Those students at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island who created a scholarship for whites only as a spoof on affirmative action (discussed here) created quite a stir. The wire services picked it up, papers all over began commenting on it, contributions came in to add to the scholarship, and the stunt even began to attract criticism from those who share the RWU students’ dislike of race-based anything. One such criticism is posted here.
As I recently discussed here, conservatives at Texas A&M have come up with a variation on this theme — a scholarship, open to students of all races, for the best essay describing “how you or a family member have overcome institutionalized discrimination and/or the stigma imposed by policies giving preference to particular racial or ethnic groups in college admissions, employment and other competitive arenas.” (For an older example of something arguably similar, this time from Texas Tech, see here.)
In a comment to that post Gabriel Rossman of Princeton writes that the Texas A&M variation would have been more successful as satire if the award had been limited to one dollar rather than the real money ($5000, $3500, and $1500) apparently being offered. I think he makes a good point, qualified perhaps by the fact that this offer is not limited to whites. And, as I mentioned in my original post, I’m still not sure whether the intent here can accurately be described as satire. Maybe, but maybe not.
But for the sake of argument let us assume the existence of real proposals for financial awards that exclude many applicants on the basis of their race alone. With this in mind — and returning now to one of my favorite themes, hypocrisy — it is worth recalling that the academic establishment (for wont of a better term) and its friends in the media and elsewhere see nothing wrong, in principle, with race exclusive scholarships. If they did there would have been howls of protest when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation created the Gates Millenium Scholars program.
The Gates Millennium Scholars (GMS), funded by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was established in 1999 to provide outstanding African American, American Indian/Alaska Natives, Asian Pacific Islander Americans, and Hispanic American students with an opportunity to complete an undergraduate college education….
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation established the initiative to encourage and support students to complete college and continue on to earn master’s and doctoral degrees in disciplines in which their ethnic and racial groups are currently underrepresented.
Goals
• To reduce the financial barriers for African-American, Hispanic American, Native American/Alaskan Native and Asian Pacific American students with high academic and leadership promise who are at a significant economic disadvantage
• To increase the representation of these target groups in the disciplines of mathematics, science, engineering, education and library science, where these groups are severely underrepresented.
The Gates people recognize that there is considerable uncertainty about the parameters of these groups and, helpfully, they provide a FAQ with some ethnic guidance:
Q: What ethnic groups comprise Asian Pacific Islander Americans?
A: Asian Pacific Islander American ethnic groups include persons having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, but not limited to: Bangladeshi, Cambodian, Chinese, Filipino, Hmong, Indian, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Lao, Laotian (including Khmu, Lahu, Mien, ThaiDam and other ethnic groups from Laos), Malaysian, Nepalese, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Thai and Vietnamese (including Montagnards and Khemer Khong). The Pacific Islander includes persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands, including, but not limited to: Carolinian, Chamorro/Guamanian, Fijian, Maori, Marshallese, Micronesian, Native Hawaiian, Palauan, Samoan, and Tahitian. Citizens of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau are eligible to be nominated.
As for how much black blood, or whatever, it takes to qualify as an African American and who qualifies as an Hispanic American, you’re on your own. I’m sure this would all be much easier to manage if the federal government would only issue racial identity cards.
Although public institutions are barred from administering race-exclusive scholarships (at least in the Fourth Circuit, since Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. denied 115 S. Ct. 2001 (1995)), the Gates Foundation is private and so its race-exclusivity is presumably legal. Note, however, that there is no fictional fig leaf of “race as one of many factors in a holistic review” here. This is naked racial exclusion. Thus, as I argued here, I find it odd there have been no serious attacks on the tax-exempt status of the Gates Foundation on the same grounds that were used to take away the tax exemption of Bob Jones University, which I discussed at some length here. My point here is not that Bob Jones was correctly decided — I don’t think it was — and that I think Gates should lose his tax exemption. It is, rather, that those who celebrated Bob Jones but refuse to apply its holding to Gates are being hypocritical.
Thus, one possible reply to the criticism of the new “white scholarships” (whether satirical or real) is, “So, what’s your point? Certainly not that race-exclusive awards are wrong. You gave that up when you applauded Gates and/or took his money.”
But that reply is not available to those of us who indeed do believe that race-exclusivity is wrong as a matter of principle, no matter the race. We can tolerate a bit of racial discrimination as satire — the bake sales, etc. — but not for real, even if its point is to make a point.
UPDATE
The recipient of the $250 whites-only scholarship at Roger Williams University has donated it to charity.
As a physicist, I like to simplify things. Rather than come up with a long list of groups of individuals who have been “discriminated” by us in the past (Nepalese? Khemer Khong? You’ve got to be kidding!), how about shortening it to the following: No honkies need apply.
John, do you think there is a difference between the Roger Williams’ “whites only” scholarship vs. the A&M one, which is open to anyone? Putting aside the Bob Jones/Gates comparison (which I think is very strong), it seems to me that the A&M scholarship — if administered in an intellectually honest way — is something that should be applauded. It will add anti-AA voices, but presumably articulate ones. They may be white (or Asian), who can speak to the personal difficulties they faced in not being considered for preferences; or they may be underrepresented minorities who do speak to the alleged stigma they faced because of AA.
In terms of a pragmatic debate about whether AA is a good idea, these voices have something important to contribute — just as underrepresented minorities who can explain how AA gave them a chance they wouldn’t have otherwise had would also have something important to contribute.
The RW scholarship, on the other, doesn’t have the same effect of screening for articulate voices. It is more directly like the Gates scholarship.
Tung Yin,
I do indeed think there’s a difference, which is why I lifted Chetly Zarko’s comment and posted it separately, here. I also agree with Gabriel Rossman’s point, that the white scholarship would have worked better as satire if it didn’t have real money attached to it.
I think the RW “scholarship” would have had more impact as satire/protest if nobody (not me) accepted it. This hapless student was roundly condemned for taking it and gave the other side plenty of emotional ammunition to denounce the motives of the scholarship.
Perhaps the purpose of the scholarships isn’t political, but legal. If the scholarship is for significant money, perhaps some outraged “civil rights” group will be goaded into suing the offerors.
I would love to see the matter go to court. The court would either explicitly accept racial discrimination or outlaw racially based scholarships. The former would certainly cause a political firestorm, and the latter is a step towards enforcing the 14th amendment.
I find it hard to believe any court ruling would defend the idea that race based scholarships are fine as long as they aren’t offered to whites. Although, given the court rulings the last few years I don’t know what this faith is based on.
MJ, “its hard to accept”, but read O’Connor’s decision again. It’s hard to accept.
You make a good point though, RW’s scholarship program could have a legal motivation of “goading” a group into suing so that the issue is decided once and for all, but I doubt the College Republicans would have knowing put their organizations and personal resources on the line in that way.
Here’s the bottom line on race preferences, to be consistent. I decry anyone who uses race preferences or believes in the superiority of a race; whether in the public or private arena. There is no level of condemnation that can adequately condemn groups like the Klan, which are morally defunct and increasingly irrelevant in society. Other private prejudices and discriminations based on race are to be loudly condemned, from which ever side of the political spectrum they come from. Nonetheless, despite the use of this moral suasion, groups that engage in such discrimination solely in the private sector have a First Amendment right of association and speech that I also defend even as I condemn the beliefs or association. The government is completely within the public sector however; and its conduct is subject to the regulation of the people; that is the Fourteenth Amendment and other mechanisms to enforce equality. Any purely public activity therefore can, and must, be subject to provisions of equality. Public universities are branches of state governments; and entirely constructions of the people. Entities have no “rights”, certainly not ones that supersede individual rights, and public universities certainly can’t “collectively” enjoy any 1st amendment right to “academic freedom” as O’Connor implied (although individual professors at universities can and most certainly do enjoy that right, it ends when one steps into the realm of institutional, government action). Then there are a host of quasi-public-private domains that the government shouldn’t empower to engage in racial discrimination. One is non-profit corporations. Society, through government, created the concept of a non-profit to give a tax advantage to those who would do positive things in place of government. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation should lose its exempt status; and I’d argue that they could be subject to appropriate Civil Rights Act violation litigation.
Corporations themselves are not “private,” nor are they worthy of rights in the same sense as an individuals. Corporations are a legal (societal/governmental) construct that government recognizes to increase efficiency and to shield individuals from liability as a benefit to society. The Civil Rights Act is grounded in solid principle in prohibiting corporate racial discrimination; as any person behind a corporation that wants to discriminate need not be given such a liability shield and since they can take their views to a non-corporate environment, where others can condemn them. Of course, the Civil Rights Act regulates even sole proprietorships engaged in the provision of public facilities; but one could make a good argument that society can require commercial organizations to forego certain rights if they choose to do business with “the public.” Given that the “public,” through governmental courts, protects business through requiring its contracts to be honored, the public can and should equally require business to offer those contracts in an equal way regardless of race.
—
Tung Yin,
I agree with you and John here. The A&M program, as a race-inclusive program, is a legitimate scholarship with practical results; although it clearly is designed to be controversial (I don’t know if it is “satirical” in the same way as the bake sales or RW scholarship). In fact, my original comment here on Discriminations, which John has graciously pointed to twice, and was written before the A&M controversy, hints at using “diversity contribution” as part of the concept. Here in Michigan, we had toyed with “bake sales” that rather than having a fixed pricing based on race (modelling the points system used by U-M), it would have a “life disadvantage” criteria where the cookie seller asked the buyer for a short paragraph statement and then came up with a price (modelling the holistic approach now allowed). In the bake sale context this would be exceedingly difficult implement (we even mentioned a “diversity essay” for the cookie, even more difficult) and even more confusing to be an effective parody. People would just walk by and not know what the message was. But in the context of an essay based scholarship it works. If anyone has a good idea for the next “twist” on a bake sale though; students across Michigan are looking for it. Let me know.
No question, Asians as defined in the FAQ are severely underrepresented in mathematics, science and engineering. As for education and library science, I am not so sure.
Carnival of the Vanities #75
I struggled for several days trying to come up with a theme for this edition of the Carnival. I finally…
Carnival of the Vanities #75
I struggled for several days trying to come up with a theme for this edition of the Carnival. I finally…
I applaud you,r efforts on selecting an education system based on merits and hard work,and not on ethnic and political handouts.I it would be realy interesting to see just how the judicial system would try to sidestep a political hot patato like this whites only scholarship only program.I feel if more programs like this one would become a reality,then may be,just may be?.Well i.m all for it,dont give up or give into those liberals and lefties.god bless and good luck!