As I’ve noted here many times (here is one), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gives a billion dollars to support racially restrictive scholarships. Now they’re adding an additional $58 million to support even more racially restrictive scholarships.
Back in the old days, when civil rights meant non-discrimination, the IRS would not have granted tax exemptions to organizations that discriminated on the basis of race and would not have allowed tax deductions to individuals for contributions to organizations that discriminated. Indeed, as I also noted here many times, Bob Jones University had its tax exemption revoked because of a policy that barred interracial dating. Most liberals thought this was a good thing, but for some reason they’ve been silent about the megabucks discrimination funded with tax exemptions by Bob and Melinda Gates.
Not sure I buy the analogy. Bob Jones’s former dating policy and the Gates scholarship serve completely different purposes. Yes, they both touch on race and education, but the parallel pretty much ends there.
Well I, of course, disagree. I’ve posted on Bob Jones a bunch here and won’t repeat all now, but basically: The Supremes upheld the IRS denial of a tax exemption to Bob Jones (allowed for “religions, charitable, or relgious” organizations and BJU was two of the three) not because it was found to exclude black students but because of its policy against interracial dating. Despite the fact that BJU was both religious and educational and the conjunction in the tax statute was “or,” not “and,” this racial discrimination was found not to be “charitable” because it violated “public policy” and BJU was denied its tax exemption. By contrast, the Gates Foundation’s policy is explicitly racially exclusive. Of course Gates is not BJU and its aims are worthier than BJU’s dating policy, but in my view the case for denying a tax exemption to Gates is actually stronger than the case against BJU. The Gates Foundation is purely charitable — no religious or educational claim can be made for it — and, again in my view, racially exclusive programs are fundamentally at odds with sound public policy.
I’m not sure why you think the case for denial of a tax benefit is stronger against a charity than against a religious or educational one. All three types of institutions qualify (or fail to qualify, as it were) for the same exemption according to the same criteria. The relevant criterion is public policy – NOT “sound” public policy. Congress has passed plenty of statutes evidencing a policy against racial discrimination of the sort practiced by Bob Jones University. For better or for worse, it has not articulated an analogous policy against race-conscious affirmative action. It certainly can, but it hasn’t, and until it does it would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism for a court to make up such a policy on its own.
I’ve come to the conclusion that liberals see two forms of discrimination, positive and negative. Negative discrimination is intended to deny opportunities, a mean spirited attempt to oppress a marginal group out of sheer animus. Positive discrimination, on the other hand, has noble intentions and isn’t aimed at denying opportunity, rather it is to help uplift a downtrodden group.
Another example of the ends justify the means by the virtue of the intent. Oblivious to the actual consequences of such policies they favor, it cleanses their souls and absolves their guilt.
Right, but sound public policy isn’t the issue. The issue is public policy, period. Congress has pretty well articulated a public policy against allowing any tax benefits to groups that practice invidious discrimination. They haven’t established any such policy with respect to “good” discrimination a la affirmative action.
Since when did “public policy”, something that changes every two, four and six years become the Holy Grail? So my children and grandchildren should be discriminated against because politicians lack the courage to speak out? The Constitution doesn’t matter? The Supreme Court doesn’t matter? My people don’t matter?
And “invidious”? Is that supposed to be a descriptive that separates good from bad racial discrimination? It doesn’t.
And what are you doing, X, offering up a strawman like “public policy” to defend tax relief for charities that practice racial discrimination? Is this Bizarro Day?
The most interesting part of the riddle that is Bill Gates is why he would reward people have proven themselves uncompetitive when he and Buffet made their fortunes by investing in those who were highly competitive. They may as well just shovel their money into a fireplace. It will just be wasted, just like all our welfare money is now.
Warren Buffet is a funny one too. His big thing is population control. Of course, the populations that are out of control show no compunction to stop or even slow down. But the overeducated populations who do use birth control, and who we need more of, are the only ones who use birth control responsibly and consistently. Try getting Africans to use rubbers on a consistent basis! Same with Catholic mexicans! Add in the machismo factor, and you can see what a fool this man is.
I think most of these super rich guys are just mentally disturbed anyway. It is the degree of some psychological symptom that determines mental illness. But nobody ever thinks to consider those who can’t make enough money as mentally deranged, like those who can’t get enough alcohol, or food, or sex, or hand washing. Its obvious these fools have given no consideration to how they should spend the vast amounts of money they made, and which they considered some sort of game in accumulating, while people like Gates are “outsourcing” and H1-b visa-ing our educated to death. Why not spend it on some sort of Manhattan Project-type research for cheap, renewable energy? Why not spend it for symphony orchestras, museums, research into cancer, etc? Why not reward the most talented, the achievers, instead of the laggards and dullards, because you want to look charitable toward those who have black skin? Why give it to the mentally weak, who have proven they can’t compete and use race as an excuse? Pathetic. We’ll all get a lot more of it as long as we continue to pay taxes, vote, buy products, and otherwise support any group that discriminates against whites.
Sorry guys. As repugnant as it sounds to you, eventually if you want this to end, you will have to form white organizations and pound on those who discriminate, or even intimate they will discriminate against you. There has never been a race-neutral society in the history of the world. Our country is no exception. You should just get the picture about human and group behavior, and start acting in your own interest. No other group will. And if we become a minority, you won’t be able to enforce your non-existent race-neutral wonderland. You’ll have to take on a jewish mentality, where you vigorously defend yourself from all comers, because they will come and they will be trying to take all you have especially if you are more successful than they are.
Idealism is a sort of mental disorder. Keep deluding yourself about that if you will, but most healthy societies are practical, not ideological. If you care to investigate, that is also why our country became great. Now it declines because of ideology and fools like Gates and Buffet. Wake up. The politicians won’t enforce the law regardless of what the courts or legislators say. Its illegal to discriminate against whites because of their race. Duh. But what’s happening? somthing quite different. And 90% of politicians cater to it. Illegal immigration is ILLEGAL, don’t you know? Duh. Look at our (open) borders. Compare and contrast. Who is in charge of that? The politicians.
Get real. Organize around your race and fight back. Forget about looking like a racist and cowereing at being called one. Do it or your country will perish, and the non-whites will not stop until they have taken everything you have. And despite all your blatherings to the contrary, you know it will happen and you see it progress little by little every day. Race neutral is a dream. Wake up and do something besides whine and debate before its too late.
For better or for worse, it has not articulated an analogous policy against race-conscious affirmative action.
Except, you know, for the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.
Neither of which make any distinction between the racial discrimination black people like and the racial discrimination black people don’t like.
Xrlq
I think that if the courts can argue that a private club/country club is a “public accomodation” if corporate money is used to pay membership fees then a scholarship program funded with corporate money and used to pay tuition at universities that accept public money are also a “public accomodation.”
How can hanging a “Whites Only” sign at the lunch counter be any different than haning a “black only” sign on the scholarship application.
>>>”The Gates Millennium Scholars (GMS), funded by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was established in 1999 to provide outstanding low income African American, American Indian/Alaska Natives, Asian Pacific Islander American*, and Hispanic American students with an opportunity to complete an undergraduate college education in any discipline area of interest. Continuing GMS Scholars may request funding for a graduate degree program in one of the following discipline areas: education, engineering, library science, mathematics, public health or science. The goal of GMS is to promote academic excellence by providing thousands of outstanding students, who have significant financial need, the opportunity to reach their full potential.”
Hmmm, now…John, exactly what “race” is Hispanic?
Dr. Bannister writes:
>>>”Sorry guys. As repugnant as it sounds to you, eventually if you want this to end, you will have to form white organizations and pound on those who discriminate, or even intimate they will discriminate against you. There has never been a race-neutral society in the history of the world. Our country is no exception. You should just get the picture about human and group behavior, and start acting in your own interest. No other group will. And if we become a minority, you won’t be able to enforce your non-existent race-neutral wonderland. You’ll have to take on a jewish mentality, where you vigorously defend yourself from all comers, because they will come and they will be trying to take all you have especially if you are more successful than they are…
…Get real. Organize around your race and fight back. Forget about looking like a racist and cowereing at being called one. Do it or your country will perish, and the non-whites will not stop until they have taken everything you have. And despite all your blatherings to the contrary, you know it will happen and you see it progress little by little every day. Race neutral is a dream. Wake up and do something besides whine and debate before its too late.”
Well now…I seem to recall just a FEW short weeks ago, John Rosenberg telling me:
>>>”
Also, I would have thought it would be clear to any long-time readers of this blog that I — and the great preponderance of commenters here — abhor “racial solidarity” of any kind. Thus I’m not sure what Cobra has in mind, if anything, in suggesting that the predominant point of view expressed here has anything at all in common with what Jared Taylor writes.”
http://www.discriminations.us/2006/07/more_coming_together_rhetoric.html
I’m waiting patiently for the “abhorrance” to show up in response.
–Cobra
Ah hell, Cobra. If there’s room for a lying slanderer like you, then there’s room for a little “white solidarity” fun too. Just to slum a bit with the Bros.
But don’t worry. No burning cities, no two thousand Korean businesses destroyed. That’s not a white Thang, We Wouldn’t Understand.
Hmmm, now…John, exactly what “race” is Hispanic?
Hispanic. Does it really matter if some demographers call it an “ethnicity” rather than a race? (Note the name of the “National Council of La Raza.”) Is it anything other than a semantic game to worry about whether “race” is the right term? Does it change the issue in the slightest?
I’m waiting patiently for the “abhorrance” to show up in response.
Sorry if ignoring him isn’t good enough for you. But nobody needs to jump through your hoops.
He’s worse than stupid; he’s wrong. Fertility rates are dropping even in areas of the world thought to be hopeless in the short term.
But the problem is, as some of us have noted, that his attitude is the natural response to yours. If you abandon the notion that racial discrimination is categorically wrong, if you begin arguing that it’s wrong only when it leads to outcomes you don’t like, then you have no rebuttal to someone who says, “Hey, I like this outcome better.” Any fair person can support the notion that individual merit should matter — and if he or his kid or his friend lose out on a scholarship or job to someone better qualified, hey, them’s the breaks. But once you argue that skin color should determine, it’s illogical to argue that this should apply to everyone except whites.
MikeM: I’m not sure what your objection is. This is not a constitutional issue, it’s a question of courts applying the policies that have been set down by Congress. Jim Crow and affirmative action may be one and the same to you, but they’re not one and the same to Congress, and it would be dishonest of the Supreme Court to pretend otherwise.
DavidN: It’s a stretch to claim that the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act prohibit affirmative action, but even if they do, neither applies to private nonprofits. The Fourteenth Amendment, like most of the Constitution, doesn’t apply to private parties at all.
XRLQ,
I do not believe that you are correct in believeing that the Civil Rights laws do not apply to private non-profits. Many private social clubs were successfully sued by women based upon the public accommodation principle. Lega l contracts and/or agreements supposedly cannot have bias clauses.
Yet, Gates is entering into commerce (giving money in exchange college attendence) based upon race and is enforcing contracts with what would have to be racial clauses.
My question is, If a white students applies for the scholarship, what would the rejection letter say? Sorry, you are the wrong race.
“This is not a constitutional issue, it’s a question of courts applying the policies that have been set down by Congress. Jim Crow and affirmative action may be one and the same to you, but they’re not one and the same to Congress, and it would be dishonest of the Supreme Court to pretend otherwise.”
Absolute nonsense, X. Since when have civil rights advocates claimed that the policies desired by Congress are not reviewable by the Supreme Court, or to the point, need not meet Constitutional requirements. WTF??
As far as Jim Crow relates to this, I also don’t think that Selma was as bad as Dachau. But Selma was still evil, get it?
I’m not ready to sacrifice my kid’s and their kid’s constitutional rights because YOU or anyone else thinks that discriminating against them is just not that bad a thing. I also have the Constitution on my side, much to the disappointment of some people. (Oops, that damn Constitution.)
I honestly do not follow your legal logic. I almost think you are just being cute, given what I have read of you in the past. Since when does a lawyer (aren’t you?) argue against judicial review of laws for Constitutional requirements being met? Since when is a racial barrier to education opportunity for low income students earn tax benefits for the “good” racists who practice it?
MikeM, you seriously ought to consider switching to decaf. Either you’re not trying to understand the issues, or you’ve really, really, really misunderstood the most basic principles of the Constitution. Let’s try it one more time.
You tell me WTF. There is no constitutional issue here. The constitution doesn’t say a f’n thing about which charities or nonprofits, if any, will or will not qualify for a tax deduction. The only constitutional issue in the Bob Jones case was whether or not Congress or the IRS could deny a tax deduction based on the institution’s racist policies without violating their constituitonal rights to freedom of religion and association. The court ruled – rightly, IMO – that Congress can indeed do so. But there isn’t a serious judge in the land who would argue that Congress is under any constitutional obligation to do so.
I never denied it was a bad thing. I certainly wouldn’t contribute to a fund like that myself. Contrary to popular opinion, however, not all bad things are unconstitutional – and not all good things are constitutional, either.
Like hell you do! Just for grits and shins, do tell what part of the U.S. Constitution you think prohibits private parties from discriminating against anybody. None of these vague, generic appeals to “our sacred Constitution” this or “my Constitutional rights” that. I want chapter and verse. I’ll wait.
“The constitution doesn’t say a f’n thing about which charities or nonprofits, if any, will or will not qualify for a tax deduction.”
What a revelation! My gosh, all these Supreme Court decisions, down the toilet. No mention of gays, no mention of abortion. My head is spinning trying to keep up with the implications of your insight.
“I want chapter and verse. I’ll wait.”
You win, big guy.
“It’s a stretch to claim that the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act prohibit affirmative action”
Except for, you know, the **perfectly plain language** in both. There is also the question of legislative intent, which never contemplated either the 14th Amendment or the Civil Rights Act being abused to simply shift invidious racial discrimination from some racial groupings onto others.
The fact that both laws have been grievously abused by political opportunists for personal gain does not change the express wording of both laws, or the documented legislative intent underpinning them.
MikeM:
Nope, the state action doctrine is very basic constitutional law, which courts at every level have reiterated many times over the years. Its basic premise – the the Constitution binds government, not private individuals – does not conflict with a single decision the Supreme Court has ever issued, nor even with any published concurring or dissenting opinions of which I’m aware. It’s not a controversial doctrine, at all. It may well be controversial among constitutional know-nothings like you or Bill Quick, but is not at all so among lawyers, judges, legal scholars, law professors, or anyone else who has made it through at least one year of law school without flunking out. Show me a single published Supreme Court case that you think goes “down the toilet” with my analysis, and I’ll show you a Supreme Court decision you haven’t read carefully.
Damned right I do. The correct answer, of course, is no part of the Constitution prohibits private parties from discriminating against anybody. Meaning, of course, that your entire “constitutional” argument was pure, unadulterated crap. This would be an excellent occasion for you to grow a pair and admit as much. Failing that, consider adopting this motto:
“I’ll defend to the death the U.S. Constitution, whatever the hell that is.”
XRLQ,
You keep writing that The correct answer, of course, is no part of the Constitution prohibits private parties from discriminating against anybody yet the government does forbid private parties from discriminating in employment, housing, contracts, and access. A private party cannot advertise a house for sale as being “for whites only.” A private party cannot advertise a job as being “for whites only.” A private party cannot put up a sign on its place of business that says “for whites only.” A college or university cannot put up a sign “for whites only.”
Yet, the Gates Foundation wants to put up a sign on its scholarship program that says “for non-whites only.”
I would love for you to explain the how the esteemed lega profession makes the difference.
X,
In the Bob Jones University case, BJU has the right to have racial dating properties, but not as a tax-exempt (thus governement supported) organization. Is that right?
SD:
There is no inconsistency in the above statements. The fact that the Constitution does not address private discrimination (or any other private acts at all except owning slaves and importing alcohol into dry states) does not mean no other law applies. It just means that MikeM is a weenie to bring up the Constitution in this context.
One is legal and the other is illegal.
Look, this is really not all that complicated, and Xlrq is entirely in the right. There is no Constitutional right against private discrimination. The Constitutional question is and always has been how far, and under what conditions, government may restrict private discrimination if it wants to.
The government is under no Constitutional obligation to grant tax-free status to any entity at all. It is, though, obliged to abide by its own laws, and also, in accordance with the First Amendment, to ensure that these laws don’t deliberately burden any of the rights enumerated there.
So far as I understand the Bob Jones case, the regulation in question gave tax-exempt status to religious, charitable, or educational institutions. BJU, IIRC, argued that its interracial-dating ban was protected as a religious dictate, and lost.
That, John, makes me think that your own summary linked above is wrong somewhere. If the plain text of the regulation exempts all educational institutions, then BJU would’ve had no need for a First Amendment claim, surely. I haven’t read the decision, but it seems obvious to me that someone at the IRS thought another statute negated BJU’s exemption.
John made a common sense, and to us testicleless laymen, a legally logical argument that the IRS should apply their tax exempt rules regarding private organizations that racially discriminate to equally protect all races. That makes sense to me. It seems Constitutional. X countered that “public policy” is not, in this case, what John opined (equal rights) but instead to discriminate against certain races. Again that seems to me to be an equal protection issue and therefore a Constitutional issue. I understand that I, “private” individual, may freely choose to privately discriminate but BJU set a standard, did it not, that a “private” organization may not claim tax exempt status and racially discriminate?
I think global “shut up” arguments like X’s “the constitution doesn’t say a f’n thing about which charities or nonprofits, if any, will or will not qualify for a tax deduction” deserves ridicule. But I am testicleless and a weeny for not admitting X’s wisdom in employing it. I’ll get over it, quickly.
John employs the argument that if the Supreme Court (and, to me, therefore the Constitution) and the IRS have something to say about banning interracial dating (a sordid ban, indeed) at little BJU then it should certainly have something to say about an multi-billion dollar funded organization that blatantly and proudly proclaims racial exclusion as a hallmark of its mission. You, and Michelle now (who’s method of argument I have respect for), can state otherwise but, in my opinion, John’s argument makes sense legally and morally, and your’s just seems like “torturing the law” to avoid the obvious issue of fair play and, yes, Constitutional rights to equal protection.
Using the logic and principles of the Court’s BJU opinion, the IRS could have revoked the tax exempt status not only of the Gates Foundation, whose racially exclusive scholarships violate current “pulbic policy,” but also the exemptions of all the elite universities whose law schools barred military recruiters, as I believe I wrote during the controversy over the Solomon Amendment.
This has been an interesting if somewhat overheated thread, and I appreciate all your comments, even the overheated ones. For reasons laid out in my most recent post (on Mosby), I don’t have time to respond now to the comments here that in fact deserve a response, so please excuse me if I just jump in right at the end.
Michelle is right, that Xlrq is right, about the Con. not proscribing private conduct. He was also right, early on, in saying that the Con. did not proscribe affirmative action, at least (as I’ve argued here many times before) affirmative action that does not employ racial preferences. A good thought not necessarily compelling argument can be made, however, that the Con., properly interpreted, i.e., as Justice Harlan interpreted it in Plessy, does proscribe governmental favoritism based on race. And clearly, if words mean anything (alas, often they don’t), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did so, even though the Court has not always agreed.
Finally (for now), Michelle writes:
I haven’t read the decision, but it seems obvious to me that someone at the IRS thought another statute negated BJU’s exemption.
You’d think so, but, alas, no. The IRS interpreted “relilgious, charitable, or educational” to mean “religious, charitable, AND educational,” and deprived BJU of its exemption because its racial dating policy violated, not a statute, but “public policy,” and so it was not “charitable” because, under English common law, a “charity” could not be opposed to “public policy.” The Court, under immense pressure not to “subsidize racism,” went along with this. Justice Powell said BJU was right initially but somehow became wrong over the years it took the case to reach the Supremes. Read the opinion, really.
For the record, my post above ended with the third paragraph at “…Constitutional rights to equal protection.”
I have no idea how John’s paragraph (the fourth) appeared at the end.
No, you’re a weeny for bringing up the Constitution in the first place. No one is debating that it would be constitutional for Congress to deny a tax exemption to charities that provide aid to kids of certain races but not others. It can do that, it just hasn’t.
I will grant you this much, however: if the only issue where which races are discriminating against which, then there would indeed be a constitutional problem with a system that allows tax deductions for some racially discriminatory “charities” while denying them for others. But we’re not just talking about which race is which; we’re also talking about two fundamentally different types of discrimination. One is intended to keep minorities in their place. The other is a well-meaning (albeit misguided IMO), effort to bring underprivileged groups into the mainstream. That’s a difference in kind, not just in degree. Some argue that the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act should be read to prohibit both. They may be right, but it’s hardly a slam dunk.
John: I haven’t read the case in full but have skimmed it enough to figure out the “charity” requirement. It’s not so much of an “or means and” interpretation as a presumption that the entire statute was intended to require a charitable purpose, as the term is understood at common law, whether or not it happened to fall within the legal definition of a “charity” (which, I presume, few if any universities do). The reason BJU doesn’t translate into a ban on deductions for these scholarships is twofold: (1) the BJU case only allows the IRS to make its pronouncement about Congress’s supposed intent, it doesn’t affirmatively require the IRS to do so, and (2) while few would debate that the U.S. has a clear public policy against Jim Crow-style discrimination, the same cannot be said of reverse discrimination, on which our national policy, if indeed we have one, is muddled at best. And I’m saying that as one who thinks we should have a clear public policy against all forms of racial discrimination; it’s just that I’d be lying if I said I thought we do.
… we’re also talking about two fundamentally different types of discrimination. One is intended to keep minorities in their place. The other is a well-meaning (albeit misguided IMO), effort to bring underprivileged groups into the mainstream. That’s a difference in kind, not just in degree. Some argue that the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act should be read to prohibit both. They may be right, but it’s hardly a slam dunk.
In one sense this is true by definition: if it were a slam dunk, courts and public opinion would not be divided, and all the reasonable people would be on one, i.e., my, side. That is, alas, not the case. Thus I (reluctantly) recognize that not all reasonable people agree, but it is still a slam dunk in my mind that the broad commitment holding racial discrimination to be bad is not — nor should it be — limited only to the types of invidious discrimination based on an intent to keep one race down. As I’ve written before, I believe that our historical (and present) views of what discrimination means have been informed by our early experience with — and determination to end — religious discrimination. There, favoritism to one religion or sect over another is wrong no mater what the “intent”; it is barred even when the disfavored group is not invidiously being kept down. Same with discrimination based on ethnicity or national origin; an employment policy that favored, say, Italians over Irish would not have to based on an invidious intent to keep all Irish out of the mainstream in order to be barred. This is not to say, however, that intent is irrelevant, or that racial preferences for “good” purposes is as bad as segregation was.
… while few would debate that the U.S. has a clear public policy against Jim Crow-style discrimination, the same cannot be said of reverse discrimination, on which our national policy, if indeed we have one, is muddled at best. And I’m saying that as one who thinks we should have a clear public policy against all forms of racial discrimination; it’s just that I’d be lying if I said I thought we do.
Again, a good point. It reveals, however, the problem with an executive agency, such as the IRS, rewarding some people or groups and punishing others on the basis of its understanting of “public policy” when we have well-established institutions and procedures to determine what public policy is — the Congress, which passes legislation, and the president, who signs it into law. If the IRS, in what might have been an unusual example of relying on the text of the statute (it did say, after all, “religious, charitable, or educational,” not just “charitable”) had decided it had no authority to divine “public policy” in a contested area and granted a tax exemption to BJU or to religious schools that it regarded as “segregation academies,” Congress could easily have revised the law, especially if the “public policy” determination to do so were as clear as the IRS believed.
For what it’s worth (not much), I would have allowed both BJU and Gates to have their tax exemptions, but I continue to believe it is wrong to allow deductions for groups that discriminate in favor of some races while denying them to others who discriminate against others, even if the intent behind the diffferent racial discriminations is not identical.
Indeed, most of the advocates of racial preferences (and, folks, keep in mind that Xlrq is not such an advocate) quickly abandon any “intent” standard when it gets in their way. Thus they believe statistical disparities are sufficient evidence of discrimination to bar policies that lead to it, even though there is no invidious intent involved (such as Duke Power’s requiring a high school diploma of all new employees, in the case that legitimized the “disparate impact” theory of discrimination). And when they can’t find a policy that leads to the disparities — as was the case with the EEOC in the Sears case I know all too well — they say that something the employer is doing must have caused it, even if they can’t find it, and that the employer must still be held liable.
David writes:
>>>”Hmmm, now…John, exactly what “race” is Hispanic?
Hispanic. Does it really matter if some demographers call it an “ethnicity” rather than a race? (Note the name of the “National Council of La Raza.”) Is it anything other than a semantic game to worry about whether “race” is the right term? Does it change the issue in the slightest?”
Of course it does. First you have to concede the fact that there are Hispanic “whites” and that fact ALONE makes the Gates scholarship elligible for representatives of all three races: negroid, mongoloid and caucasoid.
If your argument is that ALL ethnic scholarships are
“wrong”, then you would have quite a long list of scholarships to condemn.
Mikem writes:
>>>”But don’t worry. No burning cities, no two thousand Korean businesses destroyed. That’s not a white Thang, We Wouldn’t Understand.”
And what exactly does this statement mean? You’re not SERIOUSLY trying to define wanton violence as a “non-white” behavioral trait are you? In neo-con Bushamerica 2006?
LOL.
–Cobra
“And what exactly does this statement mean? You’re not SERIOUSLY trying to define wanton violence as a “non-white” behavioral trait are you? In neo-con Bushamerica 2006?”
Where in neo-con Bushamerica do whites burn cities, businesses, etc.? Site, please.