now I think this bequest was evil, intent to live on beyond the grave.
A "caucasian" with no understanding of theology, law, or medicine, would on graduation be parked 2 yrs in Iowa. You just have to take the money.

Last edited Thu May 16, 2013, 06:54 AM - Edit history (1)

the HORROR.... education..... the HORROR!!!!!! Aren't a lot of these scholarships very specific, ie. left handed fire fighters child from North BumF**k NY?

Next question how many of these should be modified? - http://www.blacknews.com/directory/black_african_american_scholarships.shtml

The part of the article that is quoted in the OP doesn't specify that the race restriction is what they are trying to change.

Columbia gets a great variety of students, students of all races and in many fields. When they give out aid, they give restricted aid to students who meet the restrictions and general aid to the others. There are lots of Caucasian students at Columbia, lots in fields other than law, medicine, dentistry, veterinary surgery, and theology. Columbia could find lots of deserving recipients if these were the only restrictions.

But who would agree to spend two years in Iowa for financial aid? Only someone who was planning to spend two years in Iowa anyway. That's a real restriction.

And that's probably what Columbia is trying to change. They don't mind changing the race restriction at the same time if that will make their case better.

The institution agreed to the restrictions when they accepted the money. They got no business changing them.

Are you serious? A racial requirement that in 1920 may have raised no eyebrows from like-thinking college administrators certain should be revisited now. I mean the country and Columbia has evolved quite a bit since then.

Hell, non-caucasians can even ride at the front of buses now and get served at public lunch counters, among other things.

You probably need to rethink this sentence of yours . . . "The institution agreed to the restrictions when they accepted the money. They got no business changing them" . . . because the policy is RACIST:

We as a society get that now. At least most of us do.

1) They accepted the money on a condition. They can't ask the donor to change the condition, because she's dead. So they're stuck with it.

2) Other forms of financial aid can specify race. I know a Chinese woman whose father donated money to an Ivy League college on the condition that it provide scholarships for Chinese students. (She told me about it because she wanted it to be an opporunity for my kids.) Should that not be allowed? Now that he's dead does the school have a right to go back on their word?

If all or even a great number of scholarships came with the stipulation that they had to go to White people, that would result in a real disadvantage to others. That's the way it used to be and it had to change, even if force of law was required, because it disadvantaged a part of the population. This is not that. Most financial aid is color blind.

Yes, the policy is racist. And Columbia U agreed to it. What part of that overrules the contract?

Or is it your smug political correctness that overrules the contract?

Last edited Fri May 17, 2013, 03:05 AM - Edit history (1)

. . . it's 2013 already. The Constitution itself has been amended/changed several times. We don't have to continue living under racist stipulations from 1920s.

"Dread" is something altogether different ...






And you're right. Racist restrictions can be removed.

How do you make a connection between slavery and this?

Of course the Constitution has been amended. Can you point to anything in it that would make this contract provision illegal?

. . . more enlightened attitudes prevail. In other words, if we were all bound by decisions made in the past, black people would still be considered property, women would not be allowed to vote, etc. Get my drift? If the Constitution can be amended a racist 1920 stipulation on granting a scholarship only to whites can, and should be, also.

It's not that hard to grasp.

"It's not that hard to grasp" is a personal insult, implying that if I don't agree with you it must be because I'm missing something obvious. It tempts me to retort in kind. It brings down the level of discourse.

More than one principle is at play here. "Racist" and "racism" are broad, general terms. Racism can't be made illegal entirely. Government cannot, nor should it, control what people think. Each person has the right, for example, to decide that he or she does not want to marry someone of some other race or to include someone of that race among his or her friends. It might be rude and bad karma, but it would not be illegal to give the cold shoulder to someone of a different race who married into your family. In other words, you can't make racism illegal. So where do you draw the line?

I know of at least one scholarship (mentioned elsewhere on this thread) available only to people of Chinese ancestry. Is that racist? If not, how is that different from a scholarship that is available only to Whites? If it is racist, then where do you draw the line? Scholarships are given on the basis of things other than merit and need all the time. Is that not acceptable? Do you want to rewrite the law on that? If you do, I think a lot less scholarship money will be available.

Yes, things change with more enlightened attitudes. But this woman gave her money for a specific purpose. By what right is it used for a different purpose? If you want to spread enlightenment, why not do it by treating people better, rather than trying to change what was left in the will of someone who is now dead? Respecting the stipulation (or going through a valid process to change it -- someone talked about having the donor's estate agree to a change) is not going to bring back slavery or take away women's right to vote. It's just one scholarship and yes, that is part of the point. So no, I don't get your drift -- let's not overgeneralize about "decisions made in the past" but rather look at the one by one.

It's not even something to argue about. It can be changed, just as other antiquated, outmoded customs have been changed. And it's the right thing to do.

Otherwise the school should just give back the money. "Whites Only" clauses should have went out with "Whites Only" bathrooms and lunch counters.

That foolish cruelty was changed as well, remember?

With you to a point. I'm black so of course I find this racial restriction horrendous. That said, the university agreed to the stipulations of the deceased and I really don't see where they have grounds to alter them. This is akin to altering someone's will after their death, I just can't see how that's right. It also opens us up to some unintended consequences with respect to minority targeted scholarships and funds. As much as I don't like it, I think we should leave this one alone. She was after all a private citizen, not public institution.

The institution saw nothing wrong with facilitating the institutional racism at the time by accepting the money but thank God collectively we as a nation, and that university, have progressed in our thinking since then and better heads have prevailed.

I don't even understand why condoning a "Whites Only" clause is even being argued about on a progressive site like this.

But since it is, I think if the University can't get the clause changed they should give back the money and not go along with "institutional racism" from the 1920s. And then maybe present-day members of the deceased donor's family will be enlightened enough to re-donate the money without the outdated and exclusionary "Whites Only" clause.

I credit the University in finding the clause problematic and not giving the scholarship out in years.

Is this illegal? Does the Civil Rights Act cover it?

Integration in public schools (at all levels) is required because they are public. Integration in privately owned places like restaurants is required because segregation was so widespread that (in the South anyway) one race (or maybe two races) didn't have access to the same kind of restaurant as did White people -- therefore there was a sort of general loss of opportunity for Black people and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic people. Same idea with housing. In a related issue in which I heard about gender but not race (but it was the same sort of thing), membership in private organizations could not be withheld on the basis of gender *if membership in that organization was the only way, or even the main way, to enter a profession or to advance in it.* The other side tried to argue that private organizations are private, but that argument did not hold up *because membership in that organization was essential to success.*

That reasoning does not apply in a case like this, where it is just one little fellowship and, as I said above, the way aid is given out, lots of it is specific to random-seeming groups, usually the group of which the donor is a member, but in the end that doesn't make a difference as long as there is enough non-restricted money to even things out.

Can you cite a section of law or a regulation that makes it illegal to have a grant that is specific to White people? If not how can you say it's unenforceable?

of the courts.

Courts will not enforce racist clauses in contract.

They are void as against public policy.

This is not some fantasy theory. It's basic contract law.

"They can't ask the donor to change the condition, because she's dead. So they're stuck with it....

Hence, the University asks the trust board to modify conditions ... something which is done quite often in trust and estates endowments.

It's the born-in-Iowa restriction that seems to be the heart of the matter. If they can change it to a broader definition of "from Iowa" (i.e., lived in Iowa or graduated from an Iowa college) Columbia will be able to award the fellowship more frequently.

Scholarships and fellowships.

that they should be able to change the conditions that they (not personally, but as an institution) agreed to. If I were to make a donation in my will based on a condition, I would like to think that if the donation was accepted the condition would be honored.

I can understand their motivation. Times are tough and they want to be able to accept students who may not be able to pay their (exorbitant) tuition, so they want to make the best possible use of their endowment.

Grants are renegotiated all the time. I don't know why an endowed scholarship couldn't be. People think about race very differently now than in 1920.

last week to support a prior action made by the fund's administrator, JPMorgan Chase Bank, claiming the racist provisions set in 1920 are grossly outdated ... "Columbia University is now prohibited by law and University policy from discriminating on the basis of race" ...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/columbia-university-seeks-change-caucasians-requirement-fellowship-article-1.1343568
Columbia University seeks to change ‘Caucasians only’ requirement for fellowship
The Ivy League school is asking a judge to change some requirements of the Lydia C. Roberts graduate and traveling fellowships — which limit recipients to people born in Iowa who are “of the Caucasian race.”
By Dareh Gregorian And Joe Kemp / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Tuesday, May 14, 2013, 1:29 PM
Updated: Tuesday, May 14, 2013, 7:15 PM

... University officials filed court papers last week in support of earlier action by the estate's trustee, JPMorgan Chase, to change the provisions of the bequest that violate federal anti-discrimination laws. In addition to the race rule, Columbia seeks to modify the requirement that students be born in Iowa, and instead allow them to be residents. The university "may not discriminate based upon national origin," according to the affidavit ...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/15/whites-only-scholarship-challenged/2164815/
Whites-only scholarship at Columbia challenged
Sharyn Jackson, The Des Moines Register
9:51 p.m. EDT May 15, 2013

Fulbright awards are one federal grant that only citizens of the US are eligible for (when applying from within the US as opposed to their home country). The Iowa provision is limiting but not illegal. The white only requirement is almost certainly illegal. And for people going on about minority scholarships, most of those have already been opened up so they are not exclusively race based.

Caucasian! If it was Asian or African-american or Native-american it wouldn't get the press. Sorry I have zero problem with a ethnicity, gender, local, parents occupation based scholarship or fellowship.

and as whites become or is it became a minority a lot of these programs will need to be rethought
Race will become a small factor ,if any and socioeconomic status will become the major factor in these programs

Many people have a little "caucasian" 'em--even if Grandma said it was Indian!

Tiger Woods and Skip Gates and Barack Obama are "persons of the caucasian race." Not exclusively, but they are persons of that race, as are many of us.

What a bigoted old lady, making that kind of bequest. I mean, really!

But hey, she's DEAD. Mean old shit!

"... And not only that, Jeffrey dear, I don't want any of my money going to those damned dentists. Trouble makers, every one of them. And the scholarship money can't go to some God forsaken Buckeye who moves to our precious Iowa just to steal my money. And no Hoosiers either, they all seem to be crosseyed from that side of the Wabash. They've got to be born Iowa lads, born firm of muscle and stout of moral character, like we breed 'em here. Also, no Bible studyin' under this scholarship--my late husband Beryl always hated the way those college boys over analyzed the Good Book and what this or that word meant in Hebrew or Aramaic. Why, Beryl and I read the Good Book every day and we never thought twice about what it meant... Also, come to think of it, no veterinarian surgeons. Why, it's just cruel the way they cut into those poor sheep like they're slabs of meat. Butchers, I tell you, every one of 'em..."

scholarship that Columbia offers and ask the school why it has not yet filed an affidavit to change the terms of that scholarship as well.