What would we do at the Saturday Night Card Game if Touré Neblett stopped pontificating?
Oh, I know, we’d write about any of a dozen or so pontificators at the completely race-obsessed cable channel also known as MSNBC.
This Tweet by Touré caught my eye this week:
There’s a gigantic difference between being pro-Black & being anti-white. One is about love, the other is about hate. We can love wo hating.
— Touré (@Toure) May 29, 2013
I agree with him. But, would he say the same thing if we substituted “White” for “Black” in his tweet?
I don’t think so.
And now we juxtapose with a column by Jennifer Gratz, the plaintiff in Gratz v. Bollinger, at USA Today Columbia right on ‘whites only’ scholarship:
Columbia grabbed some headlines this month with the discovery that it has a “whites only” scholarship fund. The Lydia C. Roberts Graduate Fellowship was left to the university in 1920 by a wealthy divorcee days before her death and stipulates it is to be given only to “a person of the Caucasian race” (along with a list of other limitations). This race restriction can be lifted only with a court order, and that’s exactly what Columbia is trying to obtain.
I fully support the university’s efforts to end preferential treatment based on race. It is wrong for schools and employers and especially public institutions to discriminate on the basis of skin color.
In light of the university’s strong stance against discrimination, perhaps it’s time to end scholarships and preferential admissions treatment for minority students as well.
For example, Columbia offers the Sylvia L. Wilson Memorial Scholarship “for an African-American woman specializing in print journalism.” Then there’s the African-American Alumni Scholarship through the School of Business. Columbia’s website even provides a list of outside scholarships specifically for “students of color.”
Here we have the same preferential scholarships, just with different races. Sadly, Columbia is interested in ending only politically incorrect kinds of discrimination….
The problem is that two wrongs don’t make a right, and our well-intentioned efforts have created new injustices with new victims. If judging people based on the color of their skin is wrong — and I believe it is — then it is wrong in all situations, regardless of good intentions. Treating people differently to make up for real or perceived inequalities only reinforces inequality and deepens racial division.
Columbia University is taking an important step in the right direction, but it’s time to go all the way. The only true path to a colorblind society is to treat people equally without regard to race.
This was the essence of the civil rights movement, and it’s something that belongs to all people.
Does Touré agree with this universal non-discrimination goal? Does Elizabeth Warren?
More important, will the United States Supreme Court in Fisher v. U. Texas?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I am a firm believer in a color blind society by which decisions should be based solely on qualifications as opposed to any sort of racial set asides etc.
Only by advancing to this sort of thinking will this nation ever have a chance of moving forward in a competitive world.
In my perfect world, no associations based on ethnicity, race, religion would be allowed to meddle politically in any issue.
I believe that everyone in this country should have an even shot at success but not at the expense of society in general…
For generations, Columbia honored the wishes of various racist donors…or at least donors who predicated their behests on racial grounds.
They have no business seeking to break those behests now.
They CAN, with perfect equity, give them back.
Mrs. Roberts was, in all likelihood, a good Progressive of her day. Which is to say, a flaming racist by today’s reckoning. Just like Pres. Wilson and his ilk.
There is only ONE political party today who supports racial discrimination as a matter of policy and law. The Collective. The heirs of the Progressive movement.
When an otherwise rational person argues with an idiot, there are two idiots now arguing.
Who cares what Mr. Tourét+Syndrome Sufferer says? At this point, we can just phone in his remarks.
But nor can we dissuade the fools watching MSNBC that this guy — and the rest of the crew over there — are great fools as well, though they’re better paid better than fools watching.
People should be free to delineate any criteria they want to with scholarships they set up with their own money.
If we start disallowing one kind, or even all kinds, then like a snake eating its own tail, we will get into the same unholy mess trying to draw lines regarding what kinds of criteria are wrong and what kinds are okay. (Religion? Ethnicity? Race? Geographical location? Citizenship? Disability? Personal achievement? Family situation? Etc. and WHY.)
That is a completely different issue from taxpayer-funded government discrimination, or affirmative action or minority preferences, all of which are abominations that denigrate notions of individual merit and equality before the law.
When it comes down to it people have the right to leave their money with any conditions they choose even though others are repelled by those conditions. It was their money and they didn’t have to listen to the ideology of otheres. If the college accepted this money with full knowledge and agreement of those conditions, I don’t see how this can be legally overturned. I was under the impression that wills were sacrosanct and cannot be changed. Maybe I am just naive.
My bad. In re-reading the post I see it was a bequest not a will. However, the college still accepted the money with the conditions attached. I would say the same thing if the donor was black and the conditions were that only blacks could get scholarships. People have the right to give away or leave their money any way they choose.
Um, I don’t understand. What do you think a bequest is?
Um, I don’t understand. What “bad” do you think you made in your first comment? What do you think a bequest is?
In view of the status of American newspapers, someone must really hate African-Americans if they want to encourage them to major in print journalism.
Ever notice that the worst of the race baiters like Touré Neblett, Michael Eric Dyson and Ta-Nehisi Coates all came from the “blue” northern states?
Al Sharpton, too.
Scholarship for White people?! You can bet if Barky was going back to college right now he’d apply as Chauncey Whitebread III.
I think it’s great you give more exposure to this buffoon who thinks he can become known by a single name like “Prince” or “Cher” or “Snoop Dog.”
This person, Mr. Neblett, had every advantage in life from an elite prep school to a free ride in college, and yet he pretends to be one of the “oppressed masses” in his Marxist fantasy world. If he were halfway intelligent, he could have become the token minority lawyer in some top shelf firm and never had to hit a lick to get rich.
But he is a hopeless ideologue, and is reduced to scarfing up whatever stale doughnuts MSNBC leaves in the Green Room and spouting leftist jargon as if it were some insight. I’m surprised he doesn’t appear on camera in a Che tee-shirt.
I think this scholarship is named the Andy Sipowicz Memorial Scholarship.
That Twitter remark makes me kad.
So much racism in it.
The Democrat party has always been the source of racism in this nation