Disgusting display of Racism

[The Running Man]

Obviously there will be more poor white people because they make up a greater proportion of the population? Their rate is half what it is for black people - that's the point.

I mean all people in poverty are deserving of support, but we have a population and an electoral system that keeps in power the party of rich and corrupt people who will never improve their lives, and is also quite racist.

As for a private person doing what they want with their own money - I don't care. There's enough rich people funding their own children through private school and university into a life of privelege at the expense of others and nobody seems to have a problem with that.

But the number is nearly 9 times as many.

Yet there are no grants ONLY for white people. For students or businesses.

Infact when individuals have tried to provide grants for white people they have been rejected by the institutions they were offered to on the basis that they didn't want to discriminate racially.

 

[The Running Man]

Based on your figues there are proportionally twice as many black people in povery as white people so proportionally greater assistance needs to be provided to black people.

Which it would be if it was based upon relative wealth/poverty and not with a set criteria that certain funds can only be used for black children for example.

 

[dlockers]

Which it would be if it was based upon relative wealth/poverty and not with a set criteria that certain funds can only be used for black children for example.

Ahhhhh this is why you guys are against relative poverty!!!

 

[MichaelAwkward]

But the number is nearly 9 times as many.

Yet there are no grants ONLY for white people. For students or businesses.

Infact when individuals have tried to provide grants for white people they have been rejected by the institutions they were offered to on the basis that they didn't want to discriminate racially.

Absolute numbers are irrelevant. It's the rate that matters, per capita.

People aren't disadvantaged because they're white, generally, so a grant just on that basis doesn't make sense or look good (certainly wouldn't be justifiable to the board of a non-profit) - there are plenty of grants for people of any race from specific backgrounds, working class, poverty, single parent, etc. People are disadvantaged just because they're black, hence they get grants specifically for them (and other ethnic backgrounds).

 

[dlockers]

Absolute numbers are irrelevant. It's the rate that matters, per capita.

People aren't disadvantaged because they're white, generally, so a grant just on that basis doesn't make sense or look good (certainly wouldn't be justifiable to the board of a non-profit) - there are plenty of grants for people of any race from specific backgrounds, working class, poverty, single parent, etc. People are disadvantaged just because they're black, hence they get grants specifically for them (and other ethnic backgrounds).

Stop it, you are talking sense!!!

 

[dowie]

Based on your figues there are proportionally twice as many black people in povery as white people so proportionally greater assistance needs to be provided to black people.

You seem to have gotten a muddled conclusion there.

How would black people in poverty benefit if you were to give some funding to black people not in poverty for example? Why is skin colour relevant here?

Do you not get that if you were to give assistance to the poorest students based on say, family income, then you'd be helping more black people as a proportion of that funding regardless? Not because they're black but because they're overrepresented in the group you're helping.

Absolute numbers are irrelevant. It's the rate that matters, per capita.

People aren't disadvantaged because they're white, generally, so a grant just on that basis doesn't make sense or look good (certainly wouldn't be justifiable to the board of a non-profit) - there are plenty of grants for people of any race from specific backgrounds, working class, poverty, single parent, etc. People are disadvantaged just because they're black, hence they get grants specifically for them (and other ethnic backgrounds).

In the context of university admissions - how are they disadvantaged because they're black?

 

[Surveyor]

Which it would be if it was based upon relative wealth/poverty and not with a set criteria that certain funds can only be used for black children for example.

It may just be evening up the overall imbalance in scholarship awards. Overall how many scholarships are given to white students and how many to black students?

 

[Surveyor]

You seem to have gotten a muddled conclusion there.

How would black people in poverty benefit if you were to give some funding to black people not in poverty for example? Why is skin colour relevant here?

Do you not get that if you were to give assistance to the poorest students based on say, family income, then you'd be helping more black people as a proportion of that funding regardless? Not because they're black but because they're overrepresented in the group you're helping.

The same question I poses to @The Running Man, overall how many scholarships are given to white students and how many to black students?

 

[mumihp]

TBH if this was the other way round, there would be a uproar, why haven't they included other ethnicity? Also, shouldn't scholarships be awarded on merit?

 

[The Running Man]

Absolute numbers are irrelevant. It's the rate that matters, per capita.

People aren't disadvantaged because they're white, generally, so a grant just on that basis doesn't make sense or look good (certainly wouldn't be justifiable to the board of a non-profit) - there are plenty of grants for people of any race from specific backgrounds, working class, poverty, single parent, etc. People are disadvantaged just because they're black, hence they get grants specifically for them (and other ethnic backgrounds).

Explain why 9m is irrelevant?

People are being disadvantage bevause they are white both in student life, and going into employment and financially in business.

As a student who is competing against other students, how can you compete against someone who just got a 20k grant , meaning they can devote more time to study while you have to work to finance your education?

You are inherently disadvantaged because those funds are explicitly not available to you as a white person.

In business with bame only grants, which are therefore not available to white people it is extremely difficult to compete when a bame business has access to capital that you do not.

 

[dowie]

The same question, overall how many scholarships are given to white students and how many to black students?

Why does that matter? You're looking at outcomes not needs or unfairness.

Are you talking about scholarships for students at that particular university or scholarships/assistance in general?

 

[MichaelAwkward]

In the context of university admissions - how are they disadvantaged because they're black?

Not sure if this is a trick question but then you do have a history of problematic posts on here so I'm not going to take the bait.

 

[dowie]

Not sure if this is a trick question but then you do have a history of problematic posts on here so I'm not going to take the bait.

How is it a trick question, you literally made the assertion yourself and I'm asking you what the basis for that assertion is.

If you're unable to justify it then... If anything your post is racist and problematic - see the soft bigotry of low expectations.

 

[200sols]

Stop it, you are talking sense!!!

No he is not. They are not disadvantaged because they are black, in fact they have already made it... they already have a university place which they could fund just like all the white people through loans.

 

[The Running Man]

It may just be evening up the overall imbalance in scholarship awards. Overall how many scholarships are given to white students and how many to black students?

Are you inferring that grants are being given to people solely because they are white?

I would imagine that anyone found guilty of giving grants based upon their race rather than other criteria would likely be fired.

 

[GGizmo]

Well a private company is free to do as it pleases if it thinks it will increase profits.

Remember people are racist and they will spending at companies that hire thier race.

I just want my shares to go up.

But yes to address the point it only matters if its law, if a company wants to hire a black white or blue person because they think its beneficial its thier choice

For someone not that interested in the thread you've sure been drawn in to it. 3 replies.

If there were 10 poor estates. 1 black area and 9 white areas. The only way it would be fair is if all 10 areas got help.

I think I triggered you when I mentioned the middle classes.

 

[MichaelAwkward]

Explain why 9m is irrelevant?

People are being disadvantage bevause they are white both in student life, and going into employment and financially in business.

As a student who is competing against other students, how can you compete against someone who just got a 20k grant , meaning they can devote more time to study while you have to work to finance your education?

You are inherently disadvantaged because those funds are explicitly not available to you as a white person.

In business with bame only grants, which are therefore not available to white people it is extremely difficult to compete when a bame business has access to capital that you do not.

White people are half as likely to be in poverty in the first place, using your figures, so they're already at an advantage over a black person applying to university (on average). I'm from a white working class single parent household and was given a maintenance grant when I went to university - was that unfair to other white people from wealthier households? No, of course not. I was already at a disadvantage compared to them, hence the grant.

You're viewing this as though both the white and black applicant to university in this scenario are from the same background, given the same opportunities, have the same connections, have parents earning the same amounts - where as the statistics suggest that's unlikely to be the case, and if it were, the white applicant has grants they can also apply to for support (although not sure maintenance grants exist anymore).

 

[Surveyor]

Why does that matter? You're looking at outcomes not needs or unfairness.

Are you talking about scholarships for students at that particular university or scholarships/assistance in general?

I'm looking at @The Running Man's statistic that there are twice as many black people in poverty as white. We don't know how relatively poor they are to each other so, assuming equality of poverty, scholarships overall should be awared to black students at relatively twice the rate.

Are you inferring that grants are being given to people solely because they are white?

I would imagine that anyone found guilty of giving grants based upon their race rather than other criteria would likely be fired.

Certainly not but unless they're being given at half the rate relative to black people they're not being given in proportion to your poverty statistics.

 

[dowie]

White people are less than half as likely to be in poverty in the first place, using your figures, so they're already at an advantage over a black person applying to university (on average). I'm from a white working class single parent household and was given a maintenance grant when I went to university - was that unfair to other white people from wealthier households? No, of course not.

See this is naive, you're conflating something based on need with the topic of this thread which concerns something based on an arbitrary characteristic - race/ethnicity.

You're viewing this as though both the white and black applicant to university in this scenario are from the same background - where as the statistics suggest that's unlikely to be the case, and if it were, the white applicant has grants they can also apply to for support (although not sure maintenance grants exist anymore).

White and black university candidates come from all backgrounds, the race of a given individual shouldn't be relevant when it comes to awarding a place or awarding a scholarship.

 

[dowie]

I'm looking at @The Running Man's statistic that there are twice as many black people in poverty as white. We don't know how relatively poor they are to each other so, assuming equality of poverty, scholarships overall should be awared to black students at relatively twice the rate.

Perhaps, though not necessarily - suppose for example white students were more likely to take up a trade and less likely to take up a university place then would you still hold that assumption? It seems a bit simplistic.

Grants and bursaries and scholarships are available to low income students in general, you perhaps need to take into account what portion of those groups actually attend university.

None of this seems relevant though to whether or not something should be awarded based on race!

 

[GGizmo]

Really what we are talking about is mass transfer of wealth.

Google grants for white people and then grants for bame and see what results you get.

I thought 'BAME' was a racist term these days?

The article proves the point I was making earlier, that companies are encouraged to help ethnic minority people by giving them money specifically to target them.

Why do they need to be told to directly spend money in that way? Why aren't they doing it already?

Whatever happened to treating any kid no matter the colour? Why does race need to be brought in to what the charity does? Is Barnardos turning down black kids and telling people they need more money?