for the individual person in their own individual case, after all, which is supposed to supersede considerations of group membership, if we believe that all people are basically equal. For example, if most of the voters in state X voted for the male candidate, and yet the female wins due to having "bonus votes", it is of little comfort to the voters of state X to contemplate that, elsewhere in the country, their gender is still "winning" overall. The voters still got hosed. If a female prisoner does not have access to all the same legal rights and protections as male prisoners, that wrong is not righted by the knowledge that her gender, at the national level, spends less time in jail. That prisoner is still in jail. Secondly, there are arguably other methods which would encourage gender equality over time, without compromising principles of fairness for individuals.

So notice that we don't necessarily rectify group-level inequality in politics and law by using methods which contradict democracy and justice at the individual-level. Similarly, I don't think we rectify group-level inequality in education by methods which contradict equal opportunity and non-discrimination at the level of individual people. If a person is ineligible for an educational opportunity due to their skin color, I think harm has been done. The idea that a person's race is over-represented on a national scale does not change this, unless we regard people as members of a group rather than as individuals.

I get the comparison, but it's a bit extreme, and the most important thing to note here is that these two examples above are public institutions, not private institutions. Not to mention the examples either include negation of voting or inequality in justice, neither of which the scholarships are vexed with.

To address your second question: remember that there are merit-based scholarships, as well as minority and need-based scholarships. I suspect whites are 10% over-represented for all scholarships, because they outperform on the merit-based scholarships (since they tend to be lucky enough to come from better socioeconomic backgrounds). I would not expect this to be the case for need-based scholarships since, as the ThinkProgress article pointed out, minorities have disproportionately greater need.

I can agree to that. I don't think it would be the greatest idea to completely do away with minority scholarships immediately, but I'd like the see the effects of need-based scholarships and so fourth, but aren't most scholarships already need-based? Even the ones for African-Americas are need based. Now, I don't know how stringently that is upheld, but it seems like the majority of scholarships require the student to show their merit plus their financial need. I still can't find any stats on class-scholarship distribution, and that makes it a lot harder to jump on board if it suggests all minority scholarships are to be made illegal, or whatever.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I purposefully chose "extreme" examples that everyone would agree upon, to illustrate a general idea: just because a practice is effective at solving group-level inequality, doesn't mean that practice is legitimate or causes no harm. I'm not saying those examples prove that minority scholarships are illegitimate, I'm just showing that your logic (they help racial inequality, so what's the harm?) is not necessarily sound, all by itself.

Secondly: I'm not saying minority scholarships should be illegal! What I'm saying is that they should be looked at more critically. According to Teach for America only 8% of kids growing up in low-income communities graduate from college by age 24. But according to Wiki, 40% of the general American population over age 25 graduates from college. This is a big problem.

On the other hand if we just look at race without looking at the context, we are lead to (i.m.o.) nonsensical conclusions. A remarkable 48% of native-born Asian Americans are attaining college degrees, whereas only 30% of native-born whites are going to college. The disparity is even worse for blacks and hispanics. Clearly, there should not be minority college scholarships for Asians -- and yet there are many. Clearly, whites should not be the only race excluded from "minority" scholarships -- and yet they essentially are. Is anyone going to argue that Asians are outpacing whites because there exists racism in favor of Asians? Society sometimes still acts as though we are living in the 1950's, when there was institutionalized racism against non-whites, and any racial disparity was caused by that institutionalized racism. The country has changed. Unequal opportunity in America today is due to poverty. And unequal outcomes are due, at least to some extent, to individual choices which happen to coincide with race, giving the appearance of racism when in fact little or none may actually exist.

I think colleges don't want to solve the real problem of unequal opportunity due to poverty, they would rather treat the symptom -- racial disparity. I think it's better for their endowments. That's why tuition costs are skyrocketing. As long as you solve the politically-correct problem of racial disparity, you can ignore the really fundamental problem of class disparity. I've been to a few college campuses where the student body was very "diverse" (meaning whites and native-born Americans were under-represented). Asians were strikingly over-represented. And guess who was barely represented at all? Poor kids. Most of the kids, of all races, were clearly from well-off, educated families. Hey we're diverse, so let's raise tuition!

 

[dust1n]

I purposefully chose "extreme" examples that everyone would agree upon, to illustrate a general idea: just because a practice is effective at solving group-level inequality, doesn't mean that practice is legitimate or causes no harm. I'm not saying those examples prove that minority scholarships are illegitimate, I'm just showing that your logic (they help racial inequality, so what's the harm?) is not necessarily sound, all by itself.

Secondly: I'm not saying minority scholarships should be illegal! What I'm saying is that they should be looked at more critically. According to Teach for America only 8% of kids growing up in low-income communities graduate from college by age 24. But according to Wiki, 40% of the general American population over age 25 graduates from college. This is a big problem.

Good points. I would never discourage looking critically at anything, and you bring up very legitimate point. And thanks for that link because I wasn't able to find scholarship rates for low-income communities earlier.

I would certainly like to believe that as racism becomes even more and more obscured, that these 'race'-based scholarships will become less and less as time progresses.

On the other hand if we just look at race without looking at the context, we are lead to (i.m.o.) nonsensical conclusions. A remarkable 48% of native-born Asian Americans are attaining college degrees, whereas only 30% of native-born whites are going to college. The disparity is even worse for blacks and hispanics. Clearly, there should not be minority college scholarships for Asians -- and yet there are many. Clearly, whites should not be the only race excluded from "minority" scholarships -- and yet they essentially are. Is anyone going to argue that Asians are outpacing whites because there exists racism in favor of Asians?

I wouldn't necessarily exclude the possibility. The stereotypes that are attributed to Asians and academia are positive. It's assumed by some that Asians would be better in school (or maybe they actually are, who knows). It seems cultural to some extent, as anyone from Asia and familiar with Asia politics and economies is going to stress to their kid the importance of opportunity, and how it might be necessary to feel out every single scholarship available. I wouldn't say any of this with much confidence though.

Society sometimes still acts as though we are living in the 1950's, when there was institutionalized racism against non-whites, and any racial disparity was caused by that institutionalized racism. The country has changed. Unequal opportunity in America today is due to poverty. And unequal outcomes are due, at least to some extent, to individual choices which happen to coincide with race, giving the appearance of racism when in fact little or none may actually exist.

It's really hard to say. I wouldn't be too quick that racism has to be institutionalized to make a profound difference in a society. Like I think I mentioned earlier, Pensacola hasn't institutionalized racism, but if you are cruising around town, it's now to hard to see that something is very wrong in this city.

I think colleges don't want to solve the real problem of unequal opportunity due to poverty, they would rather treat the symptom -- racial disparity. I think it's better for their endowments. That's why tuition costs are skyrocketing. As long as you solve the politically-correct problem of racial disparity, you can ignore the really fundamental problem of class disparity. I've been to a few college campuses where the student body was very "diverse" (meaning whites and native-born Americans were under-represented). Asians were strikingly over-represented. And guess who was barely represented at all? Poor kids. Most of the kids, of all races, were clearly from well-off, educated families. Hey we're diverse, so let's raise tuition!

I don't know if you can you can pinpoint tuition costs on that. Tuition nearly doubled at my last school by the time I got done. This has more to do with public funding being cut. I don't know about all schools though.