White College Students Get Opportunities for Minority Scholarships

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
March 14, 2006
Colleges Open Minority Aid to All Comers
By JONATHAN D. GLATER

Facing threats of litigation and pressure from Washington, colleges and universities nationwide are opening to white students hundreds of thousands of dollars in fellowships, scholarships and other programs previously created for minorities.

Southern Illinois University reached a consent decree last month with the Justice Department to allow nonminorities and men access to graduate fellowships originally created for minorities and women.

In January, the State University of New York made white students eligible for $6.8 million of aid in two scholarship programs also previously available just for minorities. Pepperdine University is negotiating with the Education Department over its use of race as a criterion in its programs.

"They're all trying to minimize their legal exposure," Susan Sturm, a law professor at Columbia University, said about colleges and universities. "The question is how are they doing that, and are they doing that in a way that's going to shut down any effort or any successful effort to diversify the student body?"

The institutions are reacting to two 2003 Supreme Court cases on using race in admissions at the University of Michigan. Although the cases did not ban using race in admissions to higher education, they did leave the state of the law unclear, and with the changing composition of the court, some university and college officials fear legal challenges.

The affected areas include programs for high schools and graduate fellowships.

It is far too early to determine the effects of the changes on the presence of minorities in higher education and how far the pool of money for scholarships and similar programs will stretch.

Firm data on how many institutions have modified their policies is elusive because colleges and institutions are not eager to trumpet the changes. At least a handful are seeking to put more money into the programs as they expand the possible pool of applicants.

Some white students are qualifying for the aid. Last year, in response to a legal threat from the Education Department, Washington University in St. Louis modified the standards for an undergraduate scholarship that had been open just to minorities and was named for the first African-American dean at the university. This year, the first since the change, 12 of the 42 first-year recipients are white.

Officials at conservative groups that are pushing for the changes see the shift as a sign of success in eliminating race as a factor in decision making in higher education.

"Our concern is that the law be followed and that nobody be denied participation in a program on account of skin color or what country their ancestors came from," said Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which has been pressing institutions on the issue.

"We're not looking at achieving a particular racial outcome," Mr. Clegg added. "And it's unfortunate that some organizations seem to view the success or failure of the program based simply on what percentage of students of this color or that color can participate."

Advocates of focused scholarships programs like Theodore M. Shaw, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., challenge the notion that programs for minority students hurt whites. "How is it that they conclude that the great evil in this country is discrimination against white people?" Mr. Shaw asked. "Can I put that question any more pointedly? I struggle to find the words to do it because it's so stunning."

Mr. Shaw said protecting scholarships and other programs for minorities was "at the top of our agenda."

Travis Reindl, director of state policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, said hundreds, if not thousands, of scholarship and fellowship programs historically used race as a criterion. Mr. Reindl estimated that as many as half of the four-year colleges in the United States had reviewed or modified such programs.

Neither the Justice Department nor Education Department, nor organizations on all sides of the discussions over affirmative action, have gathered statistics tracking the trend. In January, The Chronicle of Higher Education named more than 12 institutions that had made the changes.

Mr. Clegg said that since 2003 his center had sent 200 challenges to colleges and universities over race-based scholarships and other programs, warning of legal action if changes were not made. He said more than 150 institutions had broadened their programs in response.

The two Supreme Court affirmative action decisions that are worrying the institutions involved the University of Michigan. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the court upheld the use of race in admissions decisions at the law school. It found that there had been a "highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file" in which race could be properly considered.

In Gratz v. Bollinger, the court struck down the use of race in undergraduate admissions, finding that those applications used a scoring system that should not have awarded points based on race.

"When the Gratz and Grutter decisions came down, that was really kind of a mixed bag," Mr. Reindl said. "It's still a very murky environment, and it's also a very contentious environment."

The effects of the decisions, in June 2003, were almost immediate. After the summer of 2003, Princeton closed a seven-week program for minority high school juniors. Begun in 1985, it focused on strengthening skills in economics, statistics and other areas. Princeton restarted the program, the Woodrow Wilson School Junior Summer Institute, last summer. Now it is open to all students showing an interest in public service and commitment to "cross-cultural issues."

Changes have also come at institutions like St. Louis University, which widened a scholarship program for blacks in 2004 to include all students and named it after the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Three years ago, Williams College opened a graduate fellowship and a prefreshman program to all races. Officials at several institutions and scholars emphasized that scholarships and fellowships open to all students could, if thoughtfully created, still achieve diversity in classrooms and on faculties.

"The objective is still to make good kids excellent," said William F. Elliott, vice president for enrollment at Carnegie Mellon University, which three years ago broadened a full-tuition scholarship for minority students and a summer program in mathematics and science for minority high school students.

Now, the university also considers diversity to include other factors like whether students are the first in their families to attend college.

A big question is how far the money can stretch. At SUNY, officials have requested additional New York State money for the two modified fellowships, the Empire State Minority Honors Scholarship Program, which distributes $649,000 a year to 898 students, and the Underrepresented Graduate Fellowship Program, which distributes $6.2 million in financial aid to 500.

More money would make it possible, said Peter D. Salins, provost of the SUNY system, to offer more fellowships and help offset any potential adverse effects on minority students.

"All over America, universities are adjusting their policies, and this is simply our instance" of doing so, Mr. Salins said. At Southern Illinois in Carbondale, the modifications in the consent decree affect three graduate fellowships involving 85 students that offered tuition plus stipends. At Washington University in St. Louis, which modified the undergraduate fellowship named for the former black dean, John P. Ervin, officials said they remained committed to increasing diversity. "In some ways, this makes our objectives more difficult," said James E. McLeod, director of the scholarship program and dean of the college of arts and sciences at the university. "It will take more time, it will take more creativity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/e...92400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

You all know my feelings on this; the extent to which blacks are unfairly discriminated against also suggests the extent to which whites are unfairly favored. Since the latter half of the last sentence is *NOWHERE* in our national dialogue (not to mention institution reproduction of racial inequality based on nothing more than a combination of persistent, if hidden, racism in this day and age, interacting with the difficulty/impossibility of upward class mobility for poor people of any stripe), we seem to be moving forward to a "color-blind" society.

The same color-blind society whose head would collectively explode if it realized that evenly distributing aid to the poor, without taking race into consideration, would *STILL* allocate a disproportionate amount of funding to blacks.

At any rate, have no fear, whites! All those times you've been turned away from colleges because of all those pesky black folk (and, ha-ha, don't they just get all the breaks in life?) are about to change. Have no fear of seeing "no whites allowed" when applying for financial aid; stand proud as you will be the first generation who will get the opportunity to be of equal standing with blacks. You will finally get the hard-earned results you were denied in the past (y'know, the ones that the negroes just got as handouts, since that's what they like so much?).

Stand proud, whites! Maybe you, too, can dream to one day stop being harmed because of the color of your skin!
 
I wonder when conservatives will start a campaign against handicap folks because "they get all the good parking spots".
 
PHEW! Looks like ole stormfront.org is on the move! URAH!

Good year for whites! Two future all-star white basketball players and finally a break with those tough times gettin cash for college!
 
yeah, come on!

inner-city poor does NOT ALWAYS equal black.

inner-city poor sometimes equals 25 mexicans in a mercury cougar.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Wow, myke, your "born white" guilt complex is about to explode.[/QUOTE]

Not before your "I did it all myself, didn't I daddy (and can I borrow the Lexus to go to the country club tonight)?" complex does.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Not before your "I did it all myself, didn't I daddy (and can I borrow the Lexus to go to the country club tonight)?" complex does.[/quote]

Because we all know if you're white you're automatically rich and if you're black you're automatically poor.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']with the changing composition of the [Supreme Court], some university and college officials fear legal challenges.[/quote]
That's a subtle way of putting it.

I do not blame white students for being angry if they are passed over in favor of minority students with comparably lower GPA's, lower SAT scores, and fewer extra-curricular activities. Just because a student is caucasian doesn't devalue the hard work that he's put into these accomplishments. That only deals with college admission, however, and not with student scholarships (I believe the Michigan cases alluded to dealt only with admission standards and not funding.)

If *I* set up a scholarship fund for one-legged fledgling lumberjacks of Swedish origin, then I'd be damned if ANYbody litigates his way into the pool of consideration. Whoever worked to earn the money being doled out in scholarships gets the final say, in my opinion. To Hell with what the student candidates think they have a right to. That's only IF the funding comes from a private source.

If the scholarship funding source is state taxpayer money, then...uhhh....hmm. I guess it's time to go to SkyCam to see if you're living in a red state or a blue state before you decide where to send those college applications. But, what if it's federal taxpayer money? Well, let's see...it was Sandra Day O'Connor's swing vote that narrowly (5 to 4) allowed for the preservation of racial considerations in college admissions, before.

I wonder how the next Supreme Court vote to effect this issue will turn out?
;)
 
:-({|=

Stop it, I may mist up.

Mykey is putting on his liberal guilt hat again providing yet more evidence that his politics are founded in self-loathing.

Man, this is just horrible awful news, now people actually have to compete on a level playing field. BOOO HOO :baby:.

Hey, I wonder if we can give Duke's opponent in the round of 64 a 20 point head start just because it's fair. I mean Duke is just so good, it's not fair that they get to play a 16 seed that hasn't had all the advantages of being a multiple time national champion, head coach that is so good he's turned down the NBA, how can a 16 seeded school hope to recruit quality players? We better give them a lead just so they're starting on the same level 20 points, yeah that sounds good.
 
hey, i think my grades would have been worse if i had to work 40 hrs a week to put food on the table, or if i didn't have a dad, or if my dad was in jail for stealing because he wanted to put food on the table.

or if i lived in an environment where it was necessary to be "tough" etc.

or if there were absolutely no postive role models in my life.

or if the public school i went to was absolute shit (and mine was pretty fucking bad, but nothing compared to some schools)

etc. etc. etc.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']now people actually have to compete on a level playing field.[/QUOTE]

You're only fooling yourself if you think that this society will ignore itself out of racism and discrimination.
 
It probably wouldnt be a problem if it is was for all the economically disadvantaged.

However it would then be deemed welfare and guys PUD and the rest would be howling for it to be axed.

Remember folks these people are as dishonest as they are ignorant.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

Man, this is just horrible awful news, now people actually have to compete on a level playing field. BOOO HOO :baby:.
[/QUOTE]

OH YEAH this totally levels out the playing field. now everything's completely equal. that was the last example of inequality in our society and now it's fixed. thank god we got that settled, cause now everyone has an equal opportunity at higher education. :roll: (get thee to a psychiatrist's office)
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']hey, i think my grades would have been worse if i had to work 40 hrs a week to put food on the table, or if i didn't have a dad, or if my dad was in jail for stealing because he wanted to put food on the table.

or if i lived in an environment where it was necessary to be "tough" etc.

or if there were absolutely no postive role models in my life.

or if the public school i went to was absolute shit (and mine was pretty fucking bad, but nothing compared to some schools)

etc. etc. etc.[/QUOTE]

You really think black students or prospects have fathers in jail because they wanted to feed their family? Wow, talk about being racist.

You want to tackle the rest of the problem? How about looking at who is idolized and held up by blacks as role models. Want to take a guess? It isn't business leaders who have gained CEO roles in F500 companies. It isn't distinguished doctors, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, cabinet members or entrepreneurs. Just spend an hour watching BET to see who is held up in high esteem and presented as role models.

As far as schools being shit? Well, nothing will be done. I'll give you a hint who would like to stop school vouchers, prevent school choice and stop parent(s) from having absolutely zero chance at sending their kids to an instiution that has a better track record at actually getting a functional education.

The NEA's questionable spending also includes its one-sided political donations. Between 1990 and 2004, 94 percent of donations made by National Education Association political action committees and individual officers went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But according to the NEA, only 45 percent of public school teachers are Democrats.
Union Facts.com

You have 2,700,000 teachers in a union that cares more about their money and their jobs than the kids they teach. Now, who is so beholden to this union and it's extremeist leadership?

Hmmmmmmmm.
 
Diversification is bullshit, simple as that. Yes, not everyone is equal, and life isn't fair, but awarding someone just for being a minority or a woman is garbage.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You really think black students or prospects have fathers in jail because they wanted to feed their family? Wow, talk about being racist.

You want to tackle the rest of the problem? How about looking at who is idolized and held up by blacks as role models. Want to take a guess? It isn't business leaders who have gained CEO roles in F500 companies. It isn't distinguished doctors, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, cabinet members or entrepreneurs. Just spend an hour watching BET to see who is held up in high esteem and presented as role models.

As far as schools being shit? Well, nothing will be done. I'll give you a hint who would like to stop school vouchers, prevent school choice and stop parent(s) from having absolutely zero chance at sending their kids to an instiution that has a better track record at actually getting a functional education.

The NEA's questionable spending also includes its one-sided political donations. Between 1990 and 2004, 94 percent of donations made by National Education Association political action committees and individual officers went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But according to the NEA, only 45 percent of public school teachers are Democrats.
Union Facts.com

You have 2,700,000 teachers in a union that cares more about their money and their jobs than the kids they teach. Now, who is so beholden to this union and it's extremeist leadership?

Hmmmmmmmm.[/QUOTE]

So do white people have distinguished doctors, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, cabinet members or entrepreneurs as their role models?
 
[quote name='vietgurl']So do white people have distinguished doctors, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, cabinet members or entrepreneurs as their role models?[/QUOTE]

I knew a lot more about Jonas Salk, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Caspar Weinberger and Nolan Bushnell growing up than I did about any entertainer, sports star or criminal.

Maybe that's just me but had I ever come home all "gangsta" and "OG" I would have had the crap beat out of me and my ass shipped off to military school.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I knew a lot more about Jonas Salk, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Caspar Weinberger and Nolan Bushnell growing up than I did about any entertainer, sports star or criminal.

Maybe that's just me but had I ever come home all "gangsta" and "OG" I would have had the crap beat out of me and my ass shipped off to military school.[/QUOTE]

Where was 50 Cent in the 1970's and 80's when blacks were still earning less, still being discriminated from work and housing, and still being regarded as second rate citizens?
 
You're now going to attach the woes of blacks to one rapper?

I'm sorry Mykey, isn't going to fly.

You want to talk about the societal ills of the African American family since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 you'll have to look at the liberal "solution" to fixing things. The Great Society. You want to know what wrecked the black family and black communities look no further than the government actively wanting to be the bread winner and glue holding together black families instead of a father.

Government policies meant to help destroyed generations with failed results tied to good intentions.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You're now going to attach the woes of blacks to one rapper?[/QUOTE]

Please. Don't try to deflect the argument you're making onto me.

My point is this: in terms of employment, income, and wealth, statistically African-Americans aren't converging on the income and wealth of whites over the past 40 years. This is, thus, evidence of an absolute failure of efforts to "level the playing field."

Given persistent class and socioeconomic status over the past 40 years, and your argument that blacks are choosing the wrong role models, what you're implying is that the problem remains the same, but somehow the explanations are different. You're creating post-hoc explanations that attribute every last bit of blame to blacks for their plight; that argument, whether you like it or not, has built-in racist implications. Since you want to blame blacks for their own plight, and given the omnipresence of poor black enclaves in modern American cities, you're essentially blaming a large portion of a racial classification for the persistence of their situation. You're suggesting, in essence, that there is something consistently wrong with black people; if there were not, then we would not expect to go to a city and find a poor black part of town, right? If it were totally random which group(s) were placed on the bottom, we wouldn't be able to find poor parts of town and immediately know that the vast majority of the population was black.

The persistence of social segregation is the result of one of two things: innate differences that favor white folks biologically, or racism and discrimination embedded into our social structure that many seem to have think died away with the end of Jim Crow. Since you don't seem to have any care or concern for racists in this society, you clearly fall on the other end of the spectrum.
 
I am not shifting the problem onto blacks themselves rather there are multiple factors.

1. There is no question that black men since the Great Society programs began paying for; housing, pre-natal and minor children's health care, food and utilities have overwhelmingly abandoned the children they've fathered. Why? No need to be a breadwinner. Government pays for it.

2. The results of such disturbingly high illegitimacy have horrible life altering consequences for those children.

3. Black leadership, as recognized by the public and media at large, is a complete abject failure. There is zero call for ending problems that are truly within every person's ability to achieve. Finish school, learn to function in a professional demeanor in a job, don't do drugs and don't have children outside of marriage.

Sensitivity training for 50 million whites won't make up for the facts that swaths of the population can't function in a job or even dress themselves in an appropriate manner for employment. Of course those statements apply to as many whites as blacks. There are lower standards now for everyone as a result.

When I was a kid the best job I could imagine (Part time for high school.) was in a record store. I never got the job. It wasn't through a lack of persistence but it did have everything to do with my lack of knowledge of a wide range of artists and genres. Now you can get the same job just by agreeing to and actually showing up for your shifts.

I'm not going to deny there are racists of all color and stripe. However the systematic whitey is keeping the black man down is completely absurd.

When I was in media sales our station(s) would advertise with roughly 50 different minority and state organizations encouraging women and minorities to apply for sales positions. In 6 years do you want to know how many blacks applied for positions? 2. You want to know how many were interviewed? 2. Want to know how many were hired? 2. That's out of roughly 7,000 resumes over that period of time. Of those two both lasted less than 18 months for reasons that aren't racist and had everything to do with their lack of professional abilities.

When I was doing pre-employment screening at Morgan Stanley we sifted through probably 500 resumes a week. Think about that. That's 26,000 resumes a year. Do you know how many blacks showed up for interviews that year I was there? None. Zero. If we identified a minority candidate by their resume; groups belonged to, fraternity/sorority affiliation etc. we would call 95% of the time. When we gave the working schedule (It was a mandated 60 hour week.) about 80% said they weren't interested in the schedule (This was true of all candidates though.), the remaining 20% either called and cancelled their interview or just didn't show up. It took us nearly 700 resumes to fill one post. We had one black man working in our office who started before I did. He was far less charitable about why there weren't more blacks working for us than I am being.

Would that make him racist?

Listen, the number of companies that would love to have a qualified minority candidate apply for a job runs nearly 90% if not more. Systematic corporate and professional racism is just not reality. Finding people that can even come close to meeting minimum requirements is.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']For once I agree with pad on this[/quote]

It shouldn't even be an issue. Just because someone is a minority doesn't mean they're inherently dumber or inferior to any race. Anyone remotely rational will tell you that race has no bearing on intelligence whatsoever. No person should be given a free ride because they are darker or lighter than someone else, that's just ridiculous.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']It shouldn't even be an issue. Just because someone is a minority doesn't mean they're inherently dumber or inferior to any race. Anyone remotely rational will tell you that race has no bearing on intelligence whatsoever. No person should be given a free ride because they are darker or lighter than someone else, that's just ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely not true. Becuase the black man has been disenfranchised, he is not able to live up to his potential. He requires white men like Myke to steal from whitey and give to the poor in order for him to achieve. Only when myke has taken whitey's money, status, achievement, and intelligence, can the black man be truly equal. Then myke's guilt for being born white can finally be relieved.
 
Of course. It's all the fault of the black people. We live in a society so lacking minority discrimination that there are *TONS* of corporations and jobs waiting with open arms for minority applicants.

It's not discrimination at all; in fact, the companies all reluctantly hire whites to take the place of all the minorities they'd love to hire. It's like the Maytag man, right? Waiting for the throng of black applicants?

Get back to me when you return to the modern day United States, kids.
 
Mykey, how many people have you ever interviewed for a F500 company?

How many minority resumes have you had come across your desk?

I've had the experience of trying to hire minority candidates. I know what I'm talking about. You're living in academia not knowing shit about the outreach, recruiting and incredibly lax hiring policies just to get minorities in the door and on the payroll.

Get back to me when you've done anything besides reading an "intersting paper on the subject".
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Get back to me when you return to the modern day United States, kids.[/quote]

Good point, modern day America is so much worse for minorities than the America of fifty years ago.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
You want to tackle the rest of the problem? How about looking at who is idolized and held up by blacks as role models. Want to take a guess? It isn't business leaders who have gained CEO roles in F500 companies. It isn't distinguished doctors, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, cabinet members or entrepreneurs. Just spend an hour watching BET to see who is held up in high esteem and presented as role models.
I think you might be making a little bit of a generalization here. I know a lot of white people who hold rappers and sports stars as their idols. Actually, I know a lot of people period who do.
 
Just thought this article, though a couple of days later than my argument, was a good supporting piece for how government plays a central role in depressing the communities it aims to support and lift out of poverty.

Black Families, Black Men
by Carey Roberts

Sounding like a born-again social conservative, president Lyndon B. Johnson stepped to the podium and made this stirring pronouncement: “When the family collapses, it is the children that are usually damaged. When it happens on a massive scale, the community itself is crippled.”

And with his usual modesty, LBJ later hailed that 1965 Howard University commencement address as his “greatest civil rights speech.”

A few months later the Moynihan Report came out. Despite its commonsense focus on strengthening the Black family, civil rights leaders raised a stink that Mr. Moynihan was trying to “blame the victim.” Floyd McKissick, director of the Congress of Racial Equality, insisted, “It’s the damn system that needs changing.”

So the architects of the Great Society not only set out to ignore the formative role of the Black family – they plotted to make things worse.

They instituted programs with men-stay-away names like “Women, Infants, and Children.” They enacted Medicaid in 1965 that imposed eligibility tests slighting non-custodial parents (read “fathers”).

Then the social do-gooders delivered the knock-out blow: the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. AFDC had its infamous “man-out-of-the-house” rule that withheld benefits if the primary breadwinner (again, read “father”) resided in the house.

Sociologist Andrew Billingsley has traced the historical lifeline of the Black family. In 1890 the number of intact Black families with fathers and mothers at home was 80%. Over the next seven decades through 1960, that figure held remarkably constant.

But once the Great Society programs were put in place, the African-American family went into a tailspin.

When the number-crunchers tallied up the results from the 1970 decennial census, they couldn’t believe their eyes – the number of intact Black families had fallen to 64%.

For the next 20 years two-parent families continued their free-fall, reaching a rock-bottom 38% in 1990. And most of the remaining intact families were concentrated in the Black middle class. In the inner city, the traditional Black family had essentially ceased to exist.

So forced to compete with a government welfare program, poor Black men had suddenly found themselves persona non grata in their own homes. Like an unwelcome houseguest, Uncle Sam had moved in, unpacked his bags, and made himself a surrogate husband.

What two World Wars and the Great Depression were unable to do, the Great Society accomplished in only 25 years.

With the Black family now in shambles, no amount of federal money could fix the problem. In 1965, 21% of all American children under the age of 18 lived in poverty. Thirty years and billions of welfare dollars later, the number of American children living in poverty was – 21%.

Of course the Leftists refuse to admit the obvious failures of the Great Society. And is their habit, they tell the exact opposite of the truth.

Robert Hill of the Urban League once spun this whopper: “Research studies have revealed that many one-parent families are more intact or cohesive than many two-parent studies.” Excuse me Mr. Hill, when millions of poor teenage girls are having out-of-wedlock births, how does that fit into your concept of “intact” and “cohesive”?

Likewise, feminist scholars celebrated the ascendancy of the female-headed household. Believing the nuclear family is the bastion of male privilege, feminist Toni Morrison lionized the “strong black woman” who was “superior in terms of [her] ability to function healthily in the world.”

But there’s a deeper reason for the Leftist cover-up.

Karl Marx argued that economic realities determine social conditions. According to that formulation, if you pump money into a community, social indicators will automatically improve. But the Great Society proved the opposite – squander money on programs that weaken social structures, and life becomes unbearably squalid.

Viewing the plight of the once-proud Black family, Kay Hymowitz recently mused in the City Journal, “The literature was so evasive, so implausible, so far removed from what was really unfolding in the ghetto, that if you didn’t know better, you might conclude that people actually wanted to keep the black family separate and unequal.” [www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html]

When I reflect on the vestiges of the American Black family, the disenfranchisement of its men, and the despair of its children, I admit to feeling an abiding sense of betrayal – actually outrage is a better word.

They promised us the Great Society.

Link
 
Wait wait wait....who's PAD blaming now? Let's run through the usual list:

- Blacks
- Muslims/Arabs
- LIBERUHLS!!!!11!
- The government
- Alonzo
- Myke

Or is he going for a 2-for-1??
 
bread's done
Back
Top