Model (T) Scholarships

Henry Ford famously said of the Model T, “You can buy it in any color, as long as its black.” Similarly, Avis Robinson has created the Washington Metropolitan Scholars Program “to draw more black students to elite universities and help them pay for it.”

Robinson, whose husband, Eugene Robinson, a Washington Post columnist, is on the scholarship program’s board of directors,

has asked every high school in the region to nominate 10 high-achieving African American students — some nominate fewer — for the chance of being named All-Met Scholars.

She has, in turn, partnered with nearly 40 colleges and universities, who look at the applicants, decide whom to admit and design financial aid packages for them.

The program steps in with money Robinson has raised to fill in the financial gaps for the neediest.

Ms. Robinson’s efforts seem commendable to me, if (and it is a big “if”) all the money involved is entirely private. If, however, contributions are tax deductible, then her program involves a public subsidy of racial discrimination at least as much as Bob Jones University did (discussed here a number of times, such as here and here). Actually, more than Bob Jones, since that august institution had no policy excluding blacks.

Here’s another question for the lawyers: it is law in the Fourth Circuit, and increasingly agreed elsewhere, that public universities cannot offer racially exclusive scholarships. If that is so, should they be able to promise acceptance and/or financial aid to students who were selected by a private racially exclusive organization? Ball State University in Indiana, for example, promises to

provide scholarships for at least two students annually from the Washington Metropolitan Scholars program, which rewards black high school seniors from the Washington, D.C., area who display outstanding academic and leadership abilities.

Is this legal? Should it be? Discriminating minds want to know.

“The program works because I’m not discriminating,” [Ms. Robinson] said. “I’m helping everybody get into college. And I’m getting money for the kids who most need it.”

Right. Just like the color selection for the Model T.

Say What? (23)

  1. actus March 1, 2005 at 7:20 pm | | Reply

    “Actually, more than Bob Jones, since that august institution had no policy excluding blacks.”

    didn’t that “august institution” (perhaps you mean “peculiar”) exclude blacks till the 70’s?

  2. zapolitico March 1, 2005 at 11:29 pm | | Reply

    Hey, I know of many scholarships, fellowships, etc. with “MINORITY” written all over it that still go to white folks – minorities are soo far behind, they wont even qualify for these scholarship programs. Now, trying to provide small tokens of renumeration for past discrimination is not all that bad. Reminds me of the time that I went up to a Texas state senator and asked him to support the 10% college admissions plan (which grants ALL students graduating in the top 10% of their high school graduating class automatic admission to any state PUBLICLY funded university) – his response? I will not support that policy! That is UNamerican and UNtexan! Boy did I want to bring up AMERICAN and TEXAN public policy….and many cases where white students got accepted to UT or T A&M without proper merit.

  3. John Rosenberg March 2, 2005 at 1:33 am | | Reply

    actus – in taking away the tax exemption for Bob Jones, the IRS did not claim that it excluded blacks. It lost its tax status because of its policy against interracial dating, or dancing (I should go back and check this, but for this purpose it doesn’t really matter) Virtually all private schools in the South had excluded blacks in the past, but they didn’t all lose their tax exempt status.

  4. actus March 2, 2005 at 10:23 am | | Reply

    “actus – in taking away the tax exemption for Bob Jones, the IRS did not claim that it excluded blacks.”

    I thought they excluded blacks into the 70’s when other schools didn’t, and the tax exemption forced them to change that.

    isn’t there still a ban on interracial dating?

  5. Nels Nelson March 2, 2005 at 1:02 pm | | Reply

    Yes, actus, I believe BJU tried to resist integration into the 1970’s, and had to eventually admit blacks to maintain its tax-exempt status. That’s when it instituted the interracial dating/marriage policy, on which the school was apparently unyielding and consequently lost tax-exemption.

  6. John Rosenberg March 2, 2005 at 1:35 pm | | Reply

    Nels is right (and not for the first time). Now the question is (or should be), Why doesn’t the Bill Gates Foundation lose its tax exemption because its scholarship program, or one of them, is racially exclusive?

  7. actus March 2, 2005 at 2:29 pm | | Reply

    “Why doesn’t the Bill Gates Foundation lose its tax exemption because its scholarship program, or one of them, is racially exclusive?”

    Maybe because it actually is an “august institution.”

  8. John Rosenberg March 2, 2005 at 2:41 pm | | Reply

    actus – you probably think you’re joking here (though it’s hard to tell), but I think you’ve hit on an important truth: liberal elites do indeed often think they are immune from the rules (insofar as they believe in rules) they would impose on others.

  9. actus March 2, 2005 at 3:13 pm | | Reply

    My actual guess is that its because they offer alternative programs that aren’t racially exclusive. Also that its a matter of making a grant rather than an admittance.

  10. John Rosenberg March 2, 2005 at 3:59 pm | | Reply

    My actual guess is that its because they offer alternative programs that aren’t racially exclusive. Also that its a matter of making a grant rather than an admittance.

    I see. So, as long as Bob Jones was not discriminatory in other areas, it shouldn’t have lost its tax exemption just because it had a policy against interracial dating.

  11. actus March 2, 2005 at 4:22 pm | | Reply

    “So, as long as Bob Jones was not discriminatory in other areas, it shouldn’t have lost its tax exemption just because it had a policy against interracial dating.”

    Well, so long as they provide a “beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life” (i think thats the language) they ought to get taxpayer relief. So in a sense, we’re back to being an ‘august institution.’ Which the backwards racists at BJU aren’t

  12. Stephen March 2, 2005 at 4:39 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    How do you know that the folks at Bob Jones are backward racists?

    Have you been there? Do you know them?

    Bob Jones is probably not a very good university, and I doubt that it is intended to be a stringent academic university. It is probably intended to be a good Christian school, serving a well-defined congregation.

    They have their right to freedom of association.

  13. actus March 2, 2005 at 4:51 pm | | Reply

    “Bob Jones is probably not a very good university, and I doubt that it is intended to be a stringent academic university”

    Its not accredited. I’ve heard of people being really ticked off when they try to transfer credit or get into graduate programs outside of the

    “They have their right to freedom of association.”

    Oh I know. But not to have preferential tax treatment for denying their students’ freedom of association based on some backwards, racist view of race relations.

  14. Nels Nelson March 2, 2005 at 5:03 pm | | Reply

    actus, the Court wrote that “institutions that, for whatever reasons, practice racial discrimination” cannot be said to exercise “beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life.” Racial discrimination, particularly in education, is so antithetical to American public policy that taxpayers cannot be asked to support its practice, “however sincere the rationale may be.”

    I don’t see the exemptions for “august institutions” that also “offer alternative programs that aren’t racially exclusive.” But of course this was 1983 and I doubt the Court still holds such clear opinions.

  15. actus March 2, 2005 at 5:27 pm | | Reply

    “I don’t see the exemptions for “august institutions” that also “offer alternative programs that aren’t racially exclusive.”

    There’s also language about it being against the policy of the whole of the government. I don’t think we can say that about affirmative action or other forms of benign discrimination.

  16. John Rosenberg March 2, 2005 at 9:42 pm | | Reply

    “So, as long as Bob Jones was not discriminatory in other areas, it shouldn’t have lost its tax exemption just because it had a policy against interracial dating.

    Well, so long as they provide a “beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life” (i think thats the language) they ought to get taxpayer relief. So in a sense, we’re back to being an ‘august institution.’ Which the backwards racists at BJU aren’t

    The Court indeed said that, but the language of the statute provides tax exemptions for organizations that are “religious, charitable, or educational.” You can, if you like, make an argument that organizations of which you and a majority of the Court disapprove can’t possibly be charitable (of course, if that’s the standard those meanie conservatives would never allow tax exemptions for groups like NOW, the ACLU, etc.), but it is impossible to argue convincingly that Bob Jones is not educational or that it is not religious.

    This, as it happens, is another interesting comma error: The statute said institutions get tax exemptions if they are “religioius, charitable, or educational.” The Court said BJU couldn’t get an exemption because the Justices did not regard it as charitable. They did not deny that it was both religious and educational. In effect, they rewrote the statute.

    Again, by that logic a conservative court could say that any organization which they believe is not in the public interest — say those advocating abortion or opposing some aspect of our foreign policy — aren’t charitable and thus don’t deserve exemptions.

  17. actus March 2, 2005 at 9:55 pm | | Reply

    “You can, if you like, make an argument that organizations of which you and a majority of the Court disapprove can’t possibly be charitable (of course, if that’s the standard those meanie conservatives would never allow tax exemptions for groups like NOW, the ACLU, etc.), but it is impossible to argue convincingly that Bob Jones is not educational or that it is not religious.”

    Certainly. But it still has to serve a public purpose and not be against the policy of the entire US government.

    “Again, by that logic a conservative court could say that any organization which they believe is not in the public interest — say those advocating abortion or opposing some aspect of our foreign policy — aren’t charitable and thus don’t deserve exemptions.”

    I think that there are gradations. And thats why there is language about this being so against the policy of the whole government.

  18. John Rosenberg March 2, 2005 at 10:42 pm | | Reply

    Certainly. But it still has to serve a public purpose and not be against the policy of the entire US government.

    You might want to reconsider whether you really favor a standard that allows the federal gov’t to give tax exemptions to organizations it likes and refuse them to those it deems go against “public policy” (that was the standard used in the Bob Jones case). Gay marriage? Abortion? Even affirmative action itself. If Republicans succeed in making all these positions “against public policy,” your standard would give them a green light to revoke the tax exempt status of virtually the whole known liberal world.

    Sometimes even I am amazed at how self-defeatingly short-sighted liberals can be.

  19. actus March 3, 2005 at 12:43 am | | Reply

    “You might want to reconsider whether you really favor a standard that allows the federal gov’t to give tax exemptions to organizations it likes and refuse them to those it deems go against “public policy” (that was the standard used in the Bob Jones case).”

    Well, the taxing power is pretty huge. And this isn’t just a simple “public policy” whim. Its a very complete rejection. One we don’t have on abortion or gay issues.

    Do you really think its that hard to expect to give taxpayer subsidies to things which are so against the interests of the country? This is a common refrain by people who speak against public financing of elections.

    Its not so outrageous that we decide that there will be some religions, educations or charities which are so contrary to our values that we won’t consider them beneficial and deserving of preferential treatment. Deserving of our subsidiy.

    A pretty moderate position overall.

  20. John Rosenberg March 3, 2005 at 1:48 pm | | Reply

    Do you really think its that hard to expect to give taxpayer subsidies to things which are so against the interests of the country? This is a common refrain by people who speak against public financing of elections.

    I’m having trouble figuring out what you mean when you ask, “Do you really think its that hard to expect to give taxpayer subsidies to things which are so against the interests of the country?” so I’m not sure whether my answer is a simple “yes” or an equally simple “no.” But I do know that I am quite opposed to letting the IRS refuse tax exemptions to organizations that it believes are “against the interests of the country.” Free speech? Not if it goes “against the interests of the country.” Freedom of religion? Not if it threatens the public interest. Insofar as such powers are supported by liberals other than yourself, it is just another measure of how illiberal liberalism has become.

    One final note: a tax exemption is not a public subsidy. If it were, churches would not have tax exemptions.

  21. actus March 3, 2005 at 9:40 pm | | Reply

    “But I do know that I am quite opposed to letting the IRS refuse tax exemptions to organizations that it believes are “against the interests of the country.” Free speech? Not if it goes “against the interests of the country.” ”

    Its not just a simple whim of public policy. the idea of anti-miscegenation was very widely rejected. Overall, I think its a pretty moderate position to not give preferential tax treatment to someone acting so agaisnt the interests that society has expressed. That something so abhorrent is not ‘charitable, religious or education’ in the sense we want to encourage or prefer at our cost. You see this same sort of argument against public financing of elections, though there its a simple partisan difference, rather than the extreme and totally rejected policy of the bob jones racists.

    “One final note: a tax exemption is not a public subsidy.”

    Its just taxpayers foregoing what would otherwise be revenue because they’ve chosen to give these organizations preferential tax treatment.

  22. leo cruz March 8, 2005 at 1:01 am | | Reply

    ZAPOLITICO,

    do you really understand how ignorant you are my little payaso ( clown ) ? If you come from a liitle town on the the Rio Grande Valley, como el paso, Brownsville or Corpus Christi, you will notice that la majoridad of the high school graduates are mejicanos ( como tu ). Whom does the 10% rule really help , poor Mejicanos ( now I will start to laugh )?. la majoridad ( the majority of the students in the top 10 % of the graduating classes are middle class or upper class Mexicans ( just like their counterpart suburban white high schools in Plano, Texas ). So whom does the inane 10% plan in Texas really help, certainly not the poor but the most economically affluent Mejicanos. Even that race preferentialist Martha Tienda was not able to see that. You are really a fool Zapolitico, Cayate hombre. Zapatero o Zapatista ?

  23. […] alive and well. Of course, as I’ve argued here a number of times (see here, citing here and here) following the ruling in the Bob Jones case I don’t believe any of those private funds, or […]

Leave a Reply to zapolitico Click here to cancel reply.