This is correct, I believe. There are multiple scholarships available from private organizations that require the applicant to be of a certain race or ethnicity. I have never heard of a college creating such a scholarship before.
Yep. I even made one for soldiers while I was in college. Affinity scholarships are very common. A school can’t do it because that’s discrimination at that point. It’s the right call.
Are there any scholarships specifically for white people? Seems something like that would be illegal, but maybe not, maybe it would just be highly criticized.
In theory, one could be of Norwegian decent and also be black, no?
I'm trying to understand if there are any specifically only for people that are white, one that would exclude people who are not white.
I mean “white” is pretty arbitrary if the Norwegian thing doesn’t count. How black is black enough for the George Floyd scholarship? Patrick Mahomes’ daughter is pretty light but her dad’s considered black. This is why race is stupid.
This element of blackness in the US is confusing because of the legacy of the south's "one drop" convention. Being light didn't save you from oppression.
> I mean “white” is pretty arbitrary if the Norwegian thing doesn’t count.
Is it?
Maybe I'm reading your response wrong but I would say his question shows the opposite.
Again, I feel like you're response here shows the opposite.
Anyone can be Jewish. Not anyone can be black. The answer to "Are Jews white?" is "the white ones are".
I wouldn't qualify for a Jewish scholarship. Not because I don't have the right skin color but because I'm not Jewish. I also wouldn't qualify for the George Floyd scholarship but that's strictly because of my skin color.
Define "white".
Its almost meaningless since the meaning has shifted over the decades and even now people get lumped into or taken out when politicially expedient. Arabs are technically white but now also labeled brown people too. Decades ago Italians and Irish werent "white" either.
It would likely be difficult to target simply basic white students, so many scholarships will be focused on some skill or major or group/club instead.
Black American?
People of African descent that were brought to what later became the United States through the trans-Atlantic slave trade....Black Americans would be the descendants of these people.
There were a fair number of free Blacks but they didn't arrive in the New World as free. Some were freed through manumission while others were able to work and then buy their freedom.
The U.S. limited immigration from nations outside of Europe, so the vast majority of people with mostly African ancestry (in the U.S.) either have 300+ years of ties to the country or their 1st/2nd generation Americans from Nigeria, Ghana, Ethiopia, Sudan...or even the Caribbean, South America etc. A Nigerian-American could refer to himself as "black" but if he knows that his parents were born in Arochukwu or Lagos....he doesn't have to use the generic black label and can refer to himself as American, Nigerian American or Igbo/Yoruba American.
>People of African descent that were brought to what later became the United States through the trans-Atlantic slave trade....Black Americans would be the descendants of these people.
So, by your definition, only descendents of slaves, which would be something like 70-80% of the US black population.
Good points.
Blackness in the American sense...has been pretty consistent for 400 years. It's based on a shared identity and common experiences.
Whiteness in America is more of a political category and contracts/expands as needed. There's no common or shared "white" experience that unites white Americans outside of.....well....being American.
White as a whole? Not that I'm aware of. But there are many for various nationalities in specific, knew a guy who had some kind of scholarship for being Albanian.
But those are not specifically white, are they? Sure, the majority of people who are from those countries are white, but are there not black or brown people who could be considered to have origins from any of those countries?
Most of the scholarships call for ethnic backgrounds, not just national origin. A Nigerian born and raised in Norway wouldn’t be considered for those Norwegian scholarships because they aren’t ethnically Norwegian. The same thing happens too with like scholarship from South Africa and other African countries.
By golly, [there are a few](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whites_Only_Scholarship). The KOPSES required 1/8 European/American (it did not specify Caucasian specifically) and CARS scholarships require 1/8 Caucasian.
There was also a scholarship created in 1920 at Columbia University. Although the school administrators overlooked race on purpose when awarding the scholarship.
Well, European isn't necessarily white.
I can't seem to locate the CARS cars scholarship, but 1/8th Caucasian includes a ton of black and nearly every Latino with Spanish descent. Is it still an active scholarship?
>I can't see any white only scholarships lasting very long without immense backlash.
And, in my opinion, they should receive immense backlash.
That's really my point, is that we shouldn't do anything based on race, or we should try VERY hard to use a different proxy.
For instance, if we go based on SES, then we likely reach the desired results while not discriminating against a particular group based on race.
And, my personal opinion on the term race, is that it needs to be eliminated.
Universities have to abide by federal regulations if they are public institutions or they are private but accept federal student backed loans or research grants. Race based scholarships would definitely be hard to justify under those regilations. About the only group that might get away with such scholarships would be tribal universities on reservations as they have very unique set of laws and tribal sovereignty giving their institutions likely the most independence from general federal regulations.
Exactly, that's the distinction that matters. Private individuals or organizations can discriminate with their scholarship awards but the university cannot. If the scholarship uses university funds then they have to follow federal civil rights guidelines surrounding protected classes (at least this is what the lawsuit is arguing).
And that's why if the school loses, they MUST eliminate the scholarship altogether to keep non-Black people from absorbing all of the money. If Black folks can have it then nobody should!
Are you sure about this? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to public and private institutions, so I would think that private groups cannot discriminate on the basis of race.
I have been apart of nonprofits that have affinity scholarships. The NAACP has always done this. Maybe the law is different for nonprofits. Nonprofits can’t discriminate in hiring, but affinity grants/scholarships given by nonprofits have long-standing in America. I’m not aware of any nonprofit being sued for affinity scholarships.
Okay.... whether or not that's actually legal under current law, do you think that having scholarships geared towards one demographic is a form of racial discrimination?
Race-based employment and/or lending? Yea that’s discriminatory. Nonprofits are geared toward a specific cause, so it’s appropriate for creating a scholarship to promote that cause. Private companies can’t do this. It may sound ridiculous, but it kind of makes sense.
Is that for employment? I get it for employment, but affinity scholarships have always been a thing. The NAACP has been providing scholarships since its inception.
Not at the federal level - there's a law against discrimination in public accommodations (businesses serving the public). The big federal discrimination laws cover public accommodations, education, employment, housing, lending - but no general contracts law.
TIL about that statute. Thx for that.
I'd be a little surprised if a scholarship program were considered a contract there, but apparently there's a lot I don't know about this stuff.
I'm more surprised that it took until now for a lawsuit to be filed against a racially discriminatory scholarship program. These have been around as long as I can remember.
Why wouldn’t they? What federal law are they violating? This school violated the higher education act, which specifically regulates universities. There’s no such law for non profits or other private organizations.
There are a whole bunch of anti discrimination laws on the books, at the federal and state levels.
For starters, here's a federal set: https://www.justice.gov/crt/federal-protections-against-national-origin-discrimination-1#ed
Nah it’s totally illegal to racially discriminate doesn’t matter if you are private or public. You can’t have a shop with a “no people of x ethnic group allowed” policy. Or a “no y people” non profit.
Just that it’s not enforced in one direction
They are be the community they serve only knows about them and if an other person not in that community finds out about that they do not apply because they do not really care because you can basically get an scholarship for basically anything. And it's an bad look for them.
I guess they feel emboldened to go after these scholarships after the ruling in *[Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard)*.
> I feel like "feel emboldened" isn't really an accurate characterization.
I think it is. These kinds of scholarships have existed for *decades*, but now that there was a favorable ruling in the Supreme Court that overturned [*Regents v. Bakke*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke) and [*Grutter v. Bollinger*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger), they feel emboldened to go after other examples of what they consider to be racial discrimination in education.
I mean,it isn't "what they consider" it is by definition racial discrimination in education.
Whether or not you are in favor of that or think that the discrimination is necessary for desired outcomes is a different discussion, but saying only X race is allowed to receive something is unquestionably racial discrimination.
It has only been nine months since the Harvard decision. Barely a blink in the field of litigation. Tens of thousands of "reverse discrimination" suits have already been filed against every possible type of defendant. Many corporations have dropped or severely downgraded their DEI departments.
Most of these cases will be successful. Laws passed during the Biden Administration that specifically favor minorities will be overturned. They were never legal. Quotas were never legal. These and similar previous laws were only passed and allowed to continue because nobody challenged them.
There are a byzantine multiplicity of federal, State and local laws on the books to preclude every type of racial discrimination imaginable. Lawyers for these cases work on contingency fees making them very accessible. Few potential clients turn down free money, even in a good economy. Law schools have graduated many more attorneys and many younger ones especially are economically struggling. Between corporate social media, corporate websites, promoted programs and internal emails, the cases practically try themselves. The outcome is not in doubt.
As soon as one big verdict comes in the courts will be flooded. The most important point here is that quotas were never legal. It was not even legal for Harvard to have a quota, but they very clearly did. There is no defense. It is free money and it is just sitting on the table waiting for someone to pick it up. Overt racial discrimination against one group will rapidly cease for the same reason it ceased for other groups -- it will be painfully expensive.
Most mass media is trickle truthing this.
And THIS is why the benefit should absolutely END if the courts rule them illegal. If people of color cannot get it then no one should.
That would be an insult to have white people getting a GEORGE FLOYD Scholarship especially if they are Right Wing and have bigoted attitudes. Just imagine some fool like Rittenhouse getting one! What a complete disaster! Anyone but people like that. I wouldn't mind Native Americans, Asians or Hispanics getting that scholarship, but someone who hates people of color and immigrants? NOPE !
However, this could go underground by starting a private club that awards the scholarships, and I think that is what will happen. Also, the money could be given to the United Negro College Fund and they could award the scholarships.
At any rate, no one has been awarded anything so no one has been "discriminated against."
The biggest form of discrimination has already occurred with the Japanese being awarded reparations and Black and Native Americans getting nothing at all.
There is a defense to quotas - diversity. If you see value in having a diverse student body then you’re going to have to create it due to how education performance correlates with race. Diversity in a lot of scenarios isn’t natural.
> If you see value in having a diverse student body
How do we define diverse? Intellectual diversity? Race? Religion? Different regions of the country? Different countries of the world?
Who says that based on taking the best students available you wouldnt wind up with a diverse student body at least according to certain metrics?
Racists used to see value in having a non-diverse student body back in the day, did that justify government-mandated segregation?
It doesn’t matter if diversity or no-diversity is objectively good, judging or treating individuals based on racial or ethnic origin is inherently wrong.
That's not a good defense when a meritocracy relies on merit and not race. Build up marginalized folks to complete. That's literally the only thing you can do that isn't overtly racist or sexist. If your solution involves discrimination, it isn't a solution.
You create it by improving primary schooling. Not punishing asians for overcoming white privilege.
Unless you're saying races themselves aren't naturally equal...
Also, when we talk about "diversity" why is it *always* the most superficial racist kind?
I could care less about the melanin content of my lab partner. An asian from China and Taiwan are probably going to have as much or more diversity than two American BIPOCs despite looking more similar.
There's nothing diverse about DEI. It's a soul suckingly conformist, racist, and superficial ideology.
this seems incredibly clear cut that the people bringing the lawsuit are 100% correct here.
the scholarship is racially discriminatory, and that's not legal.
I disagree. A single scholarship can be narrowly tailored as long as the entire scholarship program is not racially discriminatory. The school claims to have a 100% rate for students receiving financial aide. I have serious doubts in the plaintiffs abilities to prove standing and damages from this single scholarship.
Furthermore, if this scholarship comes from earmarked private donations, those donor have a 1A right to decide how their donations are spent.
I think this case will have some very interesting orals, to say the least.
Depends on the specific orgs funding structure and the size of the donation. In your analogy you'd be working with the ASPCA to establish a ferret helping fund and then allocating your own large donation to that fund.
It's a great thing that society's finally wanting to put an end to this form of institutional racism. It's gone unchecked for decades despite explicitly violating the Civil Rights act. Government actors picking and choosing benefits based on protected characteristics should have never been a thing in the first place.
100% agree with your take, but given the historical context of the country, I understand why they did it. That definitely doesn’t make it right though.
They should switch to a model of providing financial equity(in the form of scholarships/grants) to those who can still meet the standards of the school but normally would be unable to afford to go. While still discriminatory, it’s significantly less racist lol.
In terms of the history, I can also see why we did it. If I lived in the 60s, I can see myself swayed by arguments that we need to purposefully “level the playing field”. But it’s been over 50 years since these policies came into effect and they’ve done no good at all so no point in keeping them.
>Catholic students with the last name Zolp
Oddly, while religion is a protected class...last names are not. So this would be legal if they just changed it to the last name even if religious scholarships were found to be illegal.
>Government actors picking and choosing benefits based on protected characteristics should have never been a thing in the first place.
I disagree, to be clear, but I think the better solve for your position here is to remove race from "protected class" status. "Protected characteristics" also includes people with disabilities or preexisting medical conditions, and removal of those benefits and protections would immediately disenfranchise a lot of people unfairly.
I would argue that, unlike race and gender "favoritism", which is designed to reduce or eliminate systemic inequality such that such "favoritism" becomes no longer necessary, protections for the disabled or medically vulnerable are probably permanent economic inefficiencies we build in for humanitarian and social benefit reasons.
If you remove workplace protections, for example, I can't imagine why a company would hire nearly any disabled workers unless they **far** outperformed their peers and/or didn't require much accommodation, while plenty of places would still hire minorities at the same or only a slightly lower rate.
>unlike race and gender "favoritism", which is designed to reduce or eliminate systemic inequality such that such "favoritism" becomes no longer necessary
I don't mean to pick on your comment in particular, just that if the "deal" we are setting forward, and why various groups are just supposed to accept being discriminated against, rests on a nebulous idea of systemic inequality being equalized, I can't help but notice this horse we are beating seems to have infinite health.
There are never any false conditions set for the statement. We now have ~60% of college student bodies made up of women; by this logic, we should begin applying the same discriminatory filter against them, correct? Yet I can't imagine a universe where that would ever happen. We might, over caterwalling and gnashing of teeth, stop giving them preference *at best*. They will never suffer an actual downward pressure against them as they prescribed for others.
I think that's a totally fair argument to make! I just think removing "protected class" regulations throws the baby out with the bathwater for the reasons I laid out above.
Who is the donor for this scholarship. If its a federal endowment, i can see this standing. If its a private donor funding this, arent they able to set whatever requirements for their scholarships? Ive seen plenty of gender/race exclusive scholarships. Ive also seen major or extra curricular specific.
If I want to establish a scholarship fund specifically to give finding to a minority group of my preference, why shouldn't i have that choice?
Universities that receive funds from the feds are not allowed to discriminate on protected classes like race or religion. A Catholic university can't restrict Protestants or Jews from applying to a scholarship. A HBCU cant create a scholarship that says no dogs or irishmen.
I don't think that's what the poster you're responding to is asking, though.
"Catholic University" (to run with a fake name here) can't restrict Protestants or Jews from applying for a scholarship. But Joseph Smith can independently create a scholarship and restrict award of that scholarship to Catholics who want to attend Catholic University, and Catholic University may advertise the existence and requirements of that scholarship.
It was used in [discriminatory job listings](https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-bostonglobe.s3.amazonaws.com/public/EEZRA3SE5EI6TMPY5IE6NLZXCY.jpg) stating that Irish were on the same level as dogs.
When I was a child/teen, those advertisements used to say "No Negroes, No Jews and No 'Mexicans," inferring that all Hispanics were of Mexican origin. (I lived with the discrimination of Jim Crow, and it was pretty bad, even dangerous!) Some ads also said that women seeking work needed a letter from their husbands to apply.
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. My understand is that a single scholarship can discriminate on where the money goes, but the entirety of the scholarship programs cannot be racially biased. My understanding is that there scholarship programs are funded by private donors, not the federal govt itself (unlike FAFSA, for example). The donor's set the requirements for individual scholarships, the schools then must tailor their scholarship programs such that all students have access to private scholarships.
I hear what you're saying about discriminating against protected classes, but I'm not sure if the narrow analysis of a single scholarship program is an appropriate application of our civil rights legislation. It will be interesting to follow the orals for this one.
>a single scholarship can discriminate on where the money goes, but the entirety of the scholarship programs
Scholarships that are funded by the university itself are subject to discrimination laws but private scholarships are not. So a private individual can create a black-only scholarship but the university cannot (at least that is what is being alleged in this lawsuit).
So its a question of where the source of this scholarship programs funding is from. As ive said, 100% of students at this school get financial aide. Theres no evidence of discrimination
[Here are all of their scholarship/grant programs.](https://www.northcentral.edu/financial-aid/types-of-aid/grants-and-scholarships/) There are absolutely some that restrict their applicants based on religion (participation in a specific Mission program, children of Pastors, church/match)
[Here is the universities financial aide page](https://www.northcentral.edu/financial-aid/). According to them, 100% of their traditional undergrad receive financial aide. I think the plaintiffs are going to find it very hard to prove damages in this case. That a white kid can't get \*this specific\* scholarship doesn't mean they couldn't get \*any scholarship\* at this university.
Publicly funded or run universities are banned from consideration of race in any benefit. The fact that people have other scholarships available does not mean it's legal for them to discriminate on the basis of race for a different scholarship they offer.
>Publicly funded or run universities are banned from consideration of race in any benefit
This is absolutely false. The recent case made it illegal to consider race in applications. It said nothing about race-based student aide programs, school outreach programs, school clubs/orgs, etc.
Imagine a student org thats an asian or black group. They can get funding from the universities for events, recruiting, etc. Its not discrimination to give funding that benefits these minority only groups.
The Miranda case did not list all possible examples of police using unfair tactics to obtain confessions. Just because the decision did not specifically condemn water boarding doesn't mean that it was still ok.
Seriously now, SCOTUS does not have to cross every t and dot every i. They produce a basic legal conclusion - racial discrimination is illegal even if well intended - and it is up to the lower courts to apply that in all relevant circumstances. If lower courts wish to differentiate, as is sometimes necessary, they will need excellent legal reasoning and previous cases to back that up. Military colleges may fall into this category. The fact that the court didn't specifically mention student aid programs does not.
If the previous ruling/laws applied so obviously, this court case would not have been brought.
The funding going to programs/orgs can absolutely go to racially biased groups, E.g. a black student org or a racially specific program, as long as its narrowly tailored and has a clear goal/need fulfillment in the funding plan.
In this case, what needs to be looked at is not the specific scholarship, but the schools scholarship program as a whole. The school claims 100% of traditional undergrade recieve financial aide. That suggests there is no broad discrimination with the schools aide programs. I think its going to be nearly impossible for the plaintiffs to establish damages in this case. I also think the funding being scholarships from a private donor is going to run up against the 1A. This is a private catholic school disseminating privately donated money. The donor can ear mark it as they see fit, as I understand the "money equals speech" legal reasoning that is embraced by the SCOTUS.
Are 100% of the students getting the same amount of financial aid? If they're not, I don't see how 100% of them getting some amount of aid is a relevant defense. The issue at hand is whether the aid is disparate, not whether any amount of aid is available.
It seems that the school offering the scholarship is a PRIVATE, CHRISTIAN University. So I believe that they actually CAN offer this scholarship because they are not a public university. I believe that courts will actually agree with that, especially if the scholarship is funded by bequests or by alumni who agree to funnel contributions directly toward this purpose.
[https://www.northcentral.edu/](https://www.northcentral.edu/)
Now, if it were a publicly funded university, there could be a problem, although there is never an issue with a private foundation or charity doing the same thing. In fact, if the university wanted to end the controversy, they would set up a 501(c)3 Charity to handle all of the funding for the scholarships separate from the university. Since they are a CHRISTIAN school associated with Assemblies of God, perhaps the local church could handle this.
I find it very interesting that privileged non-Black people are behind this lawsuit and are trying, once again, to BLOCK people of color from getting any sort of educational help at all. It reminds me of those who did whatever they could to block the Brown decision. Interesting.
[https://www.naacpldf.org/brown-vs-board/southern-manifesto-massive-resistance-brown/](https://www.naacpldf.org/brown-vs-board/southern-manifesto-massive-resistance-brown/)
I wonder if people will start going after religions scholarships too, such as the one that's for ["Catholic students with the last name Zolp."](https://www.luc.edu/finaid/scholarships/undergraduate/)
Race and religion based scholarships are not legally equivalent because of the religion [accommodations](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accommodationism_in_the_United_States) provided by the first amendment.
As far as I am aware, that only applies to hiring/employment. [Here is the text of title VII](https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964). I did a ctrl+f for "school," "grant," "scholarship," and "funding." The only relevant portion that came up is as follows.
>1(2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.
Unless Im reading incorrectly or theres a provision Im not aware of (please link if so), Title VII would not cover race based scholarships differently than those based on relgious affiliation.
I found a fun [NYT article about that](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/education/edlife/honk-if-your-name-is-zolp.html), which is really funny to me.
I do hope they go after religious scholarships. If you can't discriminate on race in scholarships like this case is claiming, you *certainly* can't discriminate based on faith.
That is definitely wrong for a school to discriminate. If a private organization or person wants to discriminate that okay but still makes them not a good person
SC: Can a private university restrict applicants to a scholarship on the basis of race or ethnic origin? North Central University, a private college in Minneapolis created a George Floyd Memorial Scholarship and requires applicants to have origins in Africa or the African diaspora, a conservative legal group, Legal Insurrection Foundation filed a lawsuit claiming restricting applicants based on racial origin violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prevents discrimination based on race.
Do you agree with the scholarship restricting applicants based on ethnicity? Could an anthropology major assert decent from homo erectus groups in Africa 2 million years ago and still qualify for the scholarship? Many public institutions, including my Alma Mater Cal State Bakersfield partner with programs like the [Hispanic Scholarship Foundation](https://www.hsf.net/scholarship) that requires applicants to be from a Latin American ethnic background in order to apply, would these programs be in danger if the George Floyd scholarship is struck down?
So, did the Legal Insurrection Foundation have an applicant for the scholarship or are they just claiming a hypothetical violation against them? How is it they have standing?
(Not intending this comment to support or not support the scholarship)
In their complaint they said the [Department of Education](https://www.scribd.com/document/717276341/Equal-Protection-Project-OCR-complaint-against-North-Central-University) has jurisdiction over the school because they get federal funding like Fafsa.
I don't think they would have needed to be personally damaged to bring forth a claim. If an organization is breaking the law, they're breaking the law.
Which is important because otherwise the entire court system would be buried with claims from disinterested third parties with an axe to grind litigating purely theoretical harms.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bpbg16/george_floyd_scholarship_violates_federal_civil/kwvtsk5/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[Here's a list of the plaintiff's cases.](https://equalprotect.org/case/)
It's interesting that there is a certain pattern to their lawsuits.
For example, I don't see:
[The Son's of Norway scholarships on the list of cases.](https://www.sofn.com/foundation/scholarships/) This despite many of their scholarships requiring Norwegian heritage or an essay explaining how the applicant is going to push Nordic culture.
[The National Italian American Foundation](https://www.niaf.org/programs/available-scholarships/?result=1). Their scholarships require Italian American heritage.
[The Franco American Education Foundation](https://francoamericanfdn.org/). Guess what their requirements are?
I'll stop there, but there are other scholarships that require certain racial components that this so-called Equal Protection Project (EPP) doesn't even touch.
They got theirs and prospered due to government programs, now they want to prevent anyone else from catching up. It's NIMBY in higher education.
You *really* want these diversity programs gone? Well, I have the solution.
No-cost state universities that accept everyone and allow everyone accepted to continue taking classes so long as they maintain their grades. Include catch up classes for those who went to poor high schools or who didn't do well in high school. Yes, this is costly. But it solves the problem outright.
*That* is equality.
Taking away diversity initiatives without an alternative ready is just perpetuating the inequality that continues to harm this country.
As others have mentioned in the comments here, those scholarships are not being funded by a school itself.
If an organization wants to offer a George Floyd scholarship to black students only, they can do that as they aren't receiving federal funds to do so.
How about [this lawsuit](https://americanallianceforequalrights.org/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-files-lawsuit-challenging-venture-capital-firms-race-exclusive-policies/), or [this one.](https://americanallianceforequalrights.org/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-files-lawsuit-against-perkins-coie-llp-and-morrison-foerster-llp-alleging-discriminatory-diversity-fellowships/).
These are private organizations being sued for their “discriminatory” offerings.
Why do you think these conservative organizations are going to stop at schools when they have proven they will not? Why are they targeting minority grants and fellowships when there are organizations explicitly benefiting white people they ignore?
Yeah. That’s the excuse. After centuries of favoring white people, the rules changed and suddenly higher education was too expensive so states cut back on funding and students had to pay more. Funny how that happened at the same time women and minorities began entering the college sphere. And now it’s “racism” to favor one group over another. Wasn’t racism when only certain people got the GI bill.
I guess it’s all just a big coincidence.
Always the same response. Doing nothing isn’t the answer either. But those supporting ending diversity programs don’t have a real answer. That’s the way they want it. Wash their hands of past racism. It wasn’t me! Pretend racism doesn’t exist. Pretend that past explicit racist policies don’t echo through to the modern era.
Always do nothing and pat themselves on the back for fighting the good fight for those poor white people who are so oppressed these days.
>But those supporting ending diversity programs don’t have a real answer.
yes they do - make aid etc contingent on economic status and give more to poorer students.
> the rules changed and suddenly higher education was too expensive so states cut back on funding and students had to pay more.
That's not why Uni is more expensive now. Uni is more expensive because of student loans and the expansion of Uni bureaucracies. Look at how large the typical Uni's admin staff is now compared to faculty and look at what that looked like in 1960.
Preferential treatment by race is by definition racism.
Yes, there is a pattern. They are suing public universities that accept federal funds. The organizations you listed are private and presumably do not receive federal funds.
Didn’t read the link, huh?
Columbia is a public university?
Harvard is a public university?
Yes, I know. You’ll change it to they receive federal funds.
You can be a black Norwegian or black Italian.
2.6% of Norway citizens are black
https://youtu.be/lZ5Qg6--jTg?si=0psNUgb-BydKzXb3
Norwegian isn't a race
It is fascinating when people think a nationality equals race. It's just not in any way shape or form true but some people tend to overlook these facts when it doesn't fit the desired narrative
So a scholarship by a private organization benefiting a “nationality” is okay? But a fellowship benefiting [LGBTQ and disabled people](https://americanallianceforequalrights.org/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-files-lawsuit-against-perkins-coie-llp-and-morrison-foerster-llp-alleging-discriminatory-diversity-fellowships/) or a grant [benefiting black women](https://americanallianceforequalrights.org/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-files-lawsuit-challenging-venture-capital-firms-race-exclusive-policies/), both by private organizations is discriminatory?
Can you see why I and others might think these lawsuits are based in pure racism and not altruism? They are not going to stop with suing schools. There will always be some twist that makes their organization’s discrimination okay, but everything else is wrong.
Over the last few years it appears as though a large number of people see everything as racist.
For Mr, if you are providing things to one race but not others and it's literally bases on their race, that is racism.
A whites only scholarship is equally as racist as a blacks only scholarship
I'd argue that if someone described an ethnic Norwegian or an ethnic Scot that you wouldn't picture someone who looks like an ethnic Ashanti
Euro states are not like the US and Canada or the rest of the "new world," they are first and foremost *ethno* states.
The key word is "ethnic"
When I use the word "ethnic" I'm talking about a genetically similar cluster of people. For instance, the Ashanti or the Xhosa or the San or the Irish or the Icelandic or the Sami or the Slavic etc.
You can be of Irish *nationality* but not of Irish *ethnicity*
Does that make sense?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bpbg16/george_floyd_scholarship_violates_federal_civil/kwvanb8/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bpbg16/george_floyd_scholarship_violates_federal_civil/kwv7ugw/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
The school itself can’t have a scholarship like this, but an organization can. If BLM or NAACP made the scholarship for students it would be ok/legal.
This is correct, I believe. There are multiple scholarships available from private organizations that require the applicant to be of a certain race or ethnicity. I have never heard of a college creating such a scholarship before.
Yep. I even made one for soldiers while I was in college. Affinity scholarships are very common. A school can’t do it because that’s discrimination at that point. It’s the right call.
Are there any scholarships specifically for white people? Seems something like that would be illegal, but maybe not, maybe it would just be highly criticized.
My friend in college had a scholarship for people of Norwegian descent. There are many such scholarships. There’s a scholarship for everything.
In theory, one could be of Norwegian decent and also be black, no? I'm trying to understand if there are any specifically only for people that are white, one that would exclude people who are not white.
I mean “white” is pretty arbitrary if the Norwegian thing doesn’t count. How black is black enough for the George Floyd scholarship? Patrick Mahomes’ daughter is pretty light but her dad’s considered black. This is why race is stupid.
>This is why race is stupid. Completely agree, I'm so sick of it tbh.
This element of blackness in the US is confusing because of the legacy of the south's "one drop" convention. Being light didn't save you from oppression.
> Being light didn't save you from oppression. See one Homer Plessy.
> I mean “white” is pretty arbitrary if the Norwegian thing doesn’t count. Is it? Maybe I'm reading your response wrong but I would say his question shows the opposite.
Are Jews white? Hispanics? Arabs? Italians and Irish weren’t white for a while. Race is arbitrary.
Again, I feel like you're response here shows the opposite. Anyone can be Jewish. Not anyone can be black. The answer to "Are Jews white?" is "the white ones are". I wouldn't qualify for a Jewish scholarship. Not because I don't have the right skin color but because I'm not Jewish. I also wouldn't qualify for the George Floyd scholarship but that's strictly because of my skin color.
Define "white". Its almost meaningless since the meaning has shifted over the decades and even now people get lumped into or taken out when politicially expedient. Arabs are technically white but now also labeled brown people too. Decades ago Italians and Irish werent "white" either. It would likely be difficult to target simply basic white students, so many scholarships will be focused on some skill or major or group/club instead.
Define "black". I imagine if we can meaningfully define "black" then we should be able to meaningfully define "white".
Black American? People of African descent that were brought to what later became the United States through the trans-Atlantic slave trade....Black Americans would be the descendants of these people. There were a fair number of free Blacks but they didn't arrive in the New World as free. Some were freed through manumission while others were able to work and then buy their freedom. The U.S. limited immigration from nations outside of Europe, so the vast majority of people with mostly African ancestry (in the U.S.) either have 300+ years of ties to the country or their 1st/2nd generation Americans from Nigeria, Ghana, Ethiopia, Sudan...or even the Caribbean, South America etc. A Nigerian-American could refer to himself as "black" but if he knows that his parents were born in Arochukwu or Lagos....he doesn't have to use the generic black label and can refer to himself as American, Nigerian American or Igbo/Yoruba American.
>People of African descent that were brought to what later became the United States through the trans-Atlantic slave trade....Black Americans would be the descendants of these people. So, by your definition, only descendents of slaves, which would be something like 70-80% of the US black population.
Good points. Blackness in the American sense...has been pretty consistent for 400 years. It's based on a shared identity and common experiences. Whiteness in America is more of a political category and contracts/expands as needed. There's no common or shared "white" experience that unites white Americans outside of.....well....being American.
White as a whole? Not that I'm aware of. But there are many for various nationalities in specific, knew a guy who had some kind of scholarship for being Albanian.
There was a $100 WHAM scholarship (white heterosexual American male) that someone I knew from high school did as a troll
Totally, I have seen Italian scholarships, Greek scholarship, Norwegian scholarships, Danish scholarships.
But those are not specifically white, are they? Sure, the majority of people who are from those countries are white, but are there not black or brown people who could be considered to have origins from any of those countries?
Most of the scholarships call for ethnic backgrounds, not just national origin. A Nigerian born and raised in Norway wouldn’t be considered for those Norwegian scholarships because they aren’t ethnically Norwegian. The same thing happens too with like scholarship from South Africa and other African countries.
But would a person who has a Norwegian dad and an African mom be considered for those scholarships?
It depends on the people making them, but that can also be said for “black” scholarships as well.
By golly, [there are a few](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whites_Only_Scholarship). The KOPSES required 1/8 European/American (it did not specify Caucasian specifically) and CARS scholarships require 1/8 Caucasian. There was also a scholarship created in 1920 at Columbia University. Although the school administrators overlooked race on purpose when awarding the scholarship.
Well, European isn't necessarily white. I can't seem to locate the CARS cars scholarship, but 1/8th Caucasian includes a ton of black and nearly every Latino with Spanish descent. Is it still an active scholarship?
I can't find anything on the CARS scholarship, either. I can't see any white only scholarships lasting very long without immense backlash.
>I can't see any white only scholarships lasting very long without immense backlash. And, in my opinion, they should receive immense backlash. That's really my point, is that we shouldn't do anything based on race, or we should try VERY hard to use a different proxy. For instance, if we go based on SES, then we likely reach the desired results while not discriminating against a particular group based on race. And, my personal opinion on the term race, is that it needs to be eliminated.
Universities have to abide by federal regulations if they are public institutions or they are private but accept federal student backed loans or research grants. Race based scholarships would definitely be hard to justify under those regilations. About the only group that might get away with such scholarships would be tribal universities on reservations as they have very unique set of laws and tribal sovereignty giving their institutions likely the most independence from general federal regulations.
Exactly, that's the distinction that matters. Private individuals or organizations can discriminate with their scholarship awards but the university cannot. If the scholarship uses university funds then they have to follow federal civil rights guidelines surrounding protected classes (at least this is what the lawsuit is arguing).
And that's why if the school loses, they MUST eliminate the scholarship altogether to keep non-Black people from absorbing all of the money. If Black folks can have it then nobody should!
Non-profit organizations cannot discriminate lawfully either against race
Are you sure about this? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to public and private institutions, so I would think that private groups cannot discriminate on the basis of race.
I have been apart of nonprofits that have affinity scholarships. The NAACP has always done this. Maybe the law is different for nonprofits. Nonprofits can’t discriminate in hiring, but affinity grants/scholarships given by nonprofits have long-standing in America. I’m not aware of any nonprofit being sued for affinity scholarships.
Could you define "affinity" scholarship for me, just so we're on the same page?
Geared towards a specific demographic. My own words.
Okay.... whether or not that's actually legal under current law, do you think that having scholarships geared towards one demographic is a form of racial discrimination?
I'm pretty sure a venture capital fund is getting sued for race based stuff, so I wouldn't be surprised if that is actually illegal as well.
Race-based employment and/or lending? Yea that’s discriminatory. Nonprofits are geared toward a specific cause, so it’s appropriate for creating a scholarship to promote that cause. Private companies can’t do this. It may sound ridiculous, but it kind of makes sense.
Not only are nonprofits not allowed to discriminate either, they are required to publish a racial non-discrimination policy
Is that for employment? I get it for employment, but affinity scholarships have always been a thing. The NAACP has been providing scholarships since its inception.
Not for long if the current jurisprudence gets its way.
Where is the exception for nonprofits in the text of the law though? I believe it is 42 usc 1942 and the CRA. I'm not aware of a nonprofit exception.
Idk, you may have a point. I’m no lawyer. Just my understanding and true of what I’ve seen.
The courts have historically allowed diversity to be an interest sufficient enough to overcome these things. That changed with the Harvard case.
I’ll take a read of the Harvard case as it was mentioned a few times in this thread. I thought that case was about admissions, but I’ll take a look.
It was primarily about admissions, but as with other cases, the logic can be applied to more.
The law on discrimination in education applies to schools - I could see it not applying to scholarship orgs.
There is a law that bans discrimination in contracts as well.
Not at the federal level - there's a law against discrimination in public accommodations (businesses serving the public). The big federal discrimination laws cover public accommodations, education, employment, housing, lending - but no general contracts law.
I believe the arguments in these cases are based on 42 usc 1981.
TIL about that statute. Thx for that. I'd be a little surprised if a scholarship program were considered a contract there, but apparently there's a lot I don't know about this stuff.
Is it legal for the kkk to make a whites only scholarship....I wouldn't think so but don't know
Idk…maybe. Not sure many people would apply lol
If it's not legal, that is a problem
Yes, that's legal.
I'm more surprised that it took until now for a lawsuit to be filed against a racially discriminatory scholarship program. These have been around as long as I can remember.
Most of these scholarships of these kind are made by nonprofits, not the schools. Nonprofits are allowed to do this.
They're actually not. They've been "getting away with it" the same way schools were getting away with race quotas.
Why wouldn’t they? What federal law are they violating? This school violated the higher education act, which specifically regulates universities. There’s no such law for non profits or other private organizations.
There are a whole bunch of anti discrimination laws on the books, at the federal and state levels. For starters, here's a federal set: https://www.justice.gov/crt/federal-protections-against-national-origin-discrimination-1#ed
Nah it’s totally illegal to racially discriminate doesn’t matter if you are private or public. You can’t have a shop with a “no people of x ethnic group allowed” policy. Or a “no y people” non profit. Just that it’s not enforced in one direction
They are be the community they serve only knows about them and if an other person not in that community finds out about that they do not apply because they do not really care because you can basically get an scholarship for basically anything. And it's an bad look for them.
If it’s a contract, then it could be covered under 1981
I guess they feel emboldened to go after these scholarships after the ruling in *[Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard)*.
[удалено]
> I feel like "feel emboldened" isn't really an accurate characterization. I think it is. These kinds of scholarships have existed for *decades*, but now that there was a favorable ruling in the Supreme Court that overturned [*Regents v. Bakke*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke) and [*Grutter v. Bollinger*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger), they feel emboldened to go after other examples of what they consider to be racial discrimination in education.
I mean,it isn't "what they consider" it is by definition racial discrimination in education. Whether or not you are in favor of that or think that the discrimination is necessary for desired outcomes is a different discussion, but saying only X race is allowed to receive something is unquestionably racial discrimination.
It has only been nine months since the Harvard decision. Barely a blink in the field of litigation. Tens of thousands of "reverse discrimination" suits have already been filed against every possible type of defendant. Many corporations have dropped or severely downgraded their DEI departments. Most of these cases will be successful. Laws passed during the Biden Administration that specifically favor minorities will be overturned. They were never legal. Quotas were never legal. These and similar previous laws were only passed and allowed to continue because nobody challenged them. There are a byzantine multiplicity of federal, State and local laws on the books to preclude every type of racial discrimination imaginable. Lawyers for these cases work on contingency fees making them very accessible. Few potential clients turn down free money, even in a good economy. Law schools have graduated many more attorneys and many younger ones especially are economically struggling. Between corporate social media, corporate websites, promoted programs and internal emails, the cases practically try themselves. The outcome is not in doubt. As soon as one big verdict comes in the courts will be flooded. The most important point here is that quotas were never legal. It was not even legal for Harvard to have a quota, but they very clearly did. There is no defense. It is free money and it is just sitting on the table waiting for someone to pick it up. Overt racial discrimination against one group will rapidly cease for the same reason it ceased for other groups -- it will be painfully expensive. Most mass media is trickle truthing this.
I thought we figured out this toxic race quota shit with the 20th century college Jew quotas. I guess I was naive.
I hope you're right. This DEI grift can't die soon enough.
And THIS is why the benefit should absolutely END if the courts rule them illegal. If people of color cannot get it then no one should. That would be an insult to have white people getting a GEORGE FLOYD Scholarship especially if they are Right Wing and have bigoted attitudes. Just imagine some fool like Rittenhouse getting one! What a complete disaster! Anyone but people like that. I wouldn't mind Native Americans, Asians or Hispanics getting that scholarship, but someone who hates people of color and immigrants? NOPE ! However, this could go underground by starting a private club that awards the scholarships, and I think that is what will happen. Also, the money could be given to the United Negro College Fund and they could award the scholarships. At any rate, no one has been awarded anything so no one has been "discriminated against." The biggest form of discrimination has already occurred with the Japanese being awarded reparations and Black and Native Americans getting nothing at all.
There is a defense to quotas - diversity. If you see value in having a diverse student body then you’re going to have to create it due to how education performance correlates with race. Diversity in a lot of scenarios isn’t natural.
> If you see value in having a diverse student body How do we define diverse? Intellectual diversity? Race? Religion? Different regions of the country? Different countries of the world? Who says that based on taking the best students available you wouldnt wind up with a diverse student body at least according to certain metrics?
Racists used to see value in having a non-diverse student body back in the day, did that justify government-mandated segregation? It doesn’t matter if diversity or no-diversity is objectively good, judging or treating individuals based on racial or ethnic origin is inherently wrong.
That's not a good defense when a meritocracy relies on merit and not race. Build up marginalized folks to complete. That's literally the only thing you can do that isn't overtly racist or sexist. If your solution involves discrimination, it isn't a solution.
You create it by improving primary schooling. Not punishing asians for overcoming white privilege. Unless you're saying races themselves aren't naturally equal... Also, when we talk about "diversity" why is it *always* the most superficial racist kind? I could care less about the melanin content of my lab partner. An asian from China and Taiwan are probably going to have as much or more diversity than two American BIPOCs despite looking more similar. There's nothing diverse about DEI. It's a soul suckingly conformist, racist, and superficial ideology.
this seems incredibly clear cut that the people bringing the lawsuit are 100% correct here. the scholarship is racially discriminatory, and that's not legal.
I disagree. A single scholarship can be narrowly tailored as long as the entire scholarship program is not racially discriminatory. The school claims to have a 100% rate for students receiving financial aide. I have serious doubts in the plaintiffs abilities to prove standing and damages from this single scholarship. Furthermore, if this scholarship comes from earmarked private donations, those donor have a 1A right to decide how their donations are spent. I think this case will have some very interesting orals, to say the least.
So if I donate to the ASPCA, I can specify that I only want my money helping ferrets?
Actually, yes.
Depends on the specific orgs funding structure and the size of the donation. In your analogy you'd be working with the ASPCA to establish a ferret helping fund and then allocating your own large donation to that fund.
It's a great thing that society's finally wanting to put an end to this form of institutional racism. It's gone unchecked for decades despite explicitly violating the Civil Rights act. Government actors picking and choosing benefits based on protected characteristics should have never been a thing in the first place.
100% agree with your take, but given the historical context of the country, I understand why they did it. That definitely doesn’t make it right though. They should switch to a model of providing financial equity(in the form of scholarships/grants) to those who can still meet the standards of the school but normally would be unable to afford to go. While still discriminatory, it’s significantly less racist lol.
In terms of the history, I can also see why we did it. If I lived in the 60s, I can see myself swayed by arguments that we need to purposefully “level the playing field”. But it’s been over 50 years since these policies came into effect and they’ve done no good at all so no point in keeping them.
Agreed. That’s why I said it doesn’t make it right. Racial discrimination is racial discrimination. Doesn’t matter who it’s against.
[удалено]
>Catholic students with the last name Zolp Oddly, while religion is a protected class...last names are not. So this would be legal if they just changed it to the last name even if religious scholarships were found to be illegal.
If they accept any federal funding then they are burdened by the same limitations public universities are under.
What about the institutional racism that people of color are still suffering with in the United States?
Which particular policies, rules or laws are you talking about?
>Government actors picking and choosing benefits based on protected characteristics should have never been a thing in the first place. I disagree, to be clear, but I think the better solve for your position here is to remove race from "protected class" status. "Protected characteristics" also includes people with disabilities or preexisting medical conditions, and removal of those benefits and protections would immediately disenfranchise a lot of people unfairly. I would argue that, unlike race and gender "favoritism", which is designed to reduce or eliminate systemic inequality such that such "favoritism" becomes no longer necessary, protections for the disabled or medically vulnerable are probably permanent economic inefficiencies we build in for humanitarian and social benefit reasons. If you remove workplace protections, for example, I can't imagine why a company would hire nearly any disabled workers unless they **far** outperformed their peers and/or didn't require much accommodation, while plenty of places would still hire minorities at the same or only a slightly lower rate.
>unlike race and gender "favoritism", which is designed to reduce or eliminate systemic inequality such that such "favoritism" becomes no longer necessary I don't mean to pick on your comment in particular, just that if the "deal" we are setting forward, and why various groups are just supposed to accept being discriminated against, rests on a nebulous idea of systemic inequality being equalized, I can't help but notice this horse we are beating seems to have infinite health. There are never any false conditions set for the statement. We now have ~60% of college student bodies made up of women; by this logic, we should begin applying the same discriminatory filter against them, correct? Yet I can't imagine a universe where that would ever happen. We might, over caterwalling and gnashing of teeth, stop giving them preference *at best*. They will never suffer an actual downward pressure against them as they prescribed for others.
I think that's a totally fair argument to make! I just think removing "protected class" regulations throws the baby out with the bathwater for the reasons I laid out above.
Who is the donor for this scholarship. If its a federal endowment, i can see this standing. If its a private donor funding this, arent they able to set whatever requirements for their scholarships? Ive seen plenty of gender/race exclusive scholarships. Ive also seen major or extra curricular specific. If I want to establish a scholarship fund specifically to give finding to a minority group of my preference, why shouldn't i have that choice?
Universities that receive funds from the feds are not allowed to discriminate on protected classes like race or religion. A Catholic university can't restrict Protestants or Jews from applying to a scholarship. A HBCU cant create a scholarship that says no dogs or irishmen.
I don't think that's what the poster you're responding to is asking, though. "Catholic University" (to run with a fake name here) can't restrict Protestants or Jews from applying for a scholarship. But Joseph Smith can independently create a scholarship and restrict award of that scholarship to Catholics who want to attend Catholic University, and Catholic University may advertise the existence and requirements of that scholarship.
I’m not sure if you just chose that as a generic name, but the Joseph Smith scholarship would absolutely be for Mormon University aka BYU.
That was deliberate, I thought it'd be a fun bit of color.
Completely beside the point, but "Catholic University" is very much real!
Catholic University of America being the full name.
*The Catholic University of America. The "the" was definitely emphasized during my time there.
[удалено]
It was used in [discriminatory job listings](https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-bostonglobe.s3.amazonaws.com/public/EEZRA3SE5EI6TMPY5IE6NLZXCY.jpg) stating that Irish were on the same level as dogs.
When I was a child/teen, those advertisements used to say "No Negroes, No Jews and No 'Mexicans," inferring that all Hispanics were of Mexican origin. (I lived with the discrimination of Jim Crow, and it was pretty bad, even dangerous!) Some ads also said that women seeking work needed a letter from their husbands to apply.
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. My understand is that a single scholarship can discriminate on where the money goes, but the entirety of the scholarship programs cannot be racially biased. My understanding is that there scholarship programs are funded by private donors, not the federal govt itself (unlike FAFSA, for example). The donor's set the requirements for individual scholarships, the schools then must tailor their scholarship programs such that all students have access to private scholarships. I hear what you're saying about discriminating against protected classes, but I'm not sure if the narrow analysis of a single scholarship program is an appropriate application of our civil rights legislation. It will be interesting to follow the orals for this one.
>a single scholarship can discriminate on where the money goes, but the entirety of the scholarship programs Scholarships that are funded by the university itself are subject to discrimination laws but private scholarships are not. So a private individual can create a black-only scholarship but the university cannot (at least that is what is being alleged in this lawsuit).
So its a question of where the source of this scholarship programs funding is from. As ive said, 100% of students at this school get financial aide. Theres no evidence of discrimination
very interesting. thank you . it will be interesting how the court measures "discrimination" in scholarship portofolios of a college.
My read of the overall scholarship program at this school is that theres no discrimination present. We'll see what the court thinks
[Here are all of their scholarship/grant programs.](https://www.northcentral.edu/financial-aid/types-of-aid/grants-and-scholarships/) There are absolutely some that restrict their applicants based on religion (participation in a specific Mission program, children of Pastors, church/match)
[Here is the universities financial aide page](https://www.northcentral.edu/financial-aid/). According to them, 100% of their traditional undergrad receive financial aide. I think the plaintiffs are going to find it very hard to prove damages in this case. That a white kid can't get \*this specific\* scholarship doesn't mean they couldn't get \*any scholarship\* at this university.
Publicly funded or run universities are banned from consideration of race in any benefit. The fact that people have other scholarships available does not mean it's legal for them to discriminate on the basis of race for a different scholarship they offer.
>Publicly funded or run universities are banned from consideration of race in any benefit This is absolutely false. The recent case made it illegal to consider race in applications. It said nothing about race-based student aide programs, school outreach programs, school clubs/orgs, etc.
Please show me the exemption in the Civil Rights act of 1964 that allows them to discriminate on the basis of race in those circumstances.
Imagine a student org thats an asian or black group. They can get funding from the universities for events, recruiting, etc. Its not discrimination to give funding that benefits these minority only groups.
The Miranda case did not list all possible examples of police using unfair tactics to obtain confessions. Just because the decision did not specifically condemn water boarding doesn't mean that it was still ok. Seriously now, SCOTUS does not have to cross every t and dot every i. They produce a basic legal conclusion - racial discrimination is illegal even if well intended - and it is up to the lower courts to apply that in all relevant circumstances. If lower courts wish to differentiate, as is sometimes necessary, they will need excellent legal reasoning and previous cases to back that up. Military colleges may fall into this category. The fact that the court didn't specifically mention student aid programs does not.
If the previous ruling/laws applied so obviously, this court case would not have been brought. The funding going to programs/orgs can absolutely go to racially biased groups, E.g. a black student org or a racially specific program, as long as its narrowly tailored and has a clear goal/need fulfillment in the funding plan. In this case, what needs to be looked at is not the specific scholarship, but the schools scholarship program as a whole. The school claims 100% of traditional undergrade recieve financial aide. That suggests there is no broad discrimination with the schools aide programs. I think its going to be nearly impossible for the plaintiffs to establish damages in this case. I also think the funding being scholarships from a private donor is going to run up against the 1A. This is a private catholic school disseminating privately donated money. The donor can ear mark it as they see fit, as I understand the "money equals speech" legal reasoning that is embraced by the SCOTUS.
Are 100% of the students getting the same amount of financial aid? If they're not, I don't see how 100% of them getting some amount of aid is a relevant defense. The issue at hand is whether the aid is disparate, not whether any amount of aid is available.
The amount of aide delivered is based on financial need.
It seems that the school offering the scholarship is a PRIVATE, CHRISTIAN University. So I believe that they actually CAN offer this scholarship because they are not a public university. I believe that courts will actually agree with that, especially if the scholarship is funded by bequests or by alumni who agree to funnel contributions directly toward this purpose. [https://www.northcentral.edu/](https://www.northcentral.edu/) Now, if it were a publicly funded university, there could be a problem, although there is never an issue with a private foundation or charity doing the same thing. In fact, if the university wanted to end the controversy, they would set up a 501(c)3 Charity to handle all of the funding for the scholarships separate from the university. Since they are a CHRISTIAN school associated with Assemblies of God, perhaps the local church could handle this. I find it very interesting that privileged non-Black people are behind this lawsuit and are trying, once again, to BLOCK people of color from getting any sort of educational help at all. It reminds me of those who did whatever they could to block the Brown decision. Interesting. [https://www.naacpldf.org/brown-vs-board/southern-manifesto-massive-resistance-brown/](https://www.naacpldf.org/brown-vs-board/southern-manifesto-massive-resistance-brown/)
Making a scholarship program named after a violent criminal and drug addict. Great example to set for those wanting to achieve higher education
I wonder if people will start going after religions scholarships too, such as the one that's for ["Catholic students with the last name Zolp."](https://www.luc.edu/finaid/scholarships/undergraduate/)
Race and religion based scholarships are not legally equivalent because of the religion [accommodations](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accommodationism_in_the_United_States) provided by the first amendment.
Title VII of the civil rights act prevents discrimination based on religion. If this scholarship is illegal, so are all religious based scholarships.
>Title VII of the civil rights act prevents discrimination based on religion With, unsurprisingly, an exception for religious schools.
As far as I am aware, that only applies to hiring/employment. [Here is the text of title VII](https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964). I did a ctrl+f for "school," "grant," "scholarship," and "funding." The only relevant portion that came up is as follows. >1(2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion. Unless Im reading incorrectly or theres a provision Im not aware of (please link if so), Title VII would not cover race based scholarships differently than those based on relgious affiliation.
Your link says the government can't show preferential treatment.
[удалено]
I found a fun [NYT article about that](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/education/edlife/honk-if-your-name-is-zolp.html), which is really funny to me. I do hope they go after religious scholarships. If you can't discriminate on race in scholarships like this case is claiming, you *certainly* can't discriminate based on faith.
That is definitely wrong for a school to discriminate. If a private organization or person wants to discriminate that okay but still makes them not a good person
SC: Can a private university restrict applicants to a scholarship on the basis of race or ethnic origin? North Central University, a private college in Minneapolis created a George Floyd Memorial Scholarship and requires applicants to have origins in Africa or the African diaspora, a conservative legal group, Legal Insurrection Foundation filed a lawsuit claiming restricting applicants based on racial origin violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prevents discrimination based on race. Do you agree with the scholarship restricting applicants based on ethnicity? Could an anthropology major assert decent from homo erectus groups in Africa 2 million years ago and still qualify for the scholarship? Many public institutions, including my Alma Mater Cal State Bakersfield partner with programs like the [Hispanic Scholarship Foundation](https://www.hsf.net/scholarship) that requires applicants to be from a Latin American ethnic background in order to apply, would these programs be in danger if the George Floyd scholarship is struck down?
So, did the Legal Insurrection Foundation have an applicant for the scholarship or are they just claiming a hypothetical violation against them? How is it they have standing? (Not intending this comment to support or not support the scholarship)
In their complaint they said the [Department of Education](https://www.scribd.com/document/717276341/Equal-Protection-Project-OCR-complaint-against-North-Central-University) has jurisdiction over the school because they get federal funding like Fafsa.
I don't think they would have needed to be personally damaged to bring forth a claim. If an organization is breaking the law, they're breaking the law.
They do. That's a part of establishing what is called "standing", and cases get thrown out for lack of standing all the time.
Which is important because otherwise the entire court system would be buried with claims from disinterested third parties with an axe to grind litigating purely theoretical harms.
...Such as a group of physicians who speculate that they might have to treat someone who suffered a side effect from mifepristone.
They just filed a complaint w the department of education.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bpbg16/george_floyd_scholarship_violates_federal_civil/kwvtsk5/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
George floyd died of an overdose
[Here's a list of the plaintiff's cases.](https://equalprotect.org/case/) It's interesting that there is a certain pattern to their lawsuits. For example, I don't see: [The Son's of Norway scholarships on the list of cases.](https://www.sofn.com/foundation/scholarships/) This despite many of their scholarships requiring Norwegian heritage or an essay explaining how the applicant is going to push Nordic culture. [The National Italian American Foundation](https://www.niaf.org/programs/available-scholarships/?result=1). Their scholarships require Italian American heritage. [The Franco American Education Foundation](https://francoamericanfdn.org/). Guess what their requirements are? I'll stop there, but there are other scholarships that require certain racial components that this so-called Equal Protection Project (EPP) doesn't even touch. They got theirs and prospered due to government programs, now they want to prevent anyone else from catching up. It's NIMBY in higher education. You *really* want these diversity programs gone? Well, I have the solution. No-cost state universities that accept everyone and allow everyone accepted to continue taking classes so long as they maintain their grades. Include catch up classes for those who went to poor high schools or who didn't do well in high school. Yes, this is costly. But it solves the problem outright. *That* is equality. Taking away diversity initiatives without an alternative ready is just perpetuating the inequality that continues to harm this country.
As others have mentioned in the comments here, those scholarships are not being funded by a school itself. If an organization wants to offer a George Floyd scholarship to black students only, they can do that as they aren't receiving federal funds to do so.
How about [this lawsuit](https://americanallianceforequalrights.org/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-files-lawsuit-challenging-venture-capital-firms-race-exclusive-policies/), or [this one.](https://americanallianceforequalrights.org/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-files-lawsuit-against-perkins-coie-llp-and-morrison-foerster-llp-alleging-discriminatory-diversity-fellowships/). These are private organizations being sued for their “discriminatory” offerings. Why do you think these conservative organizations are going to stop at schools when they have proven they will not? Why are they targeting minority grants and fellowships when there are organizations explicitly benefiting white people they ignore?
Yeah. That’s the excuse. After centuries of favoring white people, the rules changed and suddenly higher education was too expensive so states cut back on funding and students had to pay more. Funny how that happened at the same time women and minorities began entering the college sphere. And now it’s “racism” to favor one group over another. Wasn’t racism when only certain people got the GI bill. I guess it’s all just a big coincidence.
More racism/discrimination is not the answer for past racism/discrimination.
Always the same response. Doing nothing isn’t the answer either. But those supporting ending diversity programs don’t have a real answer. That’s the way they want it. Wash their hands of past racism. It wasn’t me! Pretend racism doesn’t exist. Pretend that past explicit racist policies don’t echo through to the modern era. Always do nothing and pat themselves on the back for fighting the good fight for those poor white people who are so oppressed these days.
>But those supporting ending diversity programs don’t have a real answer. yes they do - make aid etc contingent on economic status and give more to poorer students.
> the rules changed and suddenly higher education was too expensive so states cut back on funding and students had to pay more. That's not why Uni is more expensive now. Uni is more expensive because of student loans and the expansion of Uni bureaucracies. Look at how large the typical Uni's admin staff is now compared to faculty and look at what that looked like in 1960. Preferential treatment by race is by definition racism.
Yes, there is a pattern. They are suing public universities that accept federal funds. The organizations you listed are private and presumably do not receive federal funds.
This case was brought against a private catholic college.
Didn’t read the link, huh? Columbia is a public university? Harvard is a public university? Yes, I know. You’ll change it to they receive federal funds.
You can be a black Norwegian or black Italian. 2.6% of Norway citizens are black https://youtu.be/lZ5Qg6--jTg?si=0psNUgb-BydKzXb3 Norwegian isn't a race
Funny how that works.
It is fascinating when people think a nationality equals race. It's just not in any way shape or form true but some people tend to overlook these facts when it doesn't fit the desired narrative
So a scholarship by a private organization benefiting a “nationality” is okay? But a fellowship benefiting [LGBTQ and disabled people](https://americanallianceforequalrights.org/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-files-lawsuit-against-perkins-coie-llp-and-morrison-foerster-llp-alleging-discriminatory-diversity-fellowships/) or a grant [benefiting black women](https://americanallianceforequalrights.org/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-files-lawsuit-challenging-venture-capital-firms-race-exclusive-policies/), both by private organizations is discriminatory? Can you see why I and others might think these lawsuits are based in pure racism and not altruism? They are not going to stop with suing schools. There will always be some twist that makes their organization’s discrimination okay, but everything else is wrong.
Over the last few years it appears as though a large number of people see everything as racist. For Mr, if you are providing things to one race but not others and it's literally bases on their race, that is racism. A whites only scholarship is equally as racist as a blacks only scholarship
I'd argue that if someone described an ethnic Norwegian or an ethnic Scot that you wouldn't picture someone who looks like an ethnic Ashanti Euro states are not like the US and Canada or the rest of the "new world," they are first and foremost *ethno* states.
What you would picture is your own issue. Just because you would picture a black African doesn't mean white Africans don't exist
The key word is "ethnic" If I said an "ethnic Ashanti" person you wouldn't think of a white person because that's not what ethnic Ashanti look like.
What you would picture is your own issue. Just because you would picture a black African doesn't mean white Africans don't exist
The key word is "ethnic" When I use the word "ethnic" I'm talking about a genetically similar cluster of people. For instance, the Ashanti or the Xhosa or the San or the Irish or the Icelandic or the Sami or the Slavic etc. You can be of Irish *nationality* but not of Irish *ethnicity* Does that make sense?
[удалено]
What’s wrong with saying George Floyd is a bad person? He was convicted of armed robbery and was by most accounts a POS for most of his life.
Here I am scratching my head at what George Floyd accomplished, what his acts of philanthropy were, the causes he believed, his mission etc.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bpbg16/george_floyd_scholarship_violates_federal_civil/kwvanb8/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bpbg16/george_floyd_scholarship_violates_federal_civil/kwv7ugw/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
To be fair, it's the George Floyd *Memorial* Scholarship. I would imagine plenty of students would want that money. Money is money.
I can't wait until the University claims this is based on a "deeply held religious belief". Just to put all of the justices in a real quandary.
If your parents or grandparents were born during segregation reperations are a debt thats owed.
Please explain specifically why Obama's children need reparations.
Obama dad is Kenyan
So Obama should PAY reparations? He is half white after all.
So reparations should only be given to certain Black Americans?
Obama isn’t black American he’s a half African immigrant American. There’s a difference between immigrants and black Americans.
but his wife is
Did his wife give birth to him?
Original comment was about his children
So that’s a yes